MrMacSon

I have addressed you on this thread without answer ...

TedM

It is a logical conclusion within the restriction of what is currently known about the laws of our universe. But since science does not understand all of the laws of the universe yet it is not a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion would be something more like this: "While it may have occurred, I have no compelling reason to believe that it did" or this: "It almost certainly did not occur--although I can't prove it. To believe anything otherwise would require extraordinary evidence".

What I object to with your methods is the conclusion that no truths can be gleened about history in a flawed work. I'm not up to a major analysis of your work, but it is just a problem I encounter trying to relate to you. It 'feels' like you have a major agenda that is driving you, and you have chosen to apply certain scientific concepts to support your agenda, but you apply those concepts too rigidly, as history is not science.

But, maybe you are right to do so, and I'm wrong.

TedM

Hi MrMacSon, I saw your comments and thought they were reasonable. I didn't reply because I didn't feel they objected to or really addressed my concern. I'm not claiming a resurrection occurred, physical or spiritual. I'm just rejecting the idea that GMark doesn't support a resurrection, and I'm rejecting the idea that according to GMark the disciples never did believe in the resurrection, even after Jesus had died. That really was all I was trying to point out. Somehow most of the posters here thought I was saying something else..I don't know why though as my op was concise and to the point--or so I thought.

aa5874

You are exposing your problems with logic.

I cannot assume the resurrection may have occured when I have no evidence that a resurrection can happen.

Please, your statement is in error. You really do not know what you are talking about with regards to my methods. My ARGUMENTS are derived from statements of antiquity.

I have USED writings attributed Eusebius, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and the Pauline letters . These writings contain historically bogus information but they can be used exactly and precisely like the written statements of a DEFENDANT who is known to have lied to the court.

Please, you have an AGENDA so don't try to give the impression that you are some unbiased poster. You want people to believe that there was an Historical Jesus and become highly annoyed when you are challenged to present ACTUAL WRITTEN Credible evidence from antiquity.

My Objective is KNOWN. I will show that the HJ argument is hopelessly flawed, contradictory and based on logical fallacies, Presumptions and sources that are ADMITTEDLY filled with erroneous and implausible information.

TedM

Why not? Prior to their being evidence that the earth is round would you have said you cannot assume that it may be round? Prior to their being evidence for evolution would you have said you cannot assume that evolution may be true? Prior to the discovery of black holes would you have said you cannot assume that black holes may not exist? How are these different than saying prior to being shown evidence of a resurrection you cannot assume that a resurrection may have happened? Do you know enough about life and death to claim that a dead person can never come back to life? When we don't even know what the source is for this universe and the life in it, how can we say one way or the other?

But you haven't said why you care so deeply about this issue. You are very driven psychologically. I think it might be fascinating to discover why that is--what the REAL REASON is that you do this. Are you angry as hell about something? Did a Christian treat you badly? You certainly don't have to answer personal questions, but I would suggest that there has got to be a more satisfying way...

aa5874

Are you now willing to argue that the earth is in the shape of a Pyramid or a Triangle??
You are living prior to the evidence for such shapes.
Are you still willing to argue that God made Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with the Talking serpent???

There is NO evidence that the serpent did NOT talk???

What other color holes do you want to assume exist??? Chose any color of the rainbow!!!


Again, my arguments are based on DATA. I no longer accept presumptions, imagination and speculation as evidence for an argument.

Give me Credible DATA for resurrections and I will argue for resurrections.

I have NO Credible DATA, NO Credible sources for resurrections.

Resurrections are fiction.

It is you who seem extremely angry that people REJECT your logical fallacies, presumptions and contradictions. You seem to be taken aback when people challenge you to present actual evidence from antiquity.

I have studied the HJ argument and have discovered that it is a most horribly flawed argument and must be Exposed AS WORTHLESS.

Keith&Co.

Vampire? Zombie?
Some other form of undead of local tradition, which, while reanimated, doesn't quite qualify as 'resurrected?'

TedM

I'm not angry. You sure are evasive though. I'm sorry if I upset you. I"m just a curious person. Your behavior is over the top out of proportion to the issue, as most would see it, and I would think you'd LOVE to tell the world why. The fact that you do everything possible to avoid the issue suggests that it comes from a difficult place. As such, I don't think you'll find what you want to find, but I've been wrong before. peace.

jdboy

The crucifixion resurrection of jesus symbolizes the New Covenant. In other words it represents the move from the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. the Jews were taking things too literal that's why he spoke about their traditions of cleanliness their obsession with ritual tradition with the external. The Jews had become zealous for the letter of the law(stoning people to death for almost any reason). Jesus wanted a change of heart of spirit.
His story is symbolic not literal. The bible tells us to move from belief and faith to understanding because christ is not literally risen faith is worthless. You have to understand what you are reading

That's my understanding anyway

aa5874

My BELIEFS are COMPATIBLE with the evidence.

I BELIEVE Resurrections are fiction based on the available evidence and that is precisely why I declared, "Resurrections are Fiction"

Again, your own posts betray you. Your posting pattern exhibit a lot of anger. Examine one of your own angry post.