Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JERDOG · 06-21-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Think of it this way. Let's say I don't understand how a CD player works. But I can describe its attributes, such as being made of plastic, and hard, and can release sounds. Even if you don't understand something, you could still name some attributes of it.

You can use your five senses to detect the attributes of the cd player. What mode or knowledge do you use to know the atributs of god? If its through any of the senses please show me. Thanks.

I think redd did a well enough job rebutting your other point so I will leave it at that.

Carbuncle · 06-21-2003, 09:03 PM

Actually, God HAS manifested Himself in ways that could be detected using the five sense, just not in this time period. He spoke to Moses and the prophets, and the last time I checked, hearing is one of the five senses. The Israelites, while wandering in the wilderness, saw God, although not in all His glory, because of course they could not handle that. And then there's the Ascension, which the disciples of Christ witnessed.

Well . . . see ya for now! Have a nice day!

Cutter · 06-21-2003, 09:07 PM

That response is a joke, right?

There's doubt as to whether Moses even existed, the Exodus never happened and none of the Gospels can agree on exactly what happened after Christ's supposed crucifixion!

Is that the best you can do?

Carbuncle · 06-21-2003, 09:10 PM

Incorrect. The Gospels actually agree on what happened after Christ's death, just written using different words and in different styles. In fact, many historians are now regarding the post-crucifixion narratives as quite accurate. Now, if they were all exactly the same, then according to modern historic reviews, that would cast much more doubt on the gospels.

Besides, that argument could have been used against evolution, if you think about it.

See ya! ^_^

Cutter · 06-21-2003, 09:12 PM

Someone needs to spend some time in BC&H.

Carbuncle · 06-21-2003, 09:15 PM

Yeah, I should go there. So many people think the Gospels differ from each other, when in reality, when examined closely, all the major discrepencies can be explained logically.

One more point: all of the discrepencies in the Gospels occur in the secondary details. In other words, the core of the Gospels remains the same. That, I think, is quite interesting.

It's getting pretty late, so I have to go soon. May be next time we can continue this conversation?

Have a nice day! ^_^

Cutter · 06-21-2003, 09:23 PM

Actually, the major discrepancy of the Gospels is that the bodies of people who were crucified at that point in time were left on their crosses/trees to rot. The whole tomb business is a crock. The Gospels are fiction.

Any harmony between the narratives simply proves that they were written by people who shared a similair agenda - that of 'proving' that Jesus was the son of God.

Carbuncle · 06-21-2003, 09:35 PM

Wrong. Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 all point out that Jesus was taken off the cross and put in the tomb. That pretty much covers the four gospels.

Besides, here's another point: All four of the Gospels say that a certain Joseph of Arimathea requested and then took Jesus' body and placed it in a tomb. Now, if you were going to make up the story of Jesus being placed in a tomb, would you tell the name of the person who supposidly did so so blantantly? Keep in mind that many historians and archeologists believe that the earliest Gospel was written less a generation from Christ's death. That would be like inviting the readers to ask this Joseph of Arimathea whether that happened or not. And I have yet to find evidence saying that the people who asked him found that to be false.

The only logical conclusion that I could see is that the Gospels were indeed correct.

See ya! I must be going now, but may we continue this sometime in the future! ^_^

Cutter · 06-21-2003, 09:45 PM

I think you're missing the point. From what I can gather from various discussions on this topic in BC&H, if Jesus had been taken from his cross and placed in a tomb, then that must've been pretty well unique in history.

Bodies weren't taken off crosses, they were left to rot - no exceptions.

As far as dating the Gospels go, well there's plenty of controversy obviously. But about the earliest I can recall anyone agreeing on (to any sort of degree) is perhaps some forty years after the events.

In the first century, 40 years was a hell of a long time. We're talking a time when life expectancies were in the 30s. It's a fair bet that at the time the Gospels were first written, any first hand witnesses to the events (assuming they took place) would either be long dead or senile.

Your really need to spend some time in BC&H.

Carbuncle · 06-21-2003, 10:01 PM

Good thing I didn't get off just yet . . .

Actually, archeologists have discovered Jews buried in tombs who were subjected to crucifiction, as indicated by the nails driven into their hands and feet. In fact, if crucified people weren't buried properly, then we'd have little archeological evidence as to the occurance of crucifictions.

Also, you're over-exaggerating the life-expetancy thing. People at that time lived around 50-60 years. And btw, in the historical perspective of that time, 40 years isn't that long of a time. When you live in an age where travel was difficult and communication moved at a walking distance and by word of mouth, it wasn't uncommon for information to take 40 years to deliver.

Oh, and the early church creeds that were in use in the late 30's AD also mentioned the empty tomb of Christ, which implies that He must have first been laid in a tomb. That's only a few years from Christ's death, so you can't say that it took 40 years for the resurrection thingy to develop.

See ya! ^_^

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

06-21-2003, 09:03 PM	#12
Carbuncle Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 17	Actually, God HAS manifested Himself in ways that could be detected using the five sense, just not in this time period. He spoke to Moses and the prophets, and the last time I checked, hearing is one of the five senses. The Israelites, while wandering in the wilderness, saw God, although not in all His glory, because of course they could not handle that. And then there's the Ascension, which the disciples of Christ witnessed. Well . . . see ya for now! Have a nice day!

06-21-2003, 09:07 PM	#13
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	That response is a joke, right? There's doubt as to whether Moses even existed, the Exodus never happened and none of the Gospels can agree on exactly what happened after Christ's supposed crucifixion! Is that the best you can do?

06-21-2003, 09:10 PM	#14
Carbuncle Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 17	Incorrect. The Gospels actually agree on what happened after Christ's death, just written using different words and in different styles. In fact, many historians are now regarding the post-crucifixion narratives as quite accurate. Now, if they were all exactly the same, then according to modern historic reviews, that would cast much more doubt on the gospels. Besides, that argument could have been used against evolution, if you think about it. See ya! ^_^

06-21-2003, 09:12 PM	#15
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	Someone needs to spend some time in BC&H.

06-21-2003, 09:15 PM	#16
Carbuncle Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 17	Yeah, I should go there. So many people think the Gospels differ from each other, when in reality, when examined closely, all the major discrepencies can be explained logically. One more point: all of the discrepencies in the Gospels occur in the secondary details. In other words, the core of the Gospels remains the same. That, I think, is quite interesting. It's getting pretty late, so I have to go soon. May be next time we can continue this conversation? Have a nice day! ^_^

06-21-2003, 09:23 PM	#17
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	Actually, the major discrepancy of the Gospels is that the bodies of people who were crucified at that point in time were left on their crosses/trees to rot. The whole tomb business is a crock. The Gospels are fiction. Any harmony between the narratives simply proves that they were written by people who shared a similair agenda - that of 'proving' that Jesus was the son of God.

06-21-2003, 09:35 PM	#18
Carbuncle Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 17	Wrong. Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 all point out that Jesus was taken off the cross and put in the tomb. That pretty much covers the four gospels. Besides, here's another point: All four of the Gospels say that a certain Joseph of Arimathea requested and then took Jesus' body and placed it in a tomb. Now, if you were going to make up the story of Jesus being placed in a tomb, would you tell the name of the person who supposidly did so so blantantly? Keep in mind that many historians and archeologists believe that the earliest Gospel was written less a generation from Christ's death. That would be like inviting the readers to ask this Joseph of Arimathea whether that happened or not. And I have yet to find evidence saying that the people who asked him found that to be false. The only logical conclusion that I could see is that the Gospels were indeed correct. See ya! I must be going now, but may we continue this sometime in the future! ^_^

06-21-2003, 09:45 PM	#19
Cutter Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,805	I think you're missing the point. From what I can gather from various discussions on this topic in BC&H, if Jesus had been taken from his cross and placed in a tomb, then that must've been pretty well unique in history. Bodies weren't taken off crosses, they were left to rot - no exceptions. As far as dating the Gospels go, well there's plenty of controversy obviously. But about the earliest I can recall anyone agreeing on (to any sort of degree) is perhaps some forty years after the events. In the first century, 40 years was a hell of a long time. We're talking a time when life expectancies were in the 30s. It's a fair bet that at the time the Gospels were first written, any first hand witnesses to the events (assuming they took place) would either be long dead or senile. Your really need to spend some time in BC&H.

06-21-2003, 10:01 PM	#20
Carbuncle Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: California Posts: 17	Good thing I didn't get off just yet . . . Actually, archeologists have discovered Jews buried in tombs who were subjected to crucifiction, as indicated by the nails driven into their hands and feet. In fact, if crucified people weren't buried properly, then we'd have little archeological evidence as to the occurance of crucifictions. Also, you're over-exaggerating the life-expetancy thing. People at that time lived around 50-60 years. And btw, in the historical perspective of that time, 40 years isn't that long of a time. When you live in an age where travel was difficult and communication moved at a walking distance and by word of mouth, it wasn't uncommon for information to take 40 years to deliver. Oh, and the early church creeds that were in use in the late 30's AD also mentioned the empty tomb of Christ, which implies that He must have first been laid in a tomb. That's only a few years from Christ's death, so you can't say that it took 40 years for the resurrection thingy to develop. See ya! ^_^

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.