Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? 23 of the 27 NT books are after Jesus died (not the 4 gospels), plus there are apocrypha, and accepting late liberal dates (post-70 AD) we have living witnesses who refused to counter-claim the alleged events of 30-33 AD (many converts in Israel).

The NT books for the most part barely mention the apostles after the crucifixion. A couple of stories in the Gospels which counts for nothing since they all end shortly after that time and some mentions of Peter. So even your highly questionable source is not of much use for that claim.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The NT books for the most part barely mention the apostles after the crucifixion. A couple of stories in the Gospels which counts for nothing since they all end shortly after that time and some mentions of Peter. So even your highly questionable source is not of much use for that claim.

I think you may have (through no fault of your own) conflated the original/primary 12 disciples of Jesus with apostles. An NT apostle saw the resurrected Christ (500 persons in Galilee alone). Every NT author in the 23 books, other than the 4 gospels, claims to have been an eyewitness of Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In Pagels book The Gnostic Gospels there are many accounts of Gnostic christians calling what the bishops were teaching (similar to current orthadox) as heretical and false.

"He denounces as especially "full of blasphemy" a famous gospel called the Gospel of Truth. Is Irenaeus referring to the same Gospel of Truth discovered at Nag Hammadi' Quispel and his collaborators, who first published the Gospel of Truth, argued that he is; one of their critics maintains that the opening line (which begins "The gospel of truth") is not a title. But Irenaeus does use the same source as at least one of the texts discovered at Nag Hammadi--the Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John--as ammunition for his own attack on such "heresy." Fifty years later Hippolytus, a teacher in Rome, wrote another massive Refutation of All Heresies to "expose and refute the wicked blasphemy of the heretics."
This campaign against heresy involved an involuntary admission of its persuasive power; yet the bishops prevailed."
Excerpt from: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels -- The Nag Hammadi Library


There was eventually a blackout period where all counter evidence was destroyed. Pagelas touches on this from the Gnostic perspective in an interview:
I would say that in the early Christian movement, many different groups claimed to have the best possible understanding of Jesus. And one of those groups which was widely consolidated and widely spread prevailed over the others. You can give it that kind of very negative read, and some of us may agree about that. But they were, from their point of view, trying to salvage the church as they saw it.

Q: Why was the church afraid of the Gnostic Gospels?

A: The people who disliked these other Gospels included leaders such as Bishop Athanasius, who was very much concerned about establishing his authority over all the monks in Egypt.

Q: And who ordered them burned?

A: Right. These books were treasured in one of the oldest monasteries in Egypt by monks who saw them as guides to spiritual development. There are monks today who see them that way, as well. But the bishop, who wanted authority consolidated in himself, told them, “Get rid of all those books. You don’t need all those books. All you need are the ones that I will mention now.” He mentions a list, which is our first list of the 27 books of the New Testament. He told them, “Get rid of your library, and just keep these.”

Q: Do you think that belief in Jesus as God has been overemphasized in Christianity?

A: I think it has. Christianity as we know it is almost defined as belief in Jesus as God. What we lose when we see it that way [are] many other perspectives. The Gospel of Mark doesn’t picture Jesus as God. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t picture Jesus as God. Matthew pictures Jesus as a rabbi, as a new Moses who teaches the divine Torah — “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.” In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says to people, “Do not call me good. There’s only one who is good, and that is God.” The Gospel of Matthew does not suggest that Jesus is in any way God. It is a much more traditionally Jewish book which speaks about love of God and love of the neighbor as the essential devotion of any person.
October 10, 2003 ~ Elaine Pagels Extended Interview | October 10, 2003 | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | PBS

But Richard Carrier often mentions the "blackout" period were we have no information from detractors because this material was not allowed. The only reason the Nag Hamanndi fragments were found was because they were deeply hidden in a cave.
Once Rome took over counter examples were punished by death.

You are doing (or letting Carrier do for you, unfortunately) several things:

1) Ignoring the 27 NT texts themselves, which contain warnings about pseudopigrapha!

2) Misunderstanding what a "counter document" is to me--a document that is a GOSPEL that says the divine Jesus did miracles is NOT a counter-claim to the NT basic claims!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Outside of the NT there are no non-Christian writings at all in the first century that make comment either way, so what do you know about Jewish converts?

All scholars agree that were separations between pacifist Jewish Christian converts and non-Christian Jews by 70 and again sharply after 110 AD. They existed in large numbers.

I'm surprised, though, that you would consider, for example, Flavius Josephus a Christian? He was a non-Christian Jew.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you may have (through no fault of your own) conflated the original/primary 12 disciples of Jesus with apostles. An NT apostle saw the resurrected Christ (500 persons in Galilee alone). Every NT author in the 23 books, other than the 4 gospels, claims to have been an eyewitness of Christ.

No no no, when you write something so ignorant as to claim that every author claims to have been an eyewitness you forgot that the most prolific author did not make that claim. In fact he was quite open that he was not an eyewitness. Amazing.

 

[lukethethird]

All scholars agree that were separations between pacifist Jewish Christian converts and non-Christian Jews by 70 and again sharply after 110 AD. They existed in large numbers.

I'm surprised, though, that you would consider, for example, Flavius Josephus a Christian? He was a non-Christian Jew.

The ramblings of Jesus Christ in the Antiquities of the Jews are that of a devoted Christian, therefore a rank forgery.

The separations forming become apparent by reading the gospels, obviously there were skeptics from the very beginnings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No no no, when you write something so ignorant as to claim that every author claims to have been an eyewitness you forgot that the most prolific author did not make that claim. In fact he was quite open that he was not an eyewitness. Amazing.

What are you saying here? If by "most prolific" in the NT you mean Paul, he explains in the NT that those with him heard and noise and were struck down but that He spoke to Jesus in person there and also--in Heaven! Paul was obviously not an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry but he fulfilled the apostolic requirement to have seen THE RISEN CHRIST.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The ramblings of Jesus Christ in the Antiquities of the Jews are that of a devoted Christian, therefore a rank forgery.

The separations forming become apparent by reading the gospels, obviously there were skeptics from the very beginnings.

"Ramblings" is a strong word, do you have an example? For being scholarly minded and not a die-hard skeptic, I've noticed many times that scholars debate whether Josephus was a Christian or NOT, you know, not assuming anything..."

Of course, liberal scholars CANNOT accept Josephus as an impartial historian or the Christian comments as ANYTHING but a later interpolation, or they might suddenly--oh no!--convert!

This comment of yours, by the way, is of course wholly inappropriate: "...that of a devoted Christian, therefore a rank forgery..."

How dare you? There are many thousands of devoted Christian scholars who've spoken truth and for millennia! It's beneath us both for me to have to mention Pascal, or Galileo, or Lavoisier, or George Washington Carver. You dare, sir?

 

[Audie]

The ramblings of Jesus Christ in the Antiquities of the Jews are that of a devoted Christian, therefore a rank forgery.

The separations forming become apparent by reading the gospels, obviously there were skeptics from the very beginnings.

Skeptics as in automatically wrong, or as in the majority
of Americans who were disinclined to believe Joseph
Smith had actually found gold books (book of mormon)?

"Skeptics from the start" you might call them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you saying here? If by "most prolific" in the NT you mean Paul, he explains in the NT that those with him heard and noise and were struck down but that He spoke to Jesus in person there and also--in Heaven! Paul was obviously not an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry but he fulfilled the apostolic requirement to have seen THE RISEN CHRIST.

All that Paul could do was to claim that others heard a noise. That "vision" is not an example of eyewitness testimony. Try it in court some time. Even if one can get one's friends to come to court and say "Yeah we heard something weird but did not understand it" that would not make the vision an eyewitness account. And you do realize that in one of the stories of this it says that those accompanying him did not hear a noise. Acts 9 and 22 disagree with each other. When a story changes it is even worse than not having witnesses. It makes the entire story suspect.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All that Paul could do was to claim that others heard a noise. That "vision" is not an example of eyewitness testimony. Try it in court some time. Even if one can get one's friends to come to court and say "Yeah we heard something weird but did not understand it" that would not make the vision an eyewitness account. And you do realize that in one of the stories of this it says that those accompanying him did not hear a noise. Acts 9 and 22 disagree with each other. When a story changes it is even worse than not having witnesses. It makes the entire story suspect.

I'm aware of the supposed contradictions with the Damascus accounts. OF COURSE, you ducked the other account given of Paul in HEAVEN.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm aware of the supposed contradictions with the Damascus accounts. OF COURSE, you ducked the other account given of Paul in HEAVEN.

Don't give me this "supposed" BS and then make a false claim about dodging.

And what other "account". It appears that you are misusing terminology again. b

 

[lukethethird]

Skeptics as in automatically wrong, or as in the majority
of Americans who were disinclined to believe Joseph
Smith had actually found gold books (book of mormon)?

"Skeptics from the start" you might call them.

There are verses in the NT about unbelievers, how they will be judged and dealt with, so yes, there is evidence of skepticism from the start.

 

[lukethethird]

"Ramblings" is a strong word, do you have an example? For being scholarly minded and not a die-hard skeptic, I've noticed many times that scholars debate whether Josephus was a Christian or NOT, you know, not assuming anything..."

Of course, liberal scholars CANNOT accept Josephus as an impartial historian or the Christian comments as ANYTHING but a later interpolation, or they might suddenly--oh no!--convert!

This comment of yours, by the way, is of course wholly inappropriate: "...that of a devoted Christian, therefore a rank forgery..."

How dare you? There are many thousands of devoted Christian scholars who've spoken truth and for millennia! It's beneath us both for me to have to mention Pascal, or Galileo, or Lavoisier, or George Washington Carver. You dare, sir?

Josephus was a Jew, therefor the ramblings about Christ in Antiquities of the Jews was a rank forgery.

Again, what do you know about Jewish converts in the first century?

 

[tas8831]

1) There are more document writers of Jesus than of Caesar, by far.

Contemporary ones?

I sincerely doubt that.
In fact, I do not believe it at all.

4) Therefore, although you took my enzyme comments far out of context,

Well, here they are - do tell me how I took them out of context or retract your accusation:


A simple case for intelligent design

A study concluded that the cecal appendix evolved independently at least 32 separate times in mammals. What happens to statistical odds raised to the 32nd power? And what filters reduce these odds?

* The filter to store unneeded gut bacteria in the appendix until needed
* The filter to build the appendix as a rarefied storage unit
* The filter to have the enzymes and other catalysts to release the bacteria, etc. times about 30 other things we can think of from a medical/endocrine/biology perspective, raised to the 32nd power for 32 independent evolutionary changes​

"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

1) Bacteria are not fluids and do not need new systems moving/catalyzing--unless you believe they are antecedents in lines of descent to higher forms.

2) I used the word enzyme or enzymatic action in terms of bacteria are released by cecal appendices in animals based on trigger factors, we have the same issues with complexity as always, including survivability during evolution of organ, survivability of species through generations as needed appendix evolved, linkage to cell and neurological systems that prompt appendix to act, recognition of condition for appendix to act, etc. with each system of linkage multiplying the total complexity by an order of magnitude.

3) You do NOT need to learn more about this movement and catalysis--you are being rhetorical--you understand both biology and modern evolutionary theory, however, in the case of a cecal appendix evolving in 40 different lines of descent--40 lines of descent where there was survival and enhanced, complex function, than 40 evolutions of an organ into a system, than 40 cases of vestigial organs, etc. I find it unlikely and "awkward" given mechanistic evolution. I further was allowing flexibility in my abiogenesis assumptions/gedanken by acknowledging that theoretical self--replicating proto-bionts are an intermediate step. This is called "attempting to see the other side," something you might try sometime.
​

I cannot wait to see how you will flail and fail rather than admit your error. I mean, it is clear that you do not know what enzymes do, or how bacterial colonize the gut, etc.

I WILL respond when you tell me the etymological derivation of "Social Darwinism" - hint - Google.

Why would I do that?

Why do you still think that is an argument against evolution?

And if you do NOT think that 'social darwinism' is an argument against evolution in some way, why do you keep bringing it up?

And why do you think that I am a hypocrite for being against the bible condoning slavery and also eating eggs?

 

[tas8831]

Some are fake, some aren't. But your knee-jerk conclusion assumes they're all fake, and you're a full quart low on evidence to make them all go away.

Since so many ARE fake, and those claimed not to be fake sure look like the fake ones, I am not the one that needs some actual evidence.

 

[Audie]

There are verses in the NT about unbelievers, how they will be judged and dealt with, so yes, there is evidence of skepticism from the start.

A little skepticism might have kept a few people from being
Mormons, or going to "Heaven's Gate" or drinking the kool aid.

If you believe the bible is inerrant, that the earth was created
in 6 days, that there is a world wide flood and all of that
I would say you could use a healthy dose of skepticism.
As in mental health, sanity.


Threats from a book like that, designed to scare and
hold the gullible do not impress me, any more than I
am by "allahs" threat to hang me by my hair in eternal
fire for the sin of going about with my hair uncovered.

islamic hell - Google Search

 

[Audie]

Since so many ARE fake, and those claimed not to be fake sure look like the fake ones, I am not the one that needs some actual evidence.

ha. call it a tank of gas, four tyres, an engine and some doors
short of getting that junker of his going.

 

[lukethethird]

A little skepticism might have kept a few people from being
Mormons, or going to "Heaven's Gate" or drinking the kool aid.

If you believe the bible is inerrant, that the earth was created
in 6 days, that there is a world wide flood and all of that
I would say you could use a healthy dose of skepticism.
As in mental health, sanity.


Threats from a book like that, designed to scare and
hold the gullible do not impress me, any more than I
am by "allahs" threat to hang me by my hair in eternal
fire for the sin of going about with my hair uncovered.

islamic hell - Google Search

True, a little skepticism can go a long way.

 

[Audie]

True, a little skepticism can go a long way.

Good, some agreement on principles.
Do you ever apply skepticism to claims made
in the bible?