Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-02-2002, 09:56 AM

I didn't bring up the UFO accounts....
And I don't doubt a man named Jesus was crucified, I don't believe anyone physically rose from the dead then, now, or at any other time in world history. I believe it's scientifically impossible.
I don't have a bible handy at work, but one account says the Roman soldiers were bribed at the tomb to say they fell asleep, an action that they would be fully aware would result in their being executed. I wouldn't accept any bribe to say something that would get me killed, that's ridiculous.
It doesn't matter whether the Jews would allow a body to hang on a cross over Passover, the Romans would not have allowed it to be removed. Criminals were not taken off whatever they were hung on after being crucified. That is historical fact.
In one account, Jesus appears to the women, they tell Peter and the Beloved Disciple, and Peter and the Beloved Disciple run to the tomb and see it empty, then Jesus appears to them. Yet in another, he appears to them on the road after the women he appeared to come to the disciples, tell them, and they don't believe it.
One account says he appeared to Cephas, then later to the 12. Most accounts say Cephas (Peter) IS one of the 12, so what's that supposed to be about?
Why would Thomas look right at a risen Christ and refuse to believe until he touched him, when the other disciples are all there seeing him also?
Jesus only stayed for a day or so before ascending by one account, 40 days by another. Still another says all of the dead saints (what saints, I thought saints came from the aftermath of Christianity), got out of their tombs and walked around Jerusalem, yet noone living at the time said anything about it, until that account appears decades later?
It's well known now that the book of Mark ends with verse 8 "the women spoke to noone, because they were afraid", or something to that effect, and verses from thereon added decades later, because some scribe didn't think the book should end that way (it's believed by scholars that's the most likely reason). That's not divine inspired thinking, that's someone adding their own ending to a book.
Then you get to the part in Acts where Peter raises someone from the dead and it really starts getting absurd, in my opinion. The first time I ever read that (while still a believer in the Christ parts) I thought "now we're really getting carried away."
Josephus has been re-hashed dozens of times on the board, his small written account supports nothing. Some scholars are convinced he did not write that section, others say if he did, why does someone the magnitude of Christ only get an honerable mention by Josephus, if Christ really rose from the dead?
The other accounts do support a man named Jesus being killed, something I don't dispute, as I believe the historical Jesus did exist. They don'r support rising from the dead however.

That combined with the facts that early Christians did not teach anything about the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or eternal torment for almost 300 years after Jesus died (despite Paul's writings) make it clear to me that those beliefs were not part of the original Jesus legends, but evolved as myths over the decades and centuries.
Remember, Romans in those days claimed Caesar ascended into heaven when he died. Christians laugh at that now and know it's myth, but it's just as valid a story as the Christ myth.
Romans in Caesar's time spoke up as witnesses to his ascension, but it's not considered true now by Christians or just about anyone else. The story of Christ is no different, just a myth.

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-02-2002, 11:06 AM

I just found this article here at the infidels site:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml</a>

It puts some of my thoughts on some of the biblical contradictions and other things quite nicely.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

Beach_MU · 08-02-2002, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
I didn't bring up the UFO accounts....

I apologize, I had thought the last two posts had been by the same person. My mistake.

Vorkosigan · 08-02-2002, 03:56 PM

Beach, the Testamonium Flavium is regarded as at least a partial interpolation by the majority of scholars and a total one by some. Few believe Josephus wrote it as it now stands. I suggest you read Peter Kirby's page on it at <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com," target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com,</a> and carefully read all the articles on it to get a sense of the issues, which are complicated. Kirby maintains probably the best general website on the net for these writings. Additionally, he leading three discussions on it in the BC&A forum.

The Tacitus paragraph tells us nothing that was not common knowledge by his time, and is evidence for nothing except that Christians had a set of legends centering around the figure of Christ, which no one disputes. It is not good evidence of the existence of Jesus (it does not even mention his name), unfortunately for Christians. Kirby's site also discusses it.

As for Lucian of Samosata, the same applies:

You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Note the phrase "All this they take quite on faith" with its implication that there is no evidence behind their beliefs. Lucian is evidence for the existence of Christianity and a set of core beliefs, which no one disputes.

Vorkosigan

Family Man · 08-02-2002, 07:15 PM

Because of unexpected commitments and an upcoming vacation, I'm not going to be able to continue on this thread. However, I have a couple of things to say to Beach.

First, I, like others on this thread, have been impressed with your general demeanor. Unlike many other theists who post here, you are for the most part responsive and reasonably courteous. However, I have noticed that while you like to give, you don't like to take very much. For example, you were very quick to imply that your view of science was superior to mine because it was more skeptical. My retort to that was sharp, and deserving so, and I offer no apology. Had your original comment been less condescending, my response would have equally as measured. As your favorite book says, you reap as you sow, and you have no right to accuse others of personal attacks if you indulge in your own.

I hope that you continue to post. But if you don't want to tone down your language, don't expect others to it for you.

NOGO · 08-03-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Beach_MU
The facts surrounding the resurrection, such as the Sunday morning accounts, are not at odds with each other, but each account does view the event from a different perspective.

Nonesense! John's account and Matthew's are completely at odds with each other.

Quote:

To start off with, have you ever heard a story from two different people's point of view? Are the stories identical? Of course not, and if they were they would be discarded as being collaborated and fabricated. Also each author had a different audience and theme that he was writing about so while one would mention the details that pertain to his theme, the other would omit them, focusing on other details instead (a common practice in the writing of the time period). Matthew's story tells the accounts of the women, while John intros his account by saying the women had gone to tomb and then ran to get Peter, but the rest of John's account is of the events that happened to Peter, not the women. So in reality these two accounts aren't the same and shouldn't be, because they are of events that happened to two different groups at two different times. Both occured on that morning, but Matthew's story comes first and then John's story is of the events that followed. In fact Matthew's story ends by saying that the women ran to tell the other disciples what happened.

More nonsense!
First, different people will give varied accounts of any event. Point taken but unfortunately this does not help you at all here.

Both Matthew and John say the Mary Mag went to the tomb first. In Matthew the tomb was still sealed and it was dawning, in John the tomb was opened already and it was still dark.

So according to John Marry did not see the angel descend from heaven and roll off the stone since he says that it was already opened when she got there.

John's Mary believes that the body had been stolen and rushes to tell Peter and John. But how can this be since in Matthew Mary sees the angel roll off the stone and then the angel tells her that Jesus has resurrected. Matthew's Mary leaves the area with fear but great Joy. Great joy that Jesus had resurrected and therefore ok is not very compatible with a sense that the body had been stolen (John's account).

In John Mary returns to the tomb with Peter and John and she is still convinced that someone stole the body until she meets with Jesus himself whom she mistakes for the gardener. But wait a minute Matthew's angel says that Jesus is not there and that He will meet them in Galilee (In Luke Jesus meets them in Jerusalem not in Galilee). Matthew says that Mary met Jesus on the way back to town.

I will not go through all the problems with the texts here but you probably got the picture with what I gave so far.

Beach_MU, if you got two accounts of an event that differ so much which one do you believe?

These accounts are so different that one of them or both have been fabricated. This is the only possible conclusion.

From the believer's point of view it is even worse since these people are supposedly inspired.

The challenge is still on. Can you merge these two stories and make one with the rules that I have indicated. I say that it can't be done simply because we are dealing with two totally different stories.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

King Arthur · 08-03-2002, 12:06 PM

Come on! I know this thread can make 300 or more posts! Come on!!!!

Beach_MU · 08-05-2002, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man:
Because of unexpected commitments and an upcoming vacation, I'm not going to be able to continue on this thread. However, I have a couple of things to say to Beach.

First, I, like others on this thread, have been impressed with your general demeanor. Unlike many other theists who post here, you are for the most part responsive and reasonably courteous. However, I have noticed that while you like to give, you don't like to take very much. For example, you were very quick to imply that your view of science was superior to mine because it was more skeptical. My retort to that was sharp, and deserving so, and I offer no apology. Had your original comment been less condescending, my response would have equally as measured. As your favorite book says, you reap as you sow, and you have no right to accuse others of personal attacks if you indulge in your own.

I hope that you continue to post. But if you don't want to tone down your language, don't expect others to it for you.

First off I wish you the best relating to both your commitments and your upcoming vacation. I also appreciate your feedback which I agree is both accurate and constructive. I apologize if at any point I got "carried away" so to speak in our conversation as I'm sure I did. I have enjoyed posting here, though I must say that all of you have kept me quite busy in doing so and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to answer everybody and that some questions may be buried within the 200+ posts that are here, though I will make an attempt to at some point find them and address them.

At the present though, I am currently in the process of moving so my responses may be few and far between as I will be preoccupied with other obligations, though feel free to continue to inquire if you don't mind a slightly longer delay on my response time.

Butters · 08-05-2002, 06:02 AM

I would really like to see Jacks question answered. I would only add one thing. Why are there NO remains of human civilization UNDER the fossil record?

Beach_MU · 08-05-2002, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by forscher1:
I would really like to see Jacks question answered. I would only add one thing. Why are there NO remains of human civilization UNDER the fossil record?

Which question is Jacks? Please direct me to a page at least, because I'm not so sure I'd find it otherwise.

08-02-2002, 11:06 AM	#242
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I just found this article here at the infidels site: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml</a> It puts some of my thoughts on some of the biblical contradictions and other things quite nicely. [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2002, 09:56 AM	#241
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	I didn't bring up the UFO accounts.... And I don't doubt a man named Jesus was crucified, I don't believe anyone physically rose from the dead then, now, or at any other time in world history. I believe it's scientifically impossible. I don't have a bible handy at work, but one account says the Roman soldiers were bribed at the tomb to say they fell asleep, an action that they would be fully aware would result in their being executed. I wouldn't accept any bribe to say something that would get me killed, that's ridiculous. It doesn't matter whether the Jews would allow a body to hang on a cross over Passover, the Romans would not have allowed it to be removed. Criminals were not taken off whatever they were hung on after being crucified. That is historical fact. In one account, Jesus appears to the women, they tell Peter and the Beloved Disciple, and Peter and the Beloved Disciple run to the tomb and see it empty, then Jesus appears to them. Yet in another, he appears to them on the road after the women he appeared to come to the disciples, tell them, and they don't believe it. One account says he appeared to Cephas, then later to the 12. Most accounts say Cephas (Peter) IS one of the 12, so what's that supposed to be about? Why would Thomas look right at a risen Christ and refuse to believe until he touched him, when the other disciples are all there seeing him also? Jesus only stayed for a day or so before ascending by one account, 40 days by another. Still another says all of the dead saints (what saints, I thought saints came from the aftermath of Christianity), got out of their tombs and walked around Jerusalem, yet noone living at the time said anything about it, until that account appears decades later? It's well known now that the book of Mark ends with verse 8 "the women spoke to noone, because they were afraid", or something to that effect, and verses from thereon added decades later, because some scribe didn't think the book should end that way (it's believed by scholars that's the most likely reason). That's not divine inspired thinking, that's someone adding their own ending to a book. Then you get to the part in Acts where Peter raises someone from the dead and it really starts getting absurd, in my opinion. The first time I ever read that (while still a believer in the Christ parts) I thought "now we're really getting carried away." Josephus has been re-hashed dozens of times on the board, his small written account supports nothing. Some scholars are convinced he did not write that section, others say if he did, why does someone the magnitude of Christ only get an honerable mention by Josephus, if Christ really rose from the dead? The other accounts do support a man named Jesus being killed, something I don't dispute, as I believe the historical Jesus did exist. They don'r support rising from the dead however. That combined with the facts that early Christians did not teach anything about the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or eternal torment for almost 300 years after Jesus died (despite Paul's writings) make it clear to me that those beliefs were not part of the original Jesus legends, but evolved as myths over the decades and centuries. Remember, Romans in those days claimed Caesar ascended into heaven when he died. Christians laugh at that now and know it's myth, but it's just as valid a story as the Christ myth. Romans in Caesar's time spoke up as witnesses to his ascension, but it's not considered true now by Christians or just about anyone else. The story of Christ is no different, just a myth.

08-02-2002, 03:56 PM	#244
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Beach, the Testamonium Flavium is regarded as at least a partial interpolation by the majority of scholars and a total one by some. Few believe Josephus wrote it as it now stands. I suggest you read Peter Kirby's page on it at <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com," target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com,</a> and carefully read all the articles on it to get a sense of the issues, which are complicated. Kirby maintains probably the best general website on the net for these writings. Additionally, he leading three discussions on it in the BC&A forum. The Tacitus paragraph tells us nothing that was not common knowledge by his time, and is evidence for nothing except that Christians had a set of legends centering around the figure of Christ, which no one disputes. It is not good evidence of the existence of Jesus (it does not even mention his name), unfortunately for Christians. Kirby's site also discusses it. As for Lucian of Samosata, the same applies: You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Note the phrase "All this they take quite on faith" with its implication that there is no evidence behind their beliefs. Lucian is evidence for the existence of Christianity and a set of core beliefs, which no one disputes. Vorkosigan

08-02-2002, 07:15 PM	#245
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Because of unexpected commitments and an upcoming vacation, I'm not going to be able to continue on this thread. However, I have a couple of things to say to Beach. First, I, like others on this thread, have been impressed with your general demeanor. Unlike many other theists who post here, you are for the most part responsive and reasonably courteous. However, I have noticed that while you like to give, you don't like to take very much. For example, you were very quick to imply that your view of science was superior to mine because it was more skeptical. My retort to that was sharp, and deserving so, and I offer no apology. Had your original comment been less condescending, my response would have equally as measured. As your favorite book says, you reap as you sow, and you have no right to accuse others of personal attacks if you indulge in your own. I hope that you continue to post. But if you don't want to tone down your language, don't expect others to it for you.

08-03-2002, 12:06 PM	#247
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	Come on! I know this thread can make 300 or more posts! Come on!!!!

08-05-2002, 06:02 AM	#249
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	I would really like to see Jacks question answered. I would only add one thing. Why are there NO remains of human civilization UNDER the fossil record?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.