Spartan
Well-Known Member
The resurrection of Jesus is only dismissed out of having no sufficient evidence to support it.
Why don't you skeptics ever do your proper due-diligence? Read it.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The resurrection of Jesus is only dismissed out of having no sufficient evidence to support it.
The thin watery strand of accounts of unknown provenance?
If it were as good as you think there would not be so much
"dismissal".
If "god" were as real as you think, it might have left
a little better evidence trail
Attacking the integrity of people you dont know
is also a mighty thin strand on which to hang
your superiority.
So for dismisser and ignoramuses, you must be thinking
of creationists on the subjects of
deep geological time, and evolution!
For lo, the ignorance and avoidance of the vast body of solid
evidence is strong with all the True Believers.
Is not the disproof of the flood story also dismissed
out of ignorance and avoidance?*
Actually, the goddies go further than mere ignorance
and avoidance, as some of them actually have some
little education.
For those, an additional step is needed-intellectual dishonesty.
IF you happen to do any of the above, namely dismiss evolution,
deep time and no-flood, then you have zero to say about
the integrity of others.
*the less grounded among the creationists make up
some wild n wacky tales to explain how the data really
supports flood! My fav is that the water was wafted
to Neptune where you can see it shining to this day!
(it is now functioning as a warning beacon
against incoming rogue angels!).
Others settle for things like flash
frozen mammoths for flood-proof.
Must be something to be a member of a crew like that.
It's amazing the mountain of evidence for Jesus that you skeptics - in your folly - kick to the curb.
We just don't believe you.It's amazing the mountain of evidence for Jesus that you skeptics - in your folly - kick to the curb.
We just don't believe you.
I would not say moot but not important. From my understanding, people on higher planes of consciousness can do what are considered miracles. But that is not setting aside laws of the universe but instead using capabilities most don't have.That is nice and all, but it renders the religious concept of "miracle" moot.
Why don't you understand that not addressing my points by avoiding them and reposting your old points that's been dealt with, will not in any way make your argument any more valid. It didn't help your argument before, what makes you think those same points is going to help you this time?Why don't you skeptics ever do your proper due-diligence? Read it.
First, the proportion identifying as Christian is about 1/3, not 2/3. Don't get carried away.I'd be pleased if you can avoid the assumptions and ad homs. I studied Metzger extensively in college with a professor who adored him.
The "very substantial problems" claimed by academics in cushy armchairs (don't get me wrong, I know where they're coming from when I speak at academic panels, cushy chairs are lovely) have nothing to do with 2/3 of Earth now following and studying the Christ!
Why don't you understand that not addressing my points by avoiding them and reposting your old points that's been dealt with, will not in any way make your argument any more valid. It didn't help your argument before, what makes you think those same points is going to help you this time?
And as I recall, I knew and understood your own information better than you did. Only someone who doesn't study and fully understand their own sources of information would give evidence that help go against their own argument.
I'm familiar with a certain amount of the evidence.If you understood the Bible and the evidences presented you would be a Christian and not a skeptic.
Does it examine the evidence that there was an historical Jesus to be resurrected?Why don't you skeptics ever do your proper due-diligence? Read it.
If you had any evidence to refute my points then you would have done so already, but you don't, that's why you're avoiding them right now.If you understood the Bible and the evidences presented you would be a Christian and not a skeptic.
You might not think so, but what you just said is exactly what my point was about. Argument from absence of evidence.
That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Mandarin is the most spoken language, but that doesn't mean that it's the best, true, official and/or original language of humans.
How about using a religious example. Is Catholicism the one true denomination of Christianity?
Why don't you skeptics ever do your proper due-diligence? Read it.
If you had any evidence to refute my points then you would have done so already, but you don't, that's why you're avoiding them right now.
Answer this question, why are you not a Jew? If you can answer that then you would realize that you have nothing left after all your points got countered and is resorting to spewing out idiocracy. That's what happens when you don't know much about what you're trying to argue and don't fully understand it. When you're lacking in critical thinking and only know how to copy and paste what others wrote and post up links, you end up like you are right now, stumped because you can't come up with thoughts and ideas of your own.
Since you're in such a bad shape right now, I help you out with my question and give you a clue. But that doesn't mean that you won't need your brain to do some thinking.
Clue:
I understand English and understand the books I read that were written by Englishmen, but I myself am not an Englishman.
BTW, you don't have to understand the bible and the evidence presented, in order to become a Christian. You're living proof of that.
First, the proportion identifying as Christian is about 1/3, not 2/3. Don't get carried away.
Belief is a cultural phenomenon, and very largely taught to children with the conscious intention that they should believe. Belief in gods is almost never a voluntary act from a neutral but informed stance.
Of course, in the history of mankind there have been countless thousands, maybe millions, of divinities. Even that South American tribe who were hailed as a very rare example of a people without religious beliefs don't quite live up to their billing. It seems devising gods is something humans have evolved to do, perhaps because it's one of the factors, like having a common language and a common set of customs, stories, heroes, and so on, that reinforce tribal solidarity and cooperation, hence is beneficial to survival.
This would account for the hole in the middle of religion that I keep referring to ─ the insistence that God is real, but the absence of any definition of a real god such that we could tell whether any real person or thing is god or not. This goes hand in hand with the absence of any concept of 'godhood', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c &c, would lack. These are two more factors that compel the conclusion that gods and spirits exist only in the imagination of the individual.
So does the NT credibly record history? None of the NT's authors ever met an historical Jesus, nor does any claim to have done so. The starting point is that Mark is the only earthly bio of Jesus of any substance ─ Paul's Jesus is a demiurge with an earthly bio that fits in a couple of lines, and Matthew, Luke and John are Mark re-written to another's taste. And the author of Mark, in the midrash tradition, lets his fancy take flight as he moves his Jesus through a series of scenes based on passages from the Tanakh that seem to him able to serve as messianic prophecies. Therefore all of the miracles and many of the scenes are inventions, albeit of a traditional kind. Is there anything of history in it?
There are two possibilities. The author of Mark may have had stories about an historical person; and/or he may have had sayings attributed to that person. It may be true, for example that there was an historical Jesus and that he fought with his family and never spoke of his mother but to vituperate her (a point copied in various forms in the other gospels).
Or ─ since no historical Jesus is necessary to write a story based on episodes of the Tanakh ─ there may not have been a real person behind the reports, any more than there was a real Anu or Osiris or Zeus &c.
Note too that Mark's Jesus is born into an ordinary Jewish family without fanfare or angelic messengers, is not descended from David, has to have his sins washed off by JtB, and only then becomes the son of God in the same manner that David became the son of God in Psalm 2:7 (affirmed in Acts 13:33). The authors of Matthew and Luke have picked up the 'fulfillment of purported prophecy' ball and run away with it. They invent a virgin mother, fake genealogies to make their Jesuses a descendant of David, invent a reason to get Jesus' parents to Bethlehem ─ the alleged 'massacre of the innocents' by Herod is as fictitious as the rest ─ and in and out of Egypt and so on. Their Jesus has God's own Y-chromosome, so presumably half God's DNA. The Jesus of the author of Johnis born of a Jewish woman and is descended from David, but no details are given; he, like Paul's Jesus, is the demiurge, created in heaven by God and creating the material universe.
(And as for the Trinity, as I keep mentioning, each of the five Jesuses expressly denies that he's God.)
No doubt belief doesn't care much about the facts. But in my view it's always beneficial to get the facts as straight as possible.
I thought that belief was a matter of the Holy Spirit and not a matter of evidence.If you understood the Bible and the evidences presented you would be a Christian and not a skeptic.
So you understood my point. It was a fallacy.Is it an ad populum and appeal to authority when skeptics say, "academia doesn't believe in the Christ or miracles"?
So the true Scotsman fallacy.Your "majority Catholics equal Christianity" is not the same argument, by the way. A multiplicity of wrong doctrines "do X to be saved" does not invalidate true doctrine "trust Jesus to be saved". The issue you accused me of is "ALMOST EVERYONE IS THEISTIC."
1/3 of the earth may regard Jesus as their savior (or they may never have thought much about it). As for prophets, they're meeting after work for a glass or two in the Dumbledore Room down the corridor.I remain correct, 1/3 of Earth is Christian, 1/3 of Earth is MUSLIM and believes Jesus is the sinless prophet who is Lord over Judgment Day and Muhammed himself. I remain correct that you are an iconoclast (99% of Earth believes in the numinous, 99% of that 1% of skeptics trolls on forums).
Do they look incorrect? Or do you only mean that you're not comfortable reading words that don't accord with what you want to believe? If the former, then set out your objections and the evidence you rely on, and we can discuss them. If the latter, well, that's a matter for you, though perhaps not the best way to enlarge your understanding.Was this a question of yours? "So does the NT credibly record history?" Because the hundreds of words you wrote after sure look rhetorical to me (and incorrect).