FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-24-2008, 12:26 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default Another debate on the alleged resurrection of Jesus

Another debate can be found at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/

Comments always welcome.

My opponent is somebody who claims to be engaged in mission. You would think he would have better arguments for the resurrection than that some Gentile Christians gave some money to charity on the first day of the week.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:10 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: England
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Another debate can be found at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/

Comments always welcome.

My opponent is somebody who claims to be engaged in mission. You would think he would have better arguments for the resurrection than that some Gentile Christians gave some money to charity on the first day of the week.
Christians want to make a big deal out of the supposed resurrection. What I say to them, is who cares if it really happened?

The Bible doesn't say that if someone gives a sign then they are a genuine prophet. The Bible actually makes it clear that false prophets can give signs.

When you judge Jesus/Christianity on the criteria of the Hebrew Bible, they don't come out of it well. They look very suspect. So if Jesus was resurrected, so what? The guy is still a false prophet according to the Bible.
Decypher is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 06:03 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 2,582
Default

And an empty tomb may simply indicate that someone removed the body, not necessarily that it was resurrected.

I can dig up a grave and remove the body from it and claim the body has been resurrected. How can anyone argue against such a claim?
Headache is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 10:20 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 237
Default

Good luck getting through the clouds of obfuscation.

Gregg
gdeering is offline  
Old 02-27-2008, 12:30 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdeering View Post
Good luck getting through the clouds of obfuscation.

Gregg
I think I'm doing OK.

I quite like my last post.

I was asked what would be proof for me. I feel like a poker player when an opponent turns over a pair of twos, and then asks him what would constitute proof that he has 4 aces.

Not having a hand with only a pair of twos would be a good start on providing proof that he had 4 aces....
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 12:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: England
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post

I was asked what would be proof for me.
You said in the debate:

Quote:

The Gospels are anonymous works, which never mention any sources, nor give any indication that the authors had sifted out true stories from false.

The Gospel of Mark, for example, has no attempt at chronology, no indication of who the author was, no indication of when he was writing, and no indication of any sources.

It has none of the markers that ancient historians used to indicate to their readers that they were attempting to write history.

Luke and Matthew both used Mark as a source. They never indicate this and they simply changed whatever they wished in Mark to suit their own private theological agendas.

This is all well-known and elementary knowledge about the Bible, and means that the Gospels simply cannot be read as history. It cannot even be shown that the earliest Gospel was ever meant to be taken as history. They are theological tracts.
What would be proof? I think a nice start would be gospels without these problems. Why on earth should we accept gospels that don't even bother to explain their sources etc.?
Decypher is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 02:38 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

There was an extraordinary response by Mr. Twisleton at

http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.c...-01032008.html
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 03-09-2008, 09:29 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

The debate continues at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.c...&max-results=7

My opponents are getting pretty stuffed.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 03-09-2008, 06:17 PM   #9
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 237
Default

Yes it's not really fair, they are not used to independent thinking and too used to preaching to the converted. Still you are doing a good job, better than I would. But, we are wrong because "billions see otherwise!"

The bad side of me wants to comment on the site, but I won't. His one through ten are just fantastic howlers, really the lamest list possible.


8 What usually happens doesn’t always happen. (???)

Still, I think you are very clear, still it might be good to try to nail them on something specific to answer; otherwise they will just continue to attack you for not having happy thoughts, or failing to see God's will for us little people.

You have to get them on all the generalities, ad hominem and particularly the obfuscating jargon ("....with a dynamic inexplicable without it"). Like you did with Paul and the empty tomb.

My prediction for the future is - the debate will fizzle out because of their frustration that you just don't "get it." Again, because they are used to the nodding heads of the converted.


Gregg
gdeering is offline  
Old 03-09-2008, 11:06 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdeering View Post

You have to get them on all the generalities, ad hominem and particularly the obfuscating jargon ("....with a dynamic inexplicable without it"). Like you did with Paul and the empty tomb.
I did wonder what that meant.

I thought it meant that if Jesus was still alive, and people could see what he was really like, the Christian churches would never have grown anything like as fast.
Steven Carr is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.