Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TollHouse · 03-10-2002, 06:38 PM

This is surely old hat for some of you here, but you may be interested on how the resurrection contradictions are justifed in this discussion <a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6967" target="_blank">here</a>.

Quote:

If all four gospels were exactly the same, that would give rise to plagiarism, that they are not all original.
.
.
So why would a group of disappointed and depressed people steal the body of Jesus and then go to their horrible deaths in the name of something that they knew was not true? The answer is they wouldn't unless they truely believed that Jesus was alive. And I think that there are no other reasonable expaniations for the reaction and actions of the disciples.
.
.
There are no traces of legendary development in the story of Jesus' resurrection.

Mostly Lurking · 03-10-2002, 07:47 PM

And people have died for Islam and Judaism and Hinduism, etc. etc. etc... Since all of these religions at least some mutually exclusive elements, it means that people from every relgion except THE ONE died in the name of wrong beliefs. (Or you might conclude that they all died for incorrect beliefs...)

Do the people who use the "wouldn't die for it if they thought it wasn't true" excuse seriously think that one's strength of belief has any bearing on whether or not something is actually true? It seems more like they're grasping at straws...

NOGO · 03-11-2002, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Three days or not? Most scholars recognize that according to early Jewish time reckoning, any part of a day counted as a full day. Jesus was in the tomb Friday afternoon, all day Saturday, and on Sunday morning, thus three days.

Nonsense!
Jesus stated that it would be three days AND THREE NIGHTS, not just three days.

Matthew 12:40
for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Apologetic nonsense!

NOGO · 03-11-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

In philosophy the law of contradiction says that the resurrection account cannot be true. After all, it hopelessly contradicts itself.

Not in philosophy but in logic. if two accounts contradict one another they cannot both be true.
This is simple logic even a 5th grader understands.

Quote:

But, when studying history one must do so as a historian, not a philosopher. So, the historian would say that there are some inconsistencies, but they are all in secondary details.

This can be taken seriously only if by secondary details one means everything except
1) tomb empty
2) Jesus missing

Quote:

The core of the story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus, puts it in a tomb, the tomb is visited by a small group of women followers of Jesus early on the Sunday morning following his crucifixion, and they find that the tomb is empty. They see a vision of angels saying that Jesus is risen.

In John the woman is not told by the angels that Jesus is risen. She sees Jesus himself. So much for the core of the story being the same in all.

Quote:

If all four gospels were exactly the same, that would give rise to plagiarism, that they are not all original.

Apologetic nonsense. If four versions of a story do not contradict themselves it does not necessarily hold that they have to be exactly the same.

Quote:

Let me give you an example from history of how contradictions between two different sources don't matter. We have two accounts of Hannibal crossing the Alps to attack Rome, and these accounts are not compatible or reconcilable. Yet no classical historian doubts the fact that Hannibal did mount such a campaign.

Yes and if I tell you that I had filet mignon last night you would believe me without other evidence. But if I told you that I had it with beings from outer space you will demand much more evidence and if the evidence that I do give you contradicts then you will draw the same conclusion as most sane people would.

Quote:

The time that they visit the tomb is valid even if described by one writer to getting light, and one writer to be still being dark (glass half empty, half full type deal).

Except that Matthew claims that the tomb was still sealed at dawn while John's tomb was opened and it was still dark. Now according to my logic one of these (or both) cannot be right. It was fabricated.

Quote:

How easy it would have been for the Jewish people to simply say to the early Christians, "You guys are crazy, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, and we have his body right here!" After all, they did know the location of the tomb. But instead, they said that it was stolen. An admission to the empty tomb.

Saying that it was stolen is not an admission to the empty tomb. How much nonsense can one put on a single page. If the apostles took Jesus' body then the tomb was not empty at least not in the sense that Christians say it. The problem is that this test assumes so many things.
It assumes that Jesus existed.
It assumes that the Jewish authorities knew of early Christian claims and took it very seriously.
It assumes that simply telling these religious zealots the truth would automatically change their minds. etc.

Quote:

The mental state of the early disciples was uneasy at best. Their leader had just been brutally killed. The Jewish vision of a savior did not involve the savior dying. Jesus all generally disappointed them. So why would a group of disappointed and depressed people steal the body of Jesus and then go to their horrible deaths in the name of something that they knew was not true? The answer is they wouldn't unless they truely believed that Jesus was alive. And I think that there are no other reasonable expaniations for the reaction and actions of the disciples.

This assumes that Jesus started the Christian movement which is not necessarily the case.
It also assumes that these people went to their horrible deaths just because the bible says so.
We have no idea who actually wrote these documents and whether they actually believed what they wrote. Since the resurrection story is different for all four Gospels and particularly John's as compared to the others then John or the others simply fabricated the resurrection story.
So we have at least one case of someone knowingly fabricating a story of the resurection.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

MortalWombat · 03-12-2002, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mostly Lurking:
<strong>
Do the people who use the "wouldn't die for it if they thought it wasn't true" excuse seriously think that one's strength of belief has any bearing on whether or not something is actually true? It seems more like they're grasping at straws...</strong>

If they are correct about the strength of belief, even to the point of death, being an indication of the veracity of one's claims, then that means that the Branch Davidians and the Heaven's Gate cult must have had the Truth(TM) also.

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

03-10-2002, 07:47 PM	#2
Mostly Lurking Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 43	And people have died for Islam and Judaism and Hinduism, etc. etc. etc... Since all of these religions at least some mutually exclusive elements, it means that people from every relgion except THE ONE died in the name of wrong beliefs. (Or you might conclude that they all died for incorrect beliefs...) Do the people who use the "wouldn't die for it if they thought it wasn't true" excuse seriously think that one's strength of belief has any bearing on whether or not something is actually true? It seems more like they're grasping at straws...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.