Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 07-17-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaz
No no, AFAIK, what I've seen atheists say about the writing of the bible is that they don't know who wrote it, nobody knows, and it's nearly impossible to know. No atheist says that the apostles made up the NT because the apostles are fictional characters in the NT. Other people wrote the NT, but with the intention that people would die for it? I dunno.

Any evidence backing that claim that someone other than the Apostles wrote the NT? The NT was written from a first hand experience, and there is no mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the Gospels, which would have been included had the NT been written after 70 A.D. So it was written in the 1st Century, and with the basis of first hand experience, or knowledge of the people and places that went on during that time, the Apostles writing it is the most logical conclusion.

Why don't you think the Apostles wrote it? What criteria do they not fill for being the writers?

Magus55 · 07-17-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
Magus: what spaz said. We don't know for sure what the apostles believed or preached.

In addition you are missing the point. What people believe isn't black-and-white and rational. It is possible for people to get themselves psyched up into doing things for a cause when they have little reason to believe in its truth. They hope that things are true, rather than having a lot of good reasons to believe that they are true. As in the case of Goebbels, it even appears to be possible for someone to make up lies and believe them.

And don't forget, Magus,

You are still dodging my questions about resurrection

I already answered your orignal ressurection question. Your other questions are irrelevant, and are not worth replying to.

Biff the unclean · 07-17-2003, 11:59 AM

See DMB, they aren't on his list. He isn't much of a hand at thinking for himself as the above Apostle/author fantasy shows. He isn't going to even attempt to answer you�er, umm not because he couldn't if he really wanted to but because...er, um..they, um, are the wrong type of question. They aren't worth answering when you are dealing with something as serious as all good Xians floating "in the air," up "in the clouds" with a 2000 year dead Jew. ROTFLMAO

winstonjen · 07-17-2003, 02:47 PM

Here's a thread on Theology Web. Notice the constant dodging when confronted with something they can't deal with, and personal attacks.

Jesus' So-called Sacrifice

The similairities to RR are quite scary.

Biff the unclean · 07-17-2003, 03:33 PM

Ya know DMB, that the reason that the Church burned Atheists and other assorted heretics wasn't because it hurt so much. That was just an added bonus. It was because without a body you couldn't be resurrected.

JGL53 · 07-18-2003, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Here's a thread on Theology Web... The similairities to RR are quite scary.

Winstonjen, can you give us the forum name and thread name? The link you gave will only get me to the sign-in area, since I'm not registered (I only wish to lurk). Thanks.

Treacle Worshipper · 07-18-2003, 09:30 AM

I know I'm jumping in late here, but I had to comment on this:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magus55
Actually, not true. During the time of the Roman Empire, the majority of the population was illiterate and in poverty. Only about 10% could read and write, and afford education/books - and the majority of that 10% was Roman officials and the aristocracy.

<snip>

The verse in Matt 24 is talking about the generation that sees the end times. Jesus describes the end times signs before this verse, and then says, Verily i say, this generation [the one Jesus is referring to, not the present one] will not pass until these signs i speak of are fullfilled. The signs never came in the Apostles lives or they would have written it down. They knew very well Jesus wasn' talking about them, He was telling them what to write for future generations.

(Italics mine.) Anyone spot the contradiction? Only 10% of the population (mainly high ranking) was literate, but some fishermen in a little backwater would be able to write down what Jesus said. Methinks the literacy rate was a bit higher than 10%.

Very illogical argument. The apostles died greusome deaths for proclaiming the truth of Jesus and spreading the message of the Bible. They weren't dumb enough to spread around a message that they knew was a lie because they made it up.
<snip>
The Apostles would not make up prophecies, go out among the people and boldly proclaim the message of Christianity, only to face excrutiating deaths, all over a lie that they made up. Thats stupid and illogical and you know it.

By that logic, Joseph Smith was also telling the truth & we should all become Mormons. (Hey... Maybe that's not such a bad idea. Even as wife no. 18 I'd get laid more often than I do now.)

TW

07-18-2003, 02:58 PM

I'm sorry to do this, but I feel bound to show my dialogue with Magus and his replies:

Quote:

I Magus:
That means that the dead who were saved by Christ, are ressurected from the grave, and changed from sinful and corrupt, to perfect and incorruptible. Believers already are changed on the inside through Jesus. This verse describes the change that Jesus performs on the outside, by giving us new heavenly and eternal bodies.

Quote:

II DMB:
I am not sure what either being "raised" or being "resurrected from the grave" means. It certainly sounds as though reference is being made to the corpses of the dead. Does this apply to a physical body? You suggest that Jesus gives us "new heavenly and eternal bodies". Where are these bodies located, and what relation do they have to our previous corruptible (=rottable) bodies?

Quote:

III Magus:What do you mean where are these bodies located at? Dead corpses, ressurected from the grave. God transforms them into perfection and immortal, just like He did to Jesus as His transfiguration in Mat 17.

Quote:

IV trillion:
Wow...so for all the dead people who were burned (maybe even by evil Romans) and left out for animals to eat their flesh, God goes around collecting every particle of their old bodies that vultures flew away with thousands of years ago and pooped out somewhere into the fossil record? What about persons who died at sea and ended up in the bellies of hundreds or thousands of fish? Magus, some of their old atoms could be in your body right now!!

Quote:

V DMB:
What trillion said.

People who died thousands of years ago and whose bodies rotted, were eaten etc. Where were they (presumably bodiless) while awaiting resurrection?

And why do they suddenly need physical bodies again for an afterlife?
And where will these new bodies be?
And what relation will they bear to their old bodies? As trillion has pointed out, they can't be composed of the same atoms, since these will have been shared around after death.
And if you died aged 101, will your new body be that of an aged person?
And if you died aged 12 months, will you be resurrected as a baby forever? Since physical "corruption" and ageing are intimately related it is hard to see how an immortal baby could age.
And will the new body have a sex?

Quote:

VI Magus:
I already answered your orignal ressurection question. Your other questions are irrelevant, and are not worth replying to.

I am sorry, Magus, but this just won't wash. You come here and start making claims about the resurrection of bodies. This is a phenomenon that none of us has any experience of. It doesn't appear to happen in the natural world and there are all sorts of practical difficulties that arise when one tries to understand it. You claim to understand it already, so you ought to be able to answer the questions I have posed and the many others that other members here will think of.

You have a very odd idea of the meaning of "irrelevant" if you so categorise questions that are directly about the phenomenon you have so cursorily mentioned. Either you are here trying to defend a position that includes this concept of resurrection, in which case you need to give a serious answer, or you need to admit that you are incapable of answering the questions because you haven't the first clue.

EstherRose · 07-18-2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

I am not sure what either being "raised" or being "resurrected from the grave" means. It certainly sounds as though reference is being made to the corpses of the dead. Does this apply to a physical body? You suggest that Jesus gives us "new heavenly and eternal bodies". Where are these bodies located, and what relation do they have to our previous corruptible (=rottable) bodies?

The Lord says He will give us new and uncorruptible bodies at the time of resurrection.

Below is my personal belief and I do not have biblical backing for this (namely because I haven�t bothered to look for it now to give you)

I�ve always translated that in my feeble little brain to mean that He has no limits and will restore our bodies however He sees fit. I don�t think they are warehoused anywhere as you imply. The bible does not state anything about the age of the resurrected. Some have speculated that we will all be the age of our Lord when He was crucified, but that is only speculation. I presume we will be male and female in heaven since we are so on earth, but the bible states that we will not marry so presumably no sex either in heaven.

I hope this answers your questions.

Biff the unclean · 07-18-2003, 04:37 PM

So you are saying that God will do this by magic? Because the question revolved around the mechanics of the operation. It had already been stated that God intended to do this, the question was 'how'.

What's wrong with sex? I could throw in a few Mark Twain quotes here but I'll spare you. But if heaven is to give eternal pleasure to it's dwellers why would the single most pleasurable thing that humans do be barred?

07-17-2003, 11:59 AM	#133
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Unworthy See DMB, they aren't on his list. He isn't much of a hand at thinking for himself as the above Apostle/author fantasy shows. He isn't going to even attempt to answer you�er, umm not because he couldn't if he really wanted to but because...er, um..they, um, are the wrong type of question. They aren't worth answering when you are dealing with something as serious as all good Xians floating "in the air," up "in the clouds" with a 2000 year dead Jew. ROTFLMAO

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

07-17-2003, 02:47 PM	#134
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Here's a thread on Theology Web. Notice the constant dodging when confronted with something they can't deal with, and personal attacks. Jesus' So-called Sacrifice The similairities to RR are quite scary.

07-17-2003, 03:33 PM	#135
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Ya know DMB, that the reason that the Church burned Atheists and other assorted heretics wasn't because it hurt so much. That was just an added bonus. It was because without a body you couldn't be resurrected.

07-18-2003, 09:30 AM	#137
Treacle Worshipper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wales, UK Posts: 931	I know I'm jumping in late here, but I had to comment on this: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Magus55 Actually, not true. During the time of the Roman Empire, the majority of the population was illiterate and in poverty. Only about 10% could read and write, and afford education/books - and the majority of that 10% was Roman officials and the aristocracy. <snip> The verse in Matt 24 is talking about the generation that sees the end times. Jesus describes the end times signs before this verse, and then says, Verily i say, this generation [the one Jesus is referring to, not the present one] will not pass until these signs i speak of are fullfilled. The signs never came in the Apostles lives or they would have written it down. They knew very well Jesus wasn' talking about them, He was telling them what to write for future generations. (Italics mine.) Anyone spot the contradiction? Only 10% of the population (mainly high ranking) was literate, but some fishermen in a little backwater would be able to write down what Jesus said. Methinks the literacy rate was a bit higher than 10%. Very illogical argument. The apostles died greusome deaths for proclaiming the truth of Jesus and spreading the message of the Bible. They weren't dumb enough to spread around a message that they knew was a lie because they made it up. <snip> The Apostles would not make up prophecies, go out among the people and boldly proclaim the message of Christianity, only to face excrutiating deaths, all over a lie that they made up. Thats stupid and illogical and you know it. By that logic, Joseph Smith was also telling the truth & we should all become Mormons. (Hey... Maybe that's not such a bad idea. Even as wife no. 18 I'd get laid more often than I do now.) TW

07-18-2003, 04:37 PM	#140
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	So you are saying that God will do this by magic? Because the question revolved around the mechanics of the operation. It had already been stated that God intended to do this, the question was 'how'. What's wrong with sex? I could throw in a few Mark Twain quotes here but I'll spare you. But if heaven is to give eternal pleasure to it's dwellers why would the single most pleasurable thing that humans do be barred?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.