Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 02-24-2012, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdahalishi Mjumbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

The Bible states unambiguously that the resurrection happened, so a denial of biblical evidence makes no sense except as a redundant way of denying that the Bible can constitute evidence.

Unambiguously stating something happened is not evidence it happened. If the bible is internally conflicted, how can it be a source of evidence?

How are you defining "evidence"?

Davka · 02-24-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdahalishi Mjumbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdahalishi Mjumbe

There is no biblical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection.

Obviously, there can't be, if you presuppose that the Bible itself cannot be evidence for anything. But in that case, all you're saying is that there is no evidence for the resurrection.

Yes, I am saying there is no evidence for the resurrection. And yes, if the conflicting gospel reports of Mary Magdalene's involvement in the discovery of the empty tomb can not be made into one non-contradictory account then the reader has to decide which report is the truthful one. If the others contain falsehoods then they should be discarded. How can they be sure there are not other falsehoods? I am interested in how a Christian would decide which gospel, or gospels, were completely truthful.

Quote:

The Bible states unambiguously that the resurrection happened, so a denial of biblical evidence makes no sense except as a redundant way of denying that the Bible can constitute evidence.

Unambiguously stating something happened is not evidence it happened. If the bible is internally conflicted, how can it be a source of evidence?

So what you are really saying is that the Gospels contain incompatible and irreconcilable accounts, and therefore cannot be trusted.

That's very different from the claim that there is "no Biblical evidence" of this or that event. Like Doug Shaver said, it's actually a claim that there is no evidence, period. That, I agree with.

Talking about "biblical evidence" is like talking about "Lord of the Rings evidence," or "Star Trek evidence." It's a confusing use of the word "evidence."

outhouse · 02-24-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

the only evidence is the scripture we are left with.

take it for what it is.

We know he didnt physically resurrect, we dont know if they ment he spiritually resurrected.

a missing body, or fiction.

this is something out of what is thought to be known with certainty in scholarships

I do think it is a physical resurrection as Jesus died to set Christ free in us, and just walk away from it? So what is it? . . . could now be asked and then say: who was this Jesus anyway when Christ was born?

It has something to do with substance and reality and the difference between them, wherein substance is temporal while reality is eternal, and if Jesus was not Christ why should we 'cling' to him? or just call him 'teacher' and then leave him behind and walk away from 'it', just left hanging there as if it was that which we no longer need, and then never go back again to say 'Amen' as final word.

A nice foreshadow here is to say "Amen" when receiving "the body of Christ" while looking at Jesus on the cross and then say "and what about him?" like Peter asked and he was the 'faith' for us.

So it becomes a rather first-hand answer and then we know.

its possible, but we have a few schools of thought that are followed, and scripture that backs both sides.

again, were only left with a hellenized version that evolved into what we have.

Chili · 02-24-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

the only evidence is the scripture we are left with.

take it for what it is.

We know he didnt physically resurrect, we dont know if they ment he spiritually resurrected.

a missing body, or fiction.

this is something out of what is thought to be known with certainty in scholarships

I do think it is a physical resurrection as Jesus died to set Christ free in us, and just walk away from it? So what is it? . . . could now be asked and then say: who was this Jesus anyway when Christ was born?

It has something to do with substance and reality and the difference between them, wherein substance is temporal while reality is eternal, and if Jesus was not Christ why should we 'cling' to him? or just call him 'teacher' and then leave him behind and walk away from 'it', just left hanging there as if it was that which we no longer need, and then never go back again to say 'Amen' as final word.

A nice foreshadow here is to say "Amen" when receiving "the body of Christ" while looking at Jesus on the cross and then say "and what about him?" like Peter asked and he was the 'faith' for us.

So it becomes a rather first-hand answer and then we know.

its possible, but we have a few schools of thought that are followed, and scripture that backs both sides.

again, were only left with a hellenized version that evolved into what we have.

Yes but scriptures have nothing to do with the argument that exists between who we are and who we think we are, wherein our thinking is the very reason why we kind of lost track of who we are.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.