Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-14-2004, 12:58 PM | #21 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SW 31 52 24W4
Posts: 1,508
|
My thanks go out to all of you who helped me out here. I'm glad that my point was essentially correct (after a few clarifications). The other poster never replied to my comment, but if it ever comes up again I'll be able to state my case better.
Thanks again. |
02-14-2004, 10:20 PM | #22 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
Re: Re: About "first hand" witnesses to the resurrection
Quote:
If there were no witnesses to it, then how can you state with any degree of certainty that it "happened?" Without a witness to Jesus' dead body coming back to life then there is no reason at all to assume that the "visions" people had later were of a "risen" Jesus or merely someone who awakened from a coma or was otherwise never dead to begin with. If you hear that I had died and then came back from the dead three days later and then you see me, of what use is your testimony to whether or not I actually did die and came back three days later? Your testimony would only be, "I saw Koy alive." Indeed, considering the fact that the dead do not "resurrect," seeing me alive would only prove the story that I had died was false. Somehow that rather basic fact of logic (to say nothing of the nature of physical existence) alludes many otherwise intelligent people. No witness to the actual resurrection means any witnesses to Jesus walking around are nothing more than testimony that he didn't die. It would therefore be completely irrelevant if a million witnesses saw Jesus walking around, other than to offer a million reasons why Jesus never died to begin wtih. |
|
02-15-2004, 08:50 AM | #23 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Re: Re: About "first hand" witnesses to the resurrection
Jesus was an imposter and Pilate secured the tomb because "this final imposter would be worse than the first" (Mt.27:64).
Do you need more evidence that they only crucified his ego consciousness wherein only we can be imposters? Next, how do you crucify an ego? and why is the ego undesired as denoted in "worse than the first? The ego to be crucified restricted the freedom of man and if the ego had narrowly escaped death it would have been hypersensitive towards sin as "saved sinner" for life. If the only the ego was crucified what makes you think the rest of the story was real in the literal sense of the word? I think lots of people are wrong, including Bush. |
02-15-2004, 05:06 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 889
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: About "first hand" witnesses to the resurrection
Quote:
|
|
02-15-2004, 06:29 PM | #25 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About "first hand" witnesses to the resurrection
What do mean Frued discovered the ego? They have been crucifying them for 2000 years or more and Freud has it wrong on top of all that.
|
02-15-2004, 06:52 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 889
|
Lighten up Amos.
JT |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|