1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured He is Risen - The Evidence

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by nPeace, May 20, 2021.

  1. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,945
    Ratings:
    +641

    No I said most historians find the gospels to be a myth. A mythological narrative around a man who was a teacher or Rabbi. Many scholars are moving to the full mythicist side because they are realizing the evidence for historicity was based on assumptions that are very weak.
    Why Ehrman left Christianity has no bearing and he is just one of many scholars who know the gospels are fiction.
     
  2. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,945
    Ratings:
    +641

    That is a quote from Richard Carrier saying that "that Jesus" (the Gospel Jesus) didn't exist. That's what I said, the gospels are myth?
    Notice the word "that" used twice meaning "the Jesus in the gospels".
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,483
    Ratings:
    +2,829
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You mean say something more.

    Oh. Christians are supposed to be patient, kind, and yes, reasonable too.

    So question. Why are you in the habit of creating a smoke screen on every thread?
    For example, was that you, I spoke with here?
    If it was, I have a few questions. 1) Did I answer your question? 2) Does my answer have to be what you want to hear? 3) does my answer have to satisfy you?
    4) Then why are you blowing that smoke screen on this thread, rather than deal with the topic, or OP?

    On this thread, I said in the OP, Persons are making the claim that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
    In this thread, I will show that claim is false, and that it is both irrational, amd unreasonable, to demand particular expectations be met.
    The following is looking at the facts reasonably
    .

    I am repeating, as it's difficult to see through smoke, and you probably missed some things.
    If you are here to address the topic of the thread, and the OP, all fine and good. If on the other hand you want to just distract with your usual smoke screen - because that's all it is... a distraction, and a strawman argument - then you are free to take that to another thread, or just hop back on the one in the link, and repeat your argument. See if you get an answer. :)
    Am I being unreasonable, or is that fair, and reasonable?
    If you think I am not being reasonable, then please explain how.

    In the OP, there are some facts presented, which shows that there is evidence for the resurrection.
    If you disagree, or have a problem with those facts, then the onus is on you to demonstrate they are indeed not factual.

    You can't do that by arguing that you cannot prove a negative
    Telling me what scholars think, or what you believe, does not do it either.
    So you have a choice.
    As a patient, kind and reasonable Christian, I have given you more than I think you deserve. :)

    Your call.
     
    #223 nPeace, May 24, 2021
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,483
    Ratings:
    +2,829
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    "why they are incorrect"?
    You have not shown that they are correct B.

    "fine with scholars when you thought they were in your camp"?
    LOL Dude, please.
    The reason the poor scholars admitted that Jesus was a real historical character, and that he was baptized, and crucified, is because of the undeniable evidence. LOL
    This is crazy.
    ...and yes, quite disturbing to hear, coming from someone who is so into scholarship. :(
    I accepted the evidence, long before scholars did. I do not live for scholarly consensus. LOL

    Dude. This is pathetic. It's stooping quite low too, imo.
    I said this...
    They know only that they believe what they decide to. It may not even be what they say, as they are not infallible and some do lie to themselves... and others, for their own purposes.

    I'm not here to say who is a liar, but sometimes we ourselves don't even know why we lie.
    Some do understand later though.

    ...and you took it and twisted it, as if it brought you some kind of sick pleasure.
    It is a fact that scholars are infallible. Is it not?
    It is a fact that they are not free from lies, in the same way you accuse the Gospel writers of conspiracy, and fraud. Is that not so?
    So, it seems to me you are hell bent on a bias. I called no one a liar, but now I have every right to. You just told one big fat lie. That's disgusting.

    See above.


    Sure. You accept the ideas - Ideas.

    All lies. Blatant lies.


    I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic in anything you said here.
    Perhaps I am too disgusted at your tactics above. [​IMG]
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    44,829
    Ratings:
    +27,010
    Religion:
    Atheist
    LOL!! Oh my getting the burden of proof backwards. No, when one presents "facts" that person must be willing to demonstrate that they are facts. Merely being written in a holy book does not make a claim a fact.
     
    #225 Subduction Zone, May 24, 2021
    Last edited: May 24, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    This thread is a good illustration of something an old friend once told me.... apologetics aren't for converting non-believers, they're for shoring up the faith of those who already believe.

    It's also a good example of the sorts of weak answers to basic questions that gave me my first indications that "something isn't right" with Christianity.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,483
    Ratings:
    +2,829
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Seems that makes two camps with the same thoughts. Only in different focus.
     
  8. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    I'd ask "How so", but sadly I expect that would go as poorly as other attempts to get you to reply to questions.
     
  9. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,483
    Ratings:
    +2,829
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Atheists aren't for converting believers, they're for shoring up the disbelief of those who already are unbelievers.

    They give weak answers to basic questions that demonstrate that "something isn't right" with Atheism.

    I think that does not apply to all Atheist though, as some do try to convert believers, but their answers aren't any more sound.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    44,829
    Ratings:
    +27,010
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Please, what are these supposed "basic questions"?
     
  11. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,827
    Ratings:
    +722
    Religion:
    Not religious
     
  12. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    8,997
    Ratings:
    +5,584
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    You haven't addressed any of the problems I raised ─ compelling the conclusion that you can't.

    So we're here.

    There is no such thing as the supernatural in reality, only as concepts, things imagined in individual brains.

    There is no eyewitness account of the resurrection.

    There is not only no contemporary account of the resurrection but the first mention of it is ~20 years after the purported event, the first with any details but ending with an empty tomb is ~45 years after the purported event, the first with a resurrected Jesus is ~55 years after the purported event.

    There is no independent account of the resurrection.

    There are six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, and each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways.

    In other words it's a forensic trainwreck.
     
  13. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    5,844
    Ratings:
    +294
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Basic aware conscious human self presence.

    I am a human living on a pre formed planet inside it's heavens.

    Basic human commonsense advice.

    Then there is science the theist liar. A human also.

    The same liar doing the same lying that men have ever lied about. Stories about creation as themes for science.

    Science by men tried to claim I knew how a planet formed and told the story.

    Claiming the planets own history formed forming told him.

    Yet he asks questions and gives self the answer claiming by human consciousness that form told him the advice.

    Is the God theist.

    I am not a scientist as a spiritual human I think about our first two human parents memories.

    Knowing I was born a baby only.
    Knowing I am never my own two parents life or two fully formed adult bodies.

    As compared to a theist. Who constantly talks about when a human was not a human.

    I am sane he seeks destruction of form. Self form human. Natural.

    Basic human common sense.

    You can't theory when a human did not exist as there is no information of a human who pre exists.

    In reality presence of life.

    As only life the living is present. Ignored.

    Argument for a God. Heard man speaking voice in heavens. Witnessed human.phenomena in the living presence human life.

    Science says pre form before life.

    The heavens owns no pre form its mass is just mass without separated descriptions

    Mass a status said holy.

    Theism infers separation as if it is history. The heavens was not separated ever.

    What lying in science was described for as human owned self destructive occult mentality versus natural God presence.

    The argument no human can infer when a planet never existed as it's O separate mass formed it's natural form is historic to formed presence.

    Real reason God science O earth existing present first was argued against occult science.

    The occult self said God created bio life via a nuclear history.

    The God scientist said a pre owned eternal never a human body spirit form changed its status into a human.

    Explained as why gods were planets first as eternal X mass form separated from the eternal. Was not any reactive cosmic thesis.

    Humans not mass are not reactive history of anything.

    The argument in science where origin form emerged from knowing that pre form had existed first.

    Humans only own presence after any natural mass in its owned mass firm existed first.

    Humans never existed first which is where a conscious human thought places self in explanation theories.
     
  14. night912

    night912 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,827
    Ratings:
    +722
    Religion:
    Not religious
    So do you admit that you are one of those people? If you don't deny what the bible says, then what you claim below contradicts this.

    If you claim that the bible is true and is evidence for the resurrection, then why would you disagree with what's said in the bible and not use it as evidence.

    Here's what written in the bible that indicates that the story does claim that Jesus was resurrected with the same body that he died with:

    John 20:19-20
    Jesus Appears to His Disciples

    19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

    The disciples saw someone who looks just like Jesus, but they need more evidence that he is Jesus and not just a lookalike impostor. So they want to see the scars from the wounds caused from the crucifixion. Only after seeing the scars, did they believe. We know that they were looking for the scars from what Thomas said.


    John 20:24-28
    Jesus Appears to Thomas

    24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

    But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

    26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

    28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”


    So you see, even the author, someone from the ancient days where the average person has little understanding of the world compared to today's people, had enough of an understanding about rationality that he purposely wrote about the discples requiring evidence before believing something to be true. Thomas had a criterion that must be passed before it can be accepted as a justified belief.

    Now for nPeace to think that the bible claimed that Jesus was resurrected without a living body and/or a different one after reading the story, then it's obvious that he either lacks some reading comprehension skills, being dishonest, never read the story in its entirety and context, or he is irrational to the point where is he incapable of thinking reasonably.

    In conclusion, nPeace is not credible when it comes to him making a claim and saying that he has evidence to support his claim. So his explanations for his claims should not be taken too seriously and spend too much time on it. It can be easily dismissed. So do be too harsh on him for not comprehending your objections. You can't expect nPeace to go beyond his current maximum limits. But you also don't need to spend too much time with him in discussions where he makes arguments and claims. Don't over think on the things that he presents. If it's obvious to where you can quickly find fallacious statements, don't waste anymore time on it, just go ahead and dismiss it.
     
  15. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    Um.....okay....:confused:

    At least they give answers.

    I'd ask why you're bringing up atheism here, but I'm pretty sure you won't answer that either.
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,483
    Ratings:
    +2,829
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    It was a response to your bringing up a negative assertion on Christianity here.
     
  17. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,970
    Ratings:
    +6,060
    What does atheism have to do with that?
     
  18. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    5,844
    Ratings:
    +294
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Phenomena not meant to occur. Reasoning in reality.

    Should it have occurred the question.

    Conjured the science teaching. Natural owned it says scientist O earth but UFO radiation effect should not have been released.

    No it should not have occurred. The science lie to reconfirm old info stating it new.

    Law of God O changed is the preaching. Man broke gods natural law stone seal.

    So you review resurrection. Info said brother the scientist sacrificed the innocent life. Brothers and sisters not scientists. Their live's attacked radiation to blood change effect.

    Was life saved.. no. It was attacked constantly sacrificed. Same as today new born to adults dying from anything not natural. Natural being presence life and healthy.

    Life was already living naturally the review was life survived.

    Man adult life from baby genesis destroyed again. Same attack said Jewish Christian realisation. Jesus event.

    So ice newly born baby gas spirit status God the earth ownership God teaching in sciences kept life stable by pressure being ice condition cooling of water and gases.

    Ice...
    Pressure as an important status asides cooling.

    Ancient dinosaur water mass was held evaporating in hot gases cold blooded creatures in heavens. Act of beast evil.

    Known. I caused it says man scientist by God history. Reactions.

    Archaeologist motivation human by memory. I will dig up evidence that our brother had destroyed all life on earth. Machine parts found inside stone human artefacts in coal.

    Claimed but we survived and returned from being dead as the scientist AI introduced possessed mind belief feedback.

    After dinosaur life.

    Memory he used to quote but the occult science is safe you can incinerate all life and then come back from the dead and do it again.......oh wait a minute my machine is destroyed I must rebuild it.

    The exact human condition psychic spiritual family knew he was expressing as an occult belief in his magic self. I can kill myself by science then return to life resurrected. Science is safe he says. As that UFO radiation practice.

    Reality what possession obsession in science human man psyche believed. He knew Jesus did not resurrect life nor return human life back to living.

    His occult memory from first earth was historic life total destruction is the proven ideal he is using.

    Proven before in the realisation of his Jesus quotes that he believed it was real. Ice the God body newly born baby in spirit term saved life on earth. Man only sacrificed irradiated his spirit.

    Why the argument is a science argument.

    Religion is not the origins of science owned the spiritual answer against science. Seemingly forgot who they represented in life.

    Creation as a theme in any book is science.
     
  19. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,945
    Ratings:
    +641
    So you cannot. When 2 of the leading biblical archeologists are explaining that the OT is not historical, wasn't meant to be historical and showing that the stories are literally enlarged versions of smaller events or mythizations of much more ordinary characters then that is what the evidence has demonstrated.
    That is likely the truth.
    I am interested in what is true. You can make ridiculous meaningless statements and continue to live in a fantasy world. Good for you.
    But it has been demonstrated to excellent standards that the OT stories are foundation myths and greatly enlarged stories.

    Two apologists at once I have a conversation with and both employ the same "head in the sand" tactic when presented with scholarship.
    Except in your case you started out using scholars work because you thought it supported your beliefs. So you have no excuse when you just hide your eyes and say "they must be wrong"



    Yes many people see religious "evidence" like Islam evidence, Mormon evidence, Scientology evidence, Hinduism evidence, Law of attraction evidence and accept it's true.
    scholarship can give you a much wider perspective on the issue. One has to be open to non-bias research however. Once you decide something is true and are emotionally attached to it confirmation bias will not allow one to see obvious truths.

    I can see religions are man-made archaic stories without scholarship. But scholarship can confirm that the stories are not original, written as fiction, has no evidence and many other lines of evidence that confirms these beliefs.

    Sorry no bias. I'm using a literal reading of your text. Let's see, how many times and ways do you call them liars?
    1) some lie to themselves
    2) some lie to others, for their own purposes
    3) some lie but don't know they are lying until later

    Yup, that pretty much covers every possible lie. You are definitely calling them liars. Funny you don't take all the apologetics and scholars you post and say it's wrong or lies for those reasons at all? Nope, it's just the scholars who find your religion to be false.
    Historians evaluate evidence. They explain what the original Greek/Hebrew meant, what that meant in their society and thinking, how it compares to surrounding cultures and more. All of which they understand and are qualified to say.
    So there are not many "lies" here. That is a conspiracy theory.


    As to the gospel writers having a conspiracy or being fraud. I would not call it that but it is ficton.
    You say that like there isn't MASSIVE precidence for this sort of thing?
    The gospel writers have been shown to be sourcing Mark. They were writing religious fiction and myths to convey parables with inner meaning. You seem to forget this was also done with the 36 other gospels, the 15 Epistles we know are fake, the Gnostic gospels, Isalm's update, Mormonism's updates, The Ascention of Isaih and all non-canonical Jewish and Christian material, all other religions before and after Christianity.
    That isn't "fraud". Are the Greek myths "fraud"? The gospels are exactly the same as all the other things I just mentioned, none of which are really fraud? Each gospel was written to be the "one" gospel.
    Myths are not fraud. They are also not supposed to be taken literally. It is fiction with meaning and lessons.


    I do have a bias. A bias to what is true.
    You just took 2 archeologists and your counter argument was ......"they are wrong...."

    And then you dare talk about me having bias??




    Yeah, no, still weird. You are fine with scholars when you assumed they supported your beliefs but when they didn't you give a list of ways they are lying? That isn't even apologetics. It's just being dishonest.

    No there are also fossils? What is it about fossils you don't understand??? Heidlebergensis also has tools and such buried with them. They had a culture.


    Which thing is a lie? This is what you were responding to:

    I'm not putting forth my ideas. I find the Bible to a myth, violent, lacks spirituality, uses blood sacrifice, makes up a "sin-force" that everyone needs curing from or they cannot get into the afterlife. supports slavery, taking children/women as plunder, shuns freedom of religion and creates evangelical people who hate homosexuals and used to war with people not in their group before laws were put in place to prevent this.
    But I'm using scholarship to back up my ideas that these stories are taken from other cultures which shows they are not inspired by a God but written by people. The claims of people speaking to Gods are no different than Muhammad claiming to speak for God
    I'm not against "those who don't accept ideas". I'm putting forth evidence that helps show this religion is the same as all others. Not literal.
    I'm against false claims backed up by circular logic, fallacies, denial (see above), planned ignorance (all scholars are liers??) and indoctrination using mind games, double talk and psuedo-scientific apologetics.
    I would like to promote things that are true which is what evaluating evidence is for.


    You are NOT doing the "SAME THING" where the Bible is concerned. Your 2 rebuttals:
    1) entire field, all wrong
    2)next group - telling lies
    3)historian who's work I sourced = dog chewing bone

    but somehow now you claim you are just doing the same thing? Evaluating evidence, looking at historical facts in a non-bias way. No that is not what you are doing. What this is is how people fool themselves into believing things that are not true.


    So first I just gave my opinion because you asked why don't I go by my thoughts on the Bible. So that cannot be a lie because they are just my thoughts? So you are already wrong?

    Then I commented on how you are simply saying the scholars I source are wrong. Which you did do. Not only that but you STARTED THIS NEW POST WITH THE SAME THING. Calling William Denver and Carol Meyers wrong. No counter-argument, no anything. Just hand waving and covering your ears and shouting "wrong"?
    So there are actually no lies here?



    The point was the tactics you have been using (they are getting worse) could be used to show flat Earth is true.
    Just take all the science and say "Blatant lies", and "they didn't prove anything".

    So, dishonesty #2 (or is it #3?), pretending to be disgusted. Attempting to manipulate the conversation to try and get me to be a liar was a terrible try. It's dishonest and most definitely incorrect. This entire response is a big fail. Do you have any actual evidence you can present instead of weird manipulative rants?
     
    #239 joelr, May 26, 2021
    Last edited: May 26, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,181
    Ratings:
    +9,058
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So to sum up, your evidence basicly is "early christians / NT authors believed it"
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...