Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sparrow · 09-18-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Like I said, I just got done reading A.J.M. Wedderburn's book Beyond Resurrection, and although he is by no means a conservative scholar, he is certainly "contemporary," respected, and believes that something took place, even though I would have to say his explanations to try and do away with the historicity of the resurrection are pretty lame.

Here's a hint ZX: when we search for contemporary sources, we look for things written near to the time of the events, not written in the last ten years.

FatherMithras · 09-18-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Wow...did you ever miss the point FM was actually making.

Exactly. His entire post is hilariously showing. He assumes so much, despite a ttal lack of evidence, due to reading a few books. He hasn't studied any of the actua; evidence and his arguments are weak. I'll try going through them and refuting them, though his lack of knowledge is going to give me trouble correcting so much.

FatherMithras · 09-18-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

How can you say that none of the resurrection events have any support, when NT scholars, both liberal and conservative alike, have been writing voluminously on the subject for centuries? And no, the stories are not "decades after the fact and not supported by any contemporary sources whatsoever." That is just plainly untrue. Like I said, I just got done reading A.J.M. Wedderburn's book Beyond Resurrection, and although he is by no means a conservative scholar, he is certainly "contemporary," respected, and believes that something took place, even though I would have to say his explanations to try and do away with the historicity of the resurrection are pretty lame. FM, I guess I would recommend that you make a visit to a good theological library, and do some research, because to just blow off in one fell swoop all the books and articles written on the resurrection, saying that there is no support out there is beyond credulity.

In this post, you don't do anything to refute any of my assertions. You tell me because you've read an author, he must be right about certain things and that no one would write about the events if they had no support. Wonderful. I actually debate theology with a Monk priest in the Orthodox church fairly regularly, at least twice a month, so I'd not advise ME to read up on theology. How about you give even a tiny hint of evidence to support your bizarre assertions? Where do you find that the scholarly consensus is that there's contemporary evidence of Jesus? It seems to me, that Josephus's accounts contradict almost everything in the NT, and the fact no scholaras AT ALL mention JESUS priot ro 70 Ad, your assertion is misinformed. You have yet to show otherwise.

Quote:

Well, lets take a look at what Paul wrote to the Galatians; a letter which nearly all NT scholars attribute directly to Paul. He says in 1:11-12, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Notice later on in his testimony where this took place: in Arabia, "and returned once more to Damascus." Then he went to Jerusalem (v. 18), which is mostly likely where he picked up the resurrection formula that he would later pass on to the Corinthians, as seen in his letter (1 Cor 15). And as for historical support, there is ample scholarly evidence which has come to the same conclusion as I have, regarding what Paul learned while in Jerusalem, which occurred within a couple years of his conversion. Gerd Ludemann, for example, states,
We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. At any rate this thesis is probable for 1 Cor. 15.3b-5. It is also likely for 1 Cor. 15.6a, 7 since the conversion of Paul lies at the chronological end of the apperances cited and is probably to be thought of as not later than three years after the death of Jesus.--Gerd Luedemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.
And there are a whole host of other statements that I've been able to gather which say the same thing as Ludemann does. So, there is not only biblical evidence that Paul met Jesus, but there is scholarly testimony that what Paul learned after arriving in Jerusalem was early, and not late.

Except the "Scholarly testimony" is not contemporary now is it? And the fact that Paul simply claimed he had these visions while in the desert, something you would know if you studied the Bible firsthand, proves your assertions that he's claiming to have met the living Jesus and been taught by him false. He's claiming he had visions while in the desert, which is documented in the NT. You should read the Bible itself before making bizarre claims.

Quote:

I'm not sure what books you have been reading, but from my perspective there are several good arguments for God's existence that have withstood whatever scrutiny you're talking about, whether it be the Kalaam, Cosmological, Teleological, or Design arguments. And the reason why I know they're withstanding criticism, is because I see many of those in the so-called "sciences" failing to address the arguments made and have instead merely done as you have done thus far in this thread, and that is to just blow them off. Well, blowing off arguments is not answering them, and it is one of the reasons why we see more and more scientists considering and adopting a theological worldview as the basis for practicing their scientific research. But, that's another topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that another broad brush stroke denial really doesn't carry any weight.

Hilarious. The ontological argument has been refuted based on it's premise alone, the design argument has been shown to be merely god of the gaps mixed in with an argument from incredulity, and the list goes on. You are hopelessly misinformed about this. The fact you haven't read up on any of this and apparenlty only have read Christian sources, as opposed to those in the scholarly consensus, is rather telling. Way to go. You have yet to refute a thing I've said, so accusing me of brushing an argument aside without addressing it is laughable. To claim the design argument hasn't been refuted alone shows your total lack of unbiased reading.

Quote:

I've given you Galatians 1:11-12 for starters. Nevertheless, there is an account of Paul making an excursion to heaven in 2 Cor 12, where he not only heard things that "a man is not permitted to speak," but was admonished by the Lord (Jesus) regardless Paul's fleshly weakness. And of course we have Luke's recording of Paul's conversion and trial testimony found in Acts 9 and 22, where in both instances Paul identifies the person who got Paul's attention on the road to Damascus as none other than Jesus himself.

Wow. Just wow. So we're asserting based on someone's writing all these magical things actually happened? Despite the fact you seem to think making claims about text you clearly have barely familiarized yourself with, I don't know what to say except where is your evidence any of this has actually occured? And why do you keep quoting outside the scholarly consensus and claiming you are quoting the mainstream?

Quote:

And what does contemporaneous sources have to do with something being true or not? It's not that the sources cannot be provided, I'm just curious at this point what your bias is.

If Jesus had thousands of followers, was doing dozens of miracles, and returned from the grave with thousands upon thousand of evangelical followers, than gave his apostles magical powers and they went out and evangelized, THERE WOULD BE writing about it. The fact there isn't is incredibly telling. And you're incorrect AGAIN. Those sources CANNOT be provided, because they don't exist. Provide me with a contemporary source and prove me wrong.

Quote:

FM, once again, I'm not sure where you've been doing your research, but to say that there are no sources, whatsoever, is just plainly a bit dumbfounding to me. For not only are the biblical sources credible and reliable, the library where I do most of my study is literally filled with books, journals, and articles that have examined, re-examined, shaken down, flipped over, and pressed twice the subject of Jesus and resurrection, with some books and articles being better than others. In fact, there is so much material on the subject of the resurrection confirming that it took place that I seriously doubt that the average person could possibly wade through all of it in a lifetime. So, please, don't be making the kinds of comments that you are above, because they simply are not true.

The Bible is reliable? We have the Census that never happened, and the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem that never happened, along with evidence in Mark that it wasn't written until at least 70 AD, AND the fact NONE of these stories have contemporary support. Sorry, but once you name a SINGLE contemporary source, your assertions are laughable. Go ahead. Look for one. You'll be as disappointed as I was as a Christian doing the same nonsense. And ocne again, my study is apparenlty miles above your own, as I do it with scholarly books, archaelogical reports, and theological discussion with priests. So, back to the drawing board!

Quote:

And just who is it that sings the praises of Mithras on that day, apart from those who know of its existence? Nobody.

This has anything to do with what? I was merely showing that Christians stole a holiday. The fact no one celebrates it doesn't invalidate this claim. Once again, incredible that you'd make an argument like this.

Quote:

Galatians 1:18 tells us, "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter), and stayed with him fifteen days." In the words of C. H. Dodd,

So? I want support of your claim. The bible being used to support the Bible is called CIRCULAR REASONING. It's a logical fallacy you don't seem to be clear about. Once again, please do actual research on this topic other than regurgitating refuted apologetic claptrap. If we could trust everything in the Gospels, (despite the fact they're not supported in any contemporary literature) Than why would we doubt the resurrection if we used it?

Quote:

FM, the rest of your post I'm putting on the back burner for now, because it is just so far beyond rationality that it just isn't worth commenting on. In other words, to discount the basics in the manner that you have, without any evidence of ever consulting what many NT scholars have said about the subject, just doesn't seem to warrant a response. If I'm going to take the time to wade through all of this, then I would encourage that you do likewise, before you comment further. Because when you don't, and you make the blanket comments that you are, you're insinuating that I, and others, are nothing but loons and liars, and I can assure that I, and they, are neither.

Oh but that's not what I said. I said you have no contemporary sources, and no evidence to back up the Bible or any God claims. You haven't refuted a single thing I said with anything except "Nu uh! people write lots of books about this stuff!" Yet you gave not one SINGLE example of contemporary support for a single passage and made ridiculous arguments about the veracity of things like the pathetically beated design argument. You've asserted I don't kow what I'm talking about, without asnwering any of my points with evidence. You claim I don't know the basics, yet don't show a single fact that refutes me. You've used the Bible as a circular source to support your bizarre assertions, and have failed in refuting me. How about a little intellectual honesty? You may not be a liar, but you are pretty uninformed.

FatherMithras · 09-18-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Here's a hint ZX: when we search for contemporary sources, we look for things written near to the time of the events, not written in the last ten years.

ZX, contemporary means written at the time! We mean try and find stuff written around the life of Jesus. I suppose, since you don't know the basic terminology, this makes your refutations seem silly now. So when you respond to my comments, and try to show contemporary sources, don't show something written in the last decade. Wow, I can see why you thought I was an idiot now, you didn't know the terms used. As an aside, could you not do things like that and tell me I'm ignorant?

ZX432 · 09-20-2006, 02:27 PM

This will be my last response, since you all have provided ample material to complete my assignment. And for that, I simply say thank you.

First, let me apologize for being so abrupt in coming and going, and for any possible confusion. None was intended of my part, but sometimes in venues like this, where certain inflections and tone are missing, it is inevitable.

Second, although several of you did respond, much of what was written was pretty much what I expected. Regardless of the evidence, which I know you believe does not exist, you wholeheartedly rejected, whether it be contemporary (as in the Bible) or contemporary (as in modern scholarship). As a question that I presented to my classmates on how much evidence is not enough, and when to abandon reasoning with those who are just too hardened by their bias to want to reason, the general reply was when the party being spoken to is rude, insultive, and just generally unkind. And I think in the short amount of time spent trying to reason with some of you, it is time to leave you to your own devices, and bid you adieu.

Nevertheless, again, I do thank you for your time and effort. Perhaps we will meet again someday, and the forum will be a setting that allows for a speedier exchange of positions than this one, and one where assignment guidelines will not be an issue, with more being said than mere introductory statements, which is about all this was. I wish you all the best, because from my particular perspective, you're going to need it. Take care.

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-20-2006, 02:49 PM

Next time bring some evidence. Or better yet, actually try to listen to what people are telling you. You could have actually learned something if you'd wanted to.

FatherMithras · 09-20-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Second, although several of you did respond, much of what was written was pretty much what I expected. Regardless of the evidence, which I know you believe does not exist, you wholeheartedly rejected, whether it be contemporary (as in the Bible) or contemporary (as in modern scholarship). As a question that I presented to my classmates on how much evidence is not enough, and when to abandon reasoning with those who are just too hardened by their bias to want to reason, the general reply was when the party being spoken to is rude, insultive, and just generally unkind. And I think in the short amount of time spent trying to reason with some of you, it is time to leave you to your own devices, and bid you adieu.

This is an especially good idea for religious people, who ignorant of the actual facts, makes assertions about evidence they've never seen. Simply claim it exists and never show it. Sorry, we're not "hardened" to the evidence. We've examined it, and your inability to show any of what you claimed is simply a reflection of how weak Christianity's case actually is. I'm glad you're leaving, because seeing someone lacking so much knowledge while insulting the people who've actually studied it is simply not much fun. I can be kind to theists, but when you go around insulting my refutations and claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, and then fail to refute anything I say with evidence, well, then I feel no need to be civl if you won't be.

Quote:

Nevertheless, again, I do thank you for your time and effort. Perhaps we will meet again someday, and the forum will be a setting that allows for a speedier exchange of positions than this one, and one where assignment guidelines will not be an issue, with more being said than mere introductory statements, which is about all this was. I wish you all the best, because from my particular perspective, you're going to need it. Take care.

Introductory statements would be right. You provided only assertions and never moved on to any evidence, and rejected the facts when they were showed to you. I honestly, however, hope you return. It breaks my little heart to see people so ignorant of the facts, and I believe most people can be brought to the truth when they honestly seek them, something you seem to have not yet accomplished.

Trout · 09-20-2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

You mean, beside the fact that the dead do not resurrect; there are no such things as gods; and the mythology this is based upon is, at best the result of ancient, Middle Eastern, scientifically ignorant, biased cult fanatics who already believe, more or less, prior to the Jesus myth that diseases are caused by demonic spirits and the dead can rise and that gods exist?

:rolling: :rolling: Nice one.

GenesisNemesis · 09-20-2006, 08:23 PM

It did not happen.

The Bible, supposedly the infallible Word of God, actually does have many flaws in it. For example: the Birth of Jesus. Surely they would've gotten the genealogies right, if He's the Son of God!

The account in the gospels have procedural difficulties with regards to the burial rites and even with the person of Joseph of Arimathea himself.

The Non-Existent Tomb
The balance of evidence seems to show that there was no empty tomb; that the empty tomb itself was a later development or addition in the legend of Jesus' resurrection.

There's much more on that geosite. I reccommend you look into it.

Godless Dave · 09-20-2006, 10:12 PM

So wait, are you seriously saying there is a "demonic world" that humans can call on to do magic tricks?

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

09-20-2006, 02:27 PM	#65
ZX432 Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: USA Posts: 167	This will be my last response, since you all have provided ample material to complete my assignment. And for that, I simply say thank you. First, let me apologize for being so abrupt in coming and going, and for any possible confusion. None was intended of my part, but sometimes in venues like this, where certain inflections and tone are missing, it is inevitable. Second, although several of you did respond, much of what was written was pretty much what I expected. Regardless of the evidence, which I know you believe does not exist, you wholeheartedly rejected, whether it be contemporary (as in the Bible) or contemporary (as in modern scholarship). As a question that I presented to my classmates on how much evidence is not enough, and when to abandon reasoning with those who are just too hardened by their bias to want to reason, the general reply was when the party being spoken to is rude, insultive, and just generally unkind. And I think in the short amount of time spent trying to reason with some of you, it is time to leave you to your own devices, and bid you adieu. Nevertheless, again, I do thank you for your time and effort. Perhaps we will meet again someday, and the forum will be a setting that allows for a speedier exchange of positions than this one, and one where assignment guidelines will not be an issue, with more being said than mere introductory statements, which is about all this was. I wish you all the best, because from my particular perspective, you're going to need it. Take care.

09-20-2006, 02:49 PM	#66
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Next time bring some evidence. Or better yet, actually try to listen to what people are telling you. You could have actually learned something if you'd wanted to.

09-20-2006, 08:23 PM	#69
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	It did not happen. The Bible, supposedly the infallible Word of God, actually does have many flaws in it. For example: the Birth of Jesus. Surely they would've gotten the genealogies right, if He's the Son of God! The account in the gospels have procedural difficulties with regards to the burial rites and even with the person of Joseph of Arimathea himself. The Non-Existent Tomb The balance of evidence seems to show that there was no empty tomb; that the empty tomb itself was a later development or addition in the legend of Jesus' resurrection. There's much more on that geosite. I reccommend you look into it.

09-20-2006, 10:12 PM	#70
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	So wait, are you seriously saying there is a "demonic world" that humans can call on to do magic tricks?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.