Jayhawker Soule

Where, and would you make the same claim for the Torah? What, for example, is your "huge amount of solid historical evidence" for (a) Noah and the flood, (b) the Exodus, and (c) the resurrection?

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

tronvillain

SOMMS:

1) You've just assumed that only God could do thing like resurrecting from the dead. This is an unwarranted assumption.

2) Pitshade appears to be talking about any man being resurrected, not a specific man about whom the events of his prior life are known.

Jesus actually being resurrected would be evidence for the Christian God, though it would be evidence in favour of other hypotheses as well.

HRG

How did you come to the conclusion that there exists not more than one being with supernatural powers (which would include raising the dead) ?

A actual resurrection event would only show that the actor has supernatural powers, but not that he is the unique God.

HRG.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG,
Why suppose that there exist more than one being with supernatural powers?

Why assume an actor with supernatural powers and a dubious deceptive motive???


Your reaching for straws here.


Simple law of economy demands both of your complex and somewhat contrived explanations be set aside for the simpler one.


Your presuppositions are blatantly obvious: they force your beliefs to dictate the facts.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jayhawker Soule

SOMMS,

Is there a reason for not responding to my question?

Pitshade

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
Are you deliberately ignoring parts of what I say? I explained that in the bit of text you quoted.

SOMMS : You have stated that no SINGLE event could have
occured 2000 years ago that would have convinced you of God's existence. Is this correct?

Pitshade : What single event? The fact that a man died and returned from the dead is not evidence of God. Even if you could prove that the resurrection occurred, it would be meaningless without knowing the events of his life prior to being crucified.

SOMMS : So IF some guy claimed He was God AND that guy did things only God could do LIKE resurrecting from the dead...THEN this would not be evidence for God?

Think about this. Notice that in my response (there in the middle) I asserted that without knowing the events of Jesus' life, the resurrection couldn't be proof of God's existence. Then you turn around and say that it is proof of God's existence because he "claimed He was God AND that guy did things only God could do LIKE resurrecting from the dead." When it was convenient for you to do so, you threw away the rest of the gospels, now you want them back to show who Jesus was? In the OP it was 'what event?' now it's 'what single event?' You can't have it both ways, either the resurrection is a single event and stands alone, or else it requires the miracles, teachings and life of Jesus to make sense. By itself, the resurrection is most certainly not proof of God as there is no way to determine the 'why.'

Which brings us back to a point you ignored from my last post: In each of the gospels, the writer presents the life, teachings and works of Jesus as well as the story of his death and return. While there is no way that we can independently verify the story of the resurrection today, there are passages that we can check out. In Mark 16:17-18 (And elsewhere as the quote you provided shows), there are claims that we can check, and which I have shown do not stand up. Christians today do not exhibit the signs that the gospel writers said would accompany those who believe. There is in fact, no creditable evidence to show that they have ever shown these signs. If the gospels are found to be false in these things, why should we believe what they have to say about the resurrection?

You also ignored my request to support your assertion that The gospels weren't the gospels first. They are historical documents of the first century. Historical documents that are extremely well supported especially considering the era and culture. They are more supported than any other classic document. Period.

Pitshade

This is part of SOMMS bait and switch tactics. He claims that the resurrection is a single event in order to avoid the problems that Mark 16 raises, then wants to cite the rest of the gospels to make sense of the resurrection. If SOMMS wishes to use the rest of his Jesus's story as part of the argument, then he can't ignore the baggage that it brings with it.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pitshade ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

What a pointless semantics weasel you are, my dear friend.

Incorrect. I have direct evidence of their love and therefore know that they love me.

Since this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a god factually exists and resurrected from the dead, however, bravo on more of your pointless redirection.

I have no children.

No, you do not "believe" your car is going to get you to work in the morning, you know it will until it does not. Either the car is working or it is not. These are facts in evidence that instantly impact upon your experience.

Anything else you want to weasel around with?

No, only cult members do that.

I find it fascinating that a grown man still hides behind "beliefs" as a means to guide his existence.

No f*cking shit, Sherlock, which is precisely why I posted:

You're such a tiresome oscillator.

What evidence would that be? Stories about stories told by superstitious, cult storytellers all based on one collection of wisdom sayings from somebody called "Jesus." For all we know, Paul wrote it and concocted the whole lie to begin with.

Enough of this pointlessness.

Prove something happened or sell it walking.

Ojuice5001

No, everyone does this. You can't act in the world without assuming a philosophy. Take free will and determinism. When you make a decision, you have to act on an assumption about how decisions are made. Maybe your will is a free agent, maybe it is determined by natural laws, maybe it is determined by a nature implanted in you by one of the Roman gods. But you have to act as if some one of these assumptions is true, and your belief is a major determinant of this. As Chesterton said, "We are all agnostics until we discover that agnosticism does not work." The Christian idea of what free will is, is wrong, but many Christians gave their idea more thought than the typical naturalistic atheist.

GunnerJ

Not so. You've entered the Gospels, the alleged accounts of alleged actual, miraculous events and supernatural beings, as some kind of evidence, and have never substantiated your claim that it is any qualitatively different from other accounts of alleged actual miraculous events and supernatural beings. Thus, the floor is open to all claims of gods and goddesses, angels and devils, magic and miracles.

When this is realised, you find that there is a reason to believe in "an actor with supernatural powers and a dubious deceptive motive." Namely, Asatru (Norse) myth. Loki is a supernatural being with vast powers and a deceptive nature. He is also a being operating under a deathcount: when the end of the world comes, he knows his goose is cooked. But, like all the Norse gods, he strives against the inevitable. Odin makes a paradise for heros, Valhalla, so they'll fight on his side. Loki, though, is more subtle. Pretending to be the Messiah of another religion, and then faking his death and "rising" from the grave to impress the gullible of the area would be exactly the type of gambit he'd use. Thus, when Ragnarok arives, he simply has to engineer a few visions that look like the stuff of the Revelation to John, and no Christian will stand against him; in fact, he'll have a horde of valuable troops.

Until it is demonstrated that the Gospels are more reliable an account of the actions of supernatural beings than Norse myth, this argument stands.