Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-01-2002, 01:01 PM

Well I'll just withdraw from the discussion then and leave it up to people better prepared to discuss such things.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-01-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
Well I'll just withdraw from the discussion then and leave it up to people better prepared to discuss such things.

I look forward to discussing the Aramaic stuff when you've had a chance to review it. I think you'll find that the set of Biblical contradictions endorsed by these folks is near identical to that accepted by their more traditional bretheren. In the meantime, give some thought to naturalism as a coherent and consistent philosophy.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-01-2002, 01:36 PM

Yes, you are right, for this afternoon one of the Aramaic Society people replied to my query about the book I'm reading.
Their version of Christianity is pretty much the same as any version.

scumble · 08-02-2002, 01:05 AM

I certainly think there comes a point when arguing about Biblical accuracy becomes futile, and we should all go and do something useful!

Vorkosigan · 08-02-2002, 01:33 AM

Don't kid yourself and confuse the idea of you being strongly biased with physically violent. My statement about your "biased hatred of Christianity", while strongly worded, does not mean that you are physically violent towards Christianity, but I have no doubt you are strongly biased against it.

Whatever.

One thing that makes little to no sense is to make this sort of statement. It says nothing about nor does it do anything to dispute the argument that you use something out of context. Rather, it is simply a statement that is targeting at discrediting me as opposed to my statement. And I assure you "Your rhetorical flailing" is not a phrase that suggests you're simply talking about my belief system.

Why, yes, this is your belief system at work. I took no bible quotes "out of context." You've made all kinds of claims, ranging from my alleged violence to my "speculation and opinions" to the latest "out of context" claim -- always a favorite of fundies -- none of which you have supported.

However, you are right. I am sorry for my offensive remark about rhetorical floundering. Now either admit you have no case, or make a serious attempt to show where I have "speculation" regarding facts, and where I took quotes out of context.

Vorkosigan

Beach_MU · 08-02-2002, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
That's a valid point, but on the other hand, if someone who witnessed the son of God rising from the dead told me about it, and they had solid proof for the event, I woudl think I'd try my best to get the facts surrounding the event accurate. At the very least the people he appeared to and number of days he hung around would match.

This is true that if someone witnessed the son of God rising from the dead then they would make every effort to gather as many facts as possible, but I don't agree that the authors failed to do this. The facts surrounding the resurrection, such as the Sunday morning accounts, are not at odds with each other, but each account does view the event from a different perspective. For example, Matthew focused on the humanity of Jesus, while Mark focuses on the divinity of Jesus, so each of their accounts portray a different perspective of the events that we can put together to get a complete picture. Regarding how many people he appeared to, first off is it really a big issue and secondly could you imagine that perhaps one author simply talked to more people than another and therefore obtained a different count? I'm not saying this is the case but it very well could be. The main point though would be that if one person says Jesus appeared ten people and another one hundred (I know those aren't the numbers, but for illustration...) then we can't conclude from those accounts exactly how many people he appeared to, but it does suggest, regardless of the numbers, that he did rise from the dead.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-02-2002, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
... it does suggest, regardless of the numbers, that he did rise from the dead.

It need suggest nothing of the kind.

Quote:

In most documented cases of the conviction of innocent persons, mistaken eyewitness identification is the culprit. Regardless, many continue to believe that eyewitness identifications and testimony are generally reliable and persuasive forms of evidence, and that any inaccuracies are readily detectable by the layperson. However, recent scientific studies show that eyewitness accuracy is affected by numerous factors, including identification procedures commonly used by police.

- CRIMINAL DEFENSE NEWSLETTER Volume 19, Number 12

In fact, the evidence might be more compelling if, at the very least, you were speaking of concurrent and independent testimony. As it is, it suggests no more than a confused and/or sloppy transmission and recension of doctrine, codified decades after the fact, by doctrinaire cult leaders.

Just for fun, you might wish to check out these 15 pages of <a href="http://www.ufowatch.com/abductions/" target="_blank">UFO Abduction Reports</a>. What do you make of all this testimony, and why?

scumble · 08-02-2002, 05:44 AM

Well, ReasonableDoubt, you've landed a tough one for him there.

Radcliffe Emerson · 08-02-2002, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:


This is true that if someone witnessed the son of God rising from the dead then they would make every effort to gather as many facts as possible, but I don't agree that the authors failed to do this.

Ask yourself this then: How would the different accounts hold up in a court of law? I believe the contradictions and differing opinions would shred the accounts, leaving very little credibility.

Noone has ever risen from the dead on this planet. It's only possible to believe a story like that if the person were in a coma. Besides, if Jesus were crucified as a criminal, his body would have left on the cross until it rotted away.

Beach_MU · 08-02-2002, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
Ask yourself this then: How would the different accounts hold up in a court of law? I believe the contradictions and differing opinions would shred the accounts, leaving very little credibility.

Noone has ever risen from the dead on this planet. It's only possible to believe a story like that if the person were in a coma. Besides, if Jesus were crucified as a criminal, his body would have left on the cross until it rotted away.

You bring up several good points, especially about the UFO accounts. I haven't read them yet so I won't comment on them at this time. Regarding the contradictions in the resurrection please point out where exactly you're refering. I am currently searching to verify this, but perhaps you know the answer: was it acceptable to the Jews to leave a crucified body on the cross over Passover because I've heard that it wasn't and that's why Jesus had been stabbed through the side (also a practice not common to crucificions)?

Lastly relating to the authenticity of the accounts, I wonder what your thoughts are on some these quotes I found as I was looking for info on the Jewish laws relating to Passover.

Quote:

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3. 
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Quote:

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Quote:

The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

And to be fair I will also include this quote written by a historian who opposed Christianity but acknowledged Christ and that he was crucified.

Quote:

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician. 

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Now these quotes don't prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but they do all acknowledge the existence and crucifixion of Jesus. Just thought I'd present them and get your feedback on what these non-biblical accounts say.

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

08-01-2002, 01:01 PM	#231
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Well I'll just withdraw from the discussion then and leave it up to people better prepared to discuss such things.

08-01-2002, 01:36 PM	#233
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Yes, you are right, for this afternoon one of the Aramaic Society people replied to my query about the book I'm reading. Their version of Christianity is pretty much the same as any version.

08-02-2002, 01:05 AM	#234
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	I certainly think there comes a point when arguing about Biblical accuracy becomes futile, and we should all go and do something useful!

08-02-2002, 01:33 AM	#235
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Don't kid yourself and confuse the idea of you being strongly biased with physically violent. My statement about your "biased hatred of Christianity", while strongly worded, does not mean that you are physically violent towards Christianity, but I have no doubt you are strongly biased against it. Whatever. One thing that makes little to no sense is to make this sort of statement. It says nothing about nor does it do anything to dispute the argument that you use something out of context. Rather, it is simply a statement that is targeting at discrediting me as opposed to my statement. And I assure you "Your rhetorical flailing" is not a phrase that suggests you're simply talking about my belief system. Why, yes, this is your belief system at work. I took no bible quotes "out of context." You've made all kinds of claims, ranging from my alleged violence to my "speculation and opinions" to the latest "out of context" claim -- always a favorite of fundies -- none of which you have supported. However, you are right. I am sorry for my offensive remark about rhetorical floundering. Now either admit you have no case, or make a serious attempt to show where I have "speculation" regarding facts, and where I took quotes out of context. Vorkosigan

08-02-2002, 05:44 AM	#238
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	Well, ReasonableDoubt, you've landed a tough one for him there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.