Family Man

Radoth-

And all non-theists agree that Jesus wasn't God. It's amazing what we atheists all agree upon. So your point is...

And if you actually read my posts you'd find I haven't denigrated you personally. All I've done is to point out the flaws in your arguments and to note that it greatly hurts your credibility when you can't answer the evidence that is presented against your position.

You're the one who says he's here to mock us whenever possible. If you think that attacking people personally is wrong perhaps you ought to look more carefully at yourself.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Gregg

First, I wouldn't say that the resurrection accounts differ in "minor details." And anyway, the resurrection wasn't, in itself, a "BIG" historical event, involving thousands and thousands of people, increasing the likelihood that more than one version of how it all went down would emerge. This was a very intimate event, supposedly involving only a few dozen people, if that. And the "car wreck" analogy doesn't work either--it didn't happen all at once like a car wreck, and the people involved didn't immediately scatter to the four winds to start spreading the news. They had time to get together, share their appearance stories, and get the sequence of events sorted out.

In any event, you're overlooking something here. The Gospels aren't the only place where the "resurrection" is reported. Paul reports that Jesus appeared "to Peter, then the 12 (note Peter is not included in the 12) then to 500 brothers all at once...and last of all to me." Paul eliminates the women entirely, and he is writing much closer to the supposed event.

Furthermore, Paul makes no distinction between his "seeing" of the risen Christ (which most would agree was a vision) and the others. Seeing Jesus actually walking around in a glorified physical body, eating with him, drinking with him, and touching him, surely isn't the same thing as seeing the already ascended Christ in a vision!

Gregg

Radorth

A hastily formed "open-minded" opinion IMO. You have very little idea what you are talking about though. Personally I think Bertrand Russell probably "holier" than me in many ways. In other forums I've oft said we are just all pretty much pots and kettles in God's eyes. As far as I know, I am the only one on any forum anywhere who has referred to himself as a hypocrite, and the most offensive thing I have ever called anyone personally is a "fellow hypocrite." But just like some here thought I was an "inerrancy" advocate, and believed the Gospels were all totally independent accounts, you are mistaken as well.

As for "lashing out" and "attacking" and "mocking" people personally, I'm sorry they take it that way. If an argument is thoughtless or tendentious, I will say so. And I will mock skeptics self-contradictions and use their own arguments against them as long as I breath. (No Christian can be called a scholar here you know, so there is no sense quoting them) We will all be judged by our own rules and judgements, and 'tis a just dessert when they claim they rational high ground.

Take it personally if you like, but the fact is I have never made statemments which boil down to "you're a self-righteous troll and no one will ever listen to you again, blah, blah." If I simply responded in kind, I'm sure the moderators would close the thread. Mocking I shall admit to- let them shut me out for that if they like. Making gratuitous, hasty personal attacks, I do not admit to.

I'll let Jesus answer

"If any one doesn't believe, I do not judge him.

"By your own words you will be justified, and by your own words you will be condemned."

Paul says the "gentiles" will be judged by their own conscience, and I am willing to extend this idea to "unbelievers" who are so for conscience' sake in truth. (Not that many know their own motives)

I could do a whole thread on self-judgement and why there is no need for God to say a word in the jugement. Maybe I shall. The NT is poorly understood in this respect.

Radorth

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Vinnie

"""""First, I wouldn't say that the resurrection accounts differ in "minor details."""""""

Well I could reassert that they differ in minor details but I see no point in arguing over the account hypothetically. Maybe you could pose what you feel are some of the "major" disagreements between the accounts? That way we can simply get to the center of the issue.

And if there are in fact major errors between the accounts what does that mean? In your eyes would that be solid proof against a resurrection? I would answer that in the negative.

Andd then you'd be arguing collusion but I digress. These stories were retold for years and years and years before we get our Gospel portraits. Do you think that even if the event itself (resurrection and/or empty tomb) was true things could have developed and found their way into the evangelist's portraits?

I think it says "over 500" but my memory could be failing me. That account "might" correspond to an actual Gospel passage but there is nothing conclusive but more on that later.

And Paul does not exclude Peter from the twelve.

it says he appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve. He appeared to Peter himself and then at a LATER TIME to the twelve (including Peter). It seems inaccurate to assert that Paul did not think Peter was part of the twelve according to this verse which doesn't even seem to imply that. Note that the twelve is eleven here according to the Gospel's though (12 minus Judas = 11). This 11 vs 12 is only a minor issue if posed as a major problem but you can persue it if you so desire. I'm not convinced Judas was the only disciple who abandoned Jesus nor am I convinced Jesus originally had exactly 12 special followers.

Can you substantiate the notion that Paul saw a vision according to the account? Its been a while since I've read the account of his conversion on the road to Damascus and all the details off it that I remember are fuzzy ones. Since "most people" accept it as a vision I take it that it won't be too difficult but I'd like to know for certian before proceeding.

Also, do you believe the actual historical Paul actually saw a vision or do you think he is being creative in order to authenticate his own authority?

Vinnie

NOGO

Radorth,

You quote my words but then I am not sure who you were answering.

I have never called you a troll.

Vorkosigan

These are not mutually exclusive choices.

Jayhawker Soule

In fact, the entire Bible could be a web of lies and that would not, in and of itself, constitute proof that "the very idea of the resurrection itself is a myth". It would, however, eliminate the Bible as a trusted source, at which point it becomes hard to understand why anyone smarter than a donut would view the resurrection as anything other than a myth.

Radorth

He said we are dependent on a "single source" for all the crucifixion stories, then he extends it to include "the life and death" of Jesus. First he qualifies it, then unqualifies it and blithely moves on. No he does not say "all" but he does not deny it either. Unfortunately he can find only one scholar who agrees with him. He brushes aside a hundred other scholars with his statement, making it dishonest and showing he is merely preaching to a more or less mindless choir.

Radorth

NOGO

Radorth

Why are playing games? The subject is Easter morning and the resurrection accounts. Unless Doherty is saying that these accounts were copied from one another then why mention him at all.

"preaching to a more or less mindless choir."
You are confused. This role belongs to Christians priests and ministers. You are obviously projecting what you have seen and known all your life onto someone else.

You are again avoiding the subject at hand. Obviously you cannot defend your faith. You prefer closing your eyes and putting your head in the sand.

Radorth

Oh I think I understand what your brand of "free-thinking" is. It means "rational" thinking is of little use here. Why do you think I mock certain skeptics so much? It is because they don't care a damn for truth or and wouldn't know it if they saw it. The proof is that some present one simplistic argument, then another, then another seemingly unaware of how they are contradicting even their own "thinking" while ignoring the most intelligent and thoughtful objections of true skeptics. If that's "rational" in your mind, we have one explanation of why these discussions don't get far, don't we?

Read H.G. Wells some time if you want to hear a coherent argument from a true free-thinker who is not a cynic in didguise.

Radorth