Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aChristian · 02-05-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

Is it not amazing, how the evidence never presents itself to the skeptical?

Matthew 12:40 " For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three day and three nights in the heart of the earth"

All the apologetics revolve around how even a partial day could legitimately be referred to a whole day, but even if we take this into account, Jesus spent only Friday night and Saturday night in his tomb. Why don't you do what all those dumb ass apologists have not accomplished and find us the missing night.

The evidence is there for honest skeptics. However, just as Jesus would not perform a miracle for Herod so that he could have a circus side show to watch, he wouldn't give a sign to the Jews just because they demanded it. God does not waste his time on those who make arrogant demands (although he is even merciful in this regard), but if someone asks an honest question and will listen to a reasonable reply, God is more than happy to respond.

As for the three days, if there was such an obvious miscalculation of days, I would think the disciples would have made it sound 'right' if they were as dishonest as you seem to think. I think the reason that they didn't is that it sounded right to them and to everyone else at the time (because it was right). I think that if you give it some thought, you will recognize times when you use the English word 'day' in the same manner when describing similar periods of time.

aChristian · 02-05-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

How is that some comparably trivial occurrences are mentioned by more than one Gospel, but something of such significance is only mentioned in passing in one. There is no way you would accept the claims of some other religion on such evidence. Why should we accept yours?
.

It may seem of great significance to you, but enough detail of it is given to satisfy the author's purposes.
I accept this as historical fact after I have established the resurrection as historical fact using the written accounts that we possess. I wouldn't use this detail to establish the truth of the record. I would start with the resurrection and the eyewitness accounts of it. After establishing that, (and in the process of doing that I would have had to establish the reliability of the gospel records) then I would have good reasons to accept this detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

Hebrews 9:27 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment"

If the resurrected people had to die again, what is the point of this verse.

The verse just states the general priniciple that everyone will die and then face judgement. It does not say that there were never any abnormalities, such as with the man who fell into Elisha's grave or Lazarus. In both these cases the general principle still held. Eventually both the man who fell in the grave and Lazarus died and faced judgement.

aChristian · 02-05-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I thought you said earlier that they only appeared to certain people and deliberately avoided others. This claim makes no sense. Who would be around to dispute a story that doesn't appear to have been told until the last two decades of the 1st century? How would they dispute such a claim given your allegation of selective appearances? Are you suggesting that, if someone had written down that they heard this claim but denied any dead people came into town, you would consider it untrue?
.

This is the fourth time I have tried to answer this. I was disconnect the first three times just as I was finishing. This time I’ll type it offline and save it.
I said that the text doesn’t say they went around to everyone and that it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t appear to those who demanded a sign. (They may have, but I still don’t see a contradiction. Jesus may have meant he wasn’t going to give them a sign right then to meet their demands.)
I think the story was told right away. (I suspect the gospels were written just a few years after the events. There is the fragment that appears to be from Mark that is dated about 45 AD and I think p46 has been redated to c85 AD. If the copies are already in existence at that time, the originals may have been quite a bit earlier.) So, I think there were lots of people around to dispute the story. I guess the way they would have to dispute the story if they did not see one of the resurrected people would be to demonstrate the poor character or the gullibility of those who told the story. I think the reason that no such document exists is that too many reliable people had witnessed the event, just as they had witnessed many other miracles by Jesus and his disciples, and no one would take their claims that the miracles didn’t happen seriously. If there were a record denying it (or any of the claims of Christianity for that matter) by someone in the place to know and who was considered trustworthy, it would be evidence against Christianity. Of course you still have all the reliable eyewitness testimony that we have today that you would have to weigh against this new found evidence and then come to your own conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

According to Acts, the claim Christ had risen was not made for over a month after the crucifixion. How would dragging around a severely decomposed and, therefore, unidentifiable body prove anything?
.

The Romans and the Jews posted a guard because they were worried about something happening in three days. They could have brought out the body right away to nip the problem in the bud, but they didn’t. Also the Christians knew right away and had 50 days to verify the story. They were skeptical to believe it and only when presented convincing evidence accepted it. After the 50 days, the Romans and Jews could have gone back to the tomb to produce the body. Since the tomb was new and had never been used before, any body found in it would have been assumed to be Jesus. The people could have also investigate the guard’s cover up story and found holes in it. How did the disciples get past you? Why weren’t you punished? Why weren't the disciples punished for breaking the Roman seal? Where did you guards get the extra cash?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Where is your evidence that anyone was persecuted for the story of Jesus in the Gospels? The evidence from Pliny indicates early Christians were persecuted for failing to worship the Emperor and/or to curse Christ.
.

They wouldn’t worship Caesar because they worshipped Jesus as God and obviously believed in the resurrection. Stephen and James were killed right away and Acts tells of the persecutions that occurred in the beginning and especially after Stephen’s death. Tacitus mentions Nero’s torture as do other church fathers. Eusebius mentions many persecutions and he had access to the documents to know about it.

aChristian · 02-05-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

If there is a hell, Christians will be spending eternity in it. By making a god out of a man they will be lumped with the worst form if idolaters.

The New Testament makes claims for the divinity of Jesus using passages from the Hebrew scripture. In my opinion the textual proof for this claim does not even come close to justifying the concept of the trinity considering the overwhelming preponderance of textual evidence affirming the singular nature of god.

In the book of John the Jews where about to stone Jesus for what they perceived was the claim by Jesus that he was god.

John 10:31-“32 “ Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father For which of them do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be god.�?

If Jesus had indicated that he was in some way god the Jews would have been within their Law to kill him.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your god is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your god you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him, and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death�?

If Jesus had not been claiming to be a part of god he had the opportunity to clarify his statements, but instead he makes this statement.

John 10:34-35 “ Jesus answered them, is it not written in your Law I have said you are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own.

I have been accused at times of not interpreting scripture within its context, but here Jesus take that practice to its extreme. He invokes the authority of scripture in his assertion that he held some special relation to god that exceeded that of the persons who had been referred to god in the Hebrew scripture. This passage comes from Psalms and I don’t think that it was considered part of the Law by the Jews anyway.

Psalm 82:1 “ God presides in the great assembly, he gives judgement among the gods�?

If one were to read just this passage, it could be interpreted that perhaps the Jewish concept of monotheism could accommodate other gods, but if one reads a little further the nature of these gods become apparent. After berating these gods the chapter closes with this statement.

Psalm 82:6-7 “ I said you are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler�?

It now becomes apparent that this chapter is about human rulers and kings and their refusal to act justly. And it also indicates that at the time Psalms was written a king could hold the title of god or son of God.

This bit of information totally destroys the legitimacy of the proof text which come from the Book of Psalms that are used to bolster the claim that Jesus is also god.

Matthew 22:45 “ While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, What do you think about the Christ, whose son is he? The son of David, they replied. How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him Lord, For he says The Lord said to my Lord. Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. If David called him Lord how can he be his son? No one could say a word in reply, and from that day no one dared to ask him any more questions�?

Verses like these are the reason that fundamentalists insist that the Psalms were written by David himself. First Because Jesus said so and second because if they acknowledge that the Psalms were written by others about David then all those instances were it appears that David is addressing a divine entity, simply can be understood as a subject of David addressing the King in language appropriate for the circumstances of a lesser addressing a superior

This is something that liberal Christians should consider. For if they admit (correctly) that to hold to the position that the author of Psalms was David, can not be substantiated considering the internal evidence contained in the text, then they throw out all the proof text supporting his divinity as well. This statement by Jesus which is used as the better part of the claim by Christianity that Jesus was divine depends totally on the assumption that David was the author of the text.

Some would object that the term Lord was reserved only for god. But the Bible contains many instances where the subordinate addressees his superior as lord. Here is a passage were both David and God are addressed as L/lord in the same sentence.

1 Chronicles 21:3 “ But Joab replied, May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lords subjects?�?

So if the Psalm was written by a subordinate of David, there is no problem interpreting the passage “ The Lord (god) said to my lord ( the king) Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.�? This interpretation is much more plausible and destroys what I consider a rather weak argument to begin with, That the Hebrew scriptures indicate that the Messiah would be a divine figure.

I would like to address some passages from the book of Hebrews which try to impress on the reader the divinity of Christ

Hebrews 1:5 “ For which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son, today I have become your Father? Or again I will be his Father and he will be my Son�?

I have shown that Kings could be referred to as Sons of God and in the context of Psalm 2, it becomes obvious that It was written by a subordinate of David about David and that the author is writing in a manner that reflected the semi divine status that Kings held at the time. A status that the Jews did not hold of kings by the first century.

Here is how the author of Hebrews abuses the difference of opinion of the status of kings that had developed from the time when Psalms was written until the time Hebrews was written. Here the author quotes Psalm 45:6-7

Hebrews 1:8-9 “ But about the Son he says Your throne oh God will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions�?

This Quote is almost correct but there is one difference. In Psalms it is a scepter of justice rather than righteousness which is referred to. I am not certain why the author replaced justice with righteousness, perhaps justice was to closely associated with the Law for the authors taste�?

Again the author assumes that it is David who wrote the Psalm in reference to some future divine Messiah. In the case we can exclude this theory on the internal evidence of the Psalm itself.

Psalm 45:1 “ My heart is stirred by a noble theme as I recite my verses for the king, my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer�?

In the first verse the author is identified as someone other than the king.

The author of Hebrews then assumes that the phrase God your God is meant to be understood as one divinity addressing another when in fact it can just as easily be understood as the author of this Psalm emphasizing that god Davids god has set David above his companions. And even if the Psalmist had intended David to be addressed as god, I have shown that this was not impossible at the time the Psalms were written.

If one reads the rest of the Psalm it become clear that is about David rather than by David. The rest of the Psalm is mostly concerned about the sexual interest the king has for women and to state the promise that sons would take the places of their fathers to perpetuate his memory forever.

At any rate with the preponderance of scripture indicating that god was a single entity, I think that most Jews in the first century would have found the concept of the trinity hard to justify.

I am curious. You quoted much of the Old Testament to show there is only one God. Do you believe the Old Testament?

aChristian · 02-05-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Archer? He's a hack apologist who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag if you spotted him the conclusion and two premises. If you want a serious work on the OT, go get one off of Peter Kirby's website, or PM Celsus, our resident OT expert. as for answering any claims at Infidels, Archer is incapable of doing that. It might be fun to show how wrong he is, though. Why don't you put up a few of his "refutations" and we'll take a moment to dissect them. It's always fun to rip up people who are desperately trying to control the way others think about the text.

Vorkosigan

Archer appears to me to be well qualified. His degrees are from Princeton and Harvard and he shows a thorough knowledge of the subject in the book.
Are you seriously argueing that the liberal scholars never discounted the Bible's mentioning of the Hittites before the Hittite civilization was rediscovered?

exile · 02-05-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I am curious. You quoted much of the Old Testament to show there is only one God. Do you believe the Old Testament?

Well, the Jews do. I am not aware of any Jews who believe in the Trinity - and they should know their own Holy Book.

johntheapostate · 02-05-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I am curious. You quoted much of the Old Testament to show there is only one God. Do you believe the Old Testament?

My point is this. Christians have to accept the OT as true because the NT is based on the authority of the OT.

If one studies the OT with a critical eye it is obvious that the Christian claims are without justification.

It is easier for me to argue from the point of the reliability of the OT which Christians are forced to accept than to argue from my real position that both books are strictly a human invention which Christians reject outright.

You appear to be completely indoctrinated in your belief, but you are mistaken in your belief. You argue for the reliability of the texts which underlie your faith, but they are pathetically weak.

When I was a Christian I never got anything but the party line from any of the ministers who I had conversations with. When it became obvious that I was a confirmed atheist, I had conversations with some of them that were quite revealing.

I remember one discussion where The minister had become exasperated in the defense of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Finally he said to me "It does not matter if it is true or not, they( his congregation) need to believe it is true.

Let me ask you, Are you comfortable believing in a god who would torture the bulk of humanity for an eternity in hell. If you are, what does that say about you? If a deity such as the one described by the Bible actually were to exist, would it not be a more noble expression of humanity to reject it completely? Do you believe because you are afraid of hell?

Amaleq13 · 02-05-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I think the story was told right away.

That isn't what your Bible says. According to Acts, they hung out with the risen Christ for 40 days before he instructed them to begin "witnessing".

Quote:

I suspect the gospels were written just a few years after the events. There is the fragment that appears to be from Mark that is dated about 45 AD and I think p46 has been redated to c85 AD.

Your suspicions notwithstanding, neither of those conclusions appears to be accepted by the scholars. The former isn't from a Gospel and the latter is at or beyond the extreme lower end of the estimate.

Quote:

I guess the way they would have to dispute the story if they did not see one of the resurrected people would be to demonstrate the poor character or the gullibility of those who told the story.

That appears to have already been established among the Romans since they referred to the early Christians as superstitious fools.

Quote:

Of course you still have all the reliable eyewitness testimony that we have today that you would have to weigh against this new found evidence and then come to your own conclusion.

"Reliable eyewitness testimony" is an oxymoron. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

Quote:

The Romans and the Jews posted a guard because they were worried about something happening in three days.

If this is true, why does only one version of the story describe them as present? It doesn't seem likely to me that the Romans would have taken such a possibility seriously enough to post guards. It seems more like fiction created to counter Jewish claims that the body was stolen. That the author also claims the soldiers were bribed to admit to falling asleep on duty even though that such a dereliction of duty would have resulted in their execution only serves to confirm that suspicion.

Quote:

They could have brought out the body right away to nip the problem in the bud, but they didn’t.

You own Bible indicates the claims weren't made public until over a month later so that makes no sense given the state of the body. Even if they had made the claims immediately, the condition of the body after three days would have precluded any certain identification.

Quote:

They were skeptical to believe it and only when presented convincing evidence accepted it.

That isn't what your Bible says. One version of the story says that Peter believed after only seeing the empty tomb.

Quote:

After the 50 days, the Romans and Jews could have gone back to the tomb to produce the body. Since the tomb was new and had never been used before, any body found in it would have been assumed to be Jesus.

This ignores the result of a month of decay as well as the fact that the tomb belonged to someone else and his burial was only witnessed by supporters. Sorry, that is just not credible.

Quote:

The people could have also investigate the guard’s cover up story and found holes in it. How did the disciples get past you? Why weren’t you punished? Why weren't the disciples punished for breaking the Roman seal? Where did you guards get the extra cash?

If the story were true, the guards would have been executed and unavailable for questioning but the goofy bribe means we don't have any reason to think the story is true.

Quote:

They wouldn’t worship Caesar because they worshipped Jesus as God and obviously believed in the resurrection. Stephen and James were killed right away and Acts tells of the persecutions that occurred in the beginning and especially after Stephen’s death. Tacitus mentions Nero’s torture as do other church fathers. Eusebius mentions many persecutions and he had access to the documents to know about it.

You are missing the point. Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that any Christian was ever persecuted for refusing the deny the historical reliability of the Gospel story. The evidence indicates they were persecuted because they refused to participate in the state religion.

Peter Kirby · 02-05-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Are you seriously argueing that the liberal scholars never discounted the Bible's mentioning of the Hittites before the Hittite civilization was rediscovered?

This is backwards. One can't use one's theory to start "finding" examples of that theory actualized. Here, the theory is that "liberal scholars always deny the accuracy of the Bible's mention of things until they are strictly proved." This theory is "creating the fact" that "the liberal scholars" believed that the Hittites did not exist. But, reason demands that we start with the fact that some scholar believed that the Hittites did not exist and only then form our theory. All that this requires is a citation of the articles or books (with page numbers) in the eighteenth or nineteenth century that declare the Hittites non-existent. (To prove the opposite would require more work: one would have to show that one did a reasonably thorough search of the available materials to establish, for a surety, that there was no such claim.) The fact that Hittite material culture has been found does not do this. That is entirely consistent with a theory that 0% of scholars decided before that discovery that the Hittites did not exist. (And, of course, it makes a difference whether there were 0-1% of scholars denying or 10% or some more significant figure.) To repeat my point, though, the statement quoted above puts the cart before the horse in fabricating data to fit prejudices. It is like the high school student who knows what the chemical reaction should come out as and makes up the numbers in conformance to an existing theory...except that the theory here isn't known to be true.

best,
Peter Kirby

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

My point is this. Christians have to accept the OT as true because the NT is based on the authority of the OT.

If one studies the OT with a critical eye it is obvious that the Christian claims are without justification.

It is easier for me to argue from the point of the reliability of the OT which Christians are forced to accept than to argue from my real position that both books are strictly a human invention which Christians reject outright.

I didn't think you believed in the Old Testament, but I hadn't read enough of your comments to know for sure. I think that you can show the truth of Christianity by starting out showing that the Old Testament is God's word and then showing how the New Testament fulfills it, but I think the evidence for the resurrection is compelling. As for all the quotes on there being only one God, of course I believe it. And as you know the New Testament claims that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three personalities comprising the one God. The trinity is not as obvious in the Old Testament, but you can see the clues there as well. Once the resurrection has been established, Jesus' knowledge about God trumps everyone else's and he claimed to be God. All the scriptures that you quoted just demonstrate there is only one God, they don't preclude that one God being the Trinity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

You appear to be completely indoctrinated in your belief, but you are mistaken in your belief. You argue for the reliability of the texts which underlie your faith, but they are pathetically weak.

When I was a Christian I never got anything but the party line from any of the ministers who I had conversations with. When it became obvious that I was a confirmed atheist, I had conversations with some of them that were quite revealing.

I remember one discussion where The minister had become exasperated in the defense of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Finally he said to me "It does not matter if it is true or not, they( his congregation) need to believe it is true.

Sounds like the pastor wasn't a Christian. He sure should have left the church rather than tell what he thought was a lie every week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

Let me ask you, Are you comfortable believing in a god who would torture the bulk of humanity for an eternity in hell. If you are, what does that say about you? If a deity such as the one described by the Bible actually were to exist, would it not be a more noble expression of humanity to reject it completely? Do you believe because you are afraid of hell?

I believe that the main reason that people don't think hell is fair is that we don't realize the gravity of our sin nor the holiness of God. He is merciful and has done everything he can to keep us out of hell (short of violating our free will), but he is a holy and just God. Yes, a fear of hell is a motivation. I don't want to go there. I am also in love with God and he is very good to me. I hope that you get to know him as well. However, it doesn't matter what motivates me, I believe the evidence for Christianity is compelling whether I like it or not.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.