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 The most all inclusive narrative of the resurrection ever:

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Subduction Zone, May 14, 2018.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    WITNESSES EXPLAIN THE MOST MOMENTOUS EVENT IN HISTORY
    (By Unknown Genius On The Internet)
    Mary: Well, the other Mary and I (Matthew 28.1) were the first to go down to the cave where somebody said they’d put the body.
    Salome: I was there too, don’t forget (Mark 16.1)
    Mary: Were you? I don’t remember that.
    Salome: Bloody was, I’m telling you. So were a bunch of others (Luke 24.10).
    Mary: Anyway, we got there and the entrance stone had been rolled away (Mark 16.4).
    Peter: Wait a minute… I thought you said that happened after you got there. I thought you said there was an earthquake nobody else could feel and an angel came and rolled away the stone in front of your very eyes (Matt 28.2).
    Mary: Did I? Oh yes, that’s right. That’s what happened. And the guards fainted out of sheer fright (Matt 28.4)
    Thomas: They did? You didn’t mention any guards the first time you told this story (Mark 16.4).
    Mary: Didn’t I? I must’ve forgotten. Oh well. And there was this strange young man sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16.5).
    Salome: There were two young men and they were standing outside (Luke 24.4).
    Mary: Really? I saw only one and he was definitely inside.
    Peter: It wasn’t a young man, it was an angel (Mark 28.5).
    Mary: Angel? Oh yes, I suppose you’re right. It must have been an angel. And he said the Master wasn’t there, that he’d risen. (Matt 28.7).
    John: That’s funny, I don’t remember anyone being there at this point. I certainly don’t remember anybody speaking to us (John 20.4-5).
    Mary: That’s strange, because the young man in the tomb definitely spoke to me.
    Salome: And the two men outside the tomb spoke to me.
    Peter: And the angel … don’t forget the angel.
    Thomas: So what happened then?
    Mary: We were so frightened, we just ran away.
    Thomas: You ran away? And then what?
    Mary: Nothing. We said nothing to anybody (Mark 16.8).
    Thomas: You said nothing to anybody. Then how did Peter find out? ‘Cos’ the next thing he was running hell for leather to the garden to see this empty cave for himself.
    Peter: Oh, she must’ve told me. Yes, that was it, she said something to me and some of the others (Luke 24.10).
    Mary: Erm, yes, that’s right. I told Peter and he went to see the empty tomb.
    Peter. Ran all the way on my own, I did (Luke 24.12).
    John: No, you didn’t. I went with you. In fact I overtook you and got there first (John 20.3-6).
    Peter: Did you? I don’t remember that. Are you sure you haven’t just added yourself in here?
    John: So anyway, we ran to the tomb…
    Peter: And we see that the body has gone. I’m telling you, we couldn’t work out what had happened (John 20.9).
    John: Though the most logical explanation seemed to be that he’d risen from the dead. I mean nothing else made sense (John 20.8).
    Mary: It’s a shame you didn’t see the young man/men/angel. They’d have spelled it out for you like they did for us.
    John: Don’t worry, we’ll bring them into the story later and we’ll have two angels for good measure. (John 20.12).
    Mary: So while I was waiting there alone…
    Thomas: Wait, you were there alone? I thought you said you ran away with the other women (Mark 16.8)?
    Mary: Yes, that’s right, I did. I must’ve gone back later (John 20.11) and suddenly I saw this, like, apparition. At first, I thought it was the gardener…
    Thomas: You mean you didn’t know who it was?
    Mary: No, I didn’t, which I agree was a bit odd, but then I realized it must be him, the Master, I mean. Who else could it have been?
    Thomas: Well, if it was anyone at all, I’d have thought it more likely it was the gardener than a body back from the dead.
    Mary: I suppose, but it just felt like the Master to me. I so wanted to see him again.
    Thomas: Did he have holes in his hands and a wound in his side (John 20.27)? Surely that would’ve told you it was him.
    Mary: I can’t recall now. But anyway, it was him.
    Thomas: How’d you know?
    Mary: ‘Cos’ he spoke to me. He said, ‘Keep your hands off me, woman, because I’ve not yet… ascended’ (John 20.17, 20).
    Thomas: What did that mean? If he was back like you said then how come you couldn’t touch him?
    Mary: Well, I don’t know, you’d have to ask him.
    Thomas: And how we gonna do that, him being dead and all?
    Mary: He’s not dead, I tell you, and you’re all just jealous ‘cos I did better than all of you. I saw him in person and he talked to me!
    Peter: All of you, just stop a minute and listen. Can you hear it?
    Thomas: No.
    Peter: Can you feel it?
    Mary: Yes, I can. I can sense his presence (Luke 24.36-37).
    John: He’s here with us. He’s back. Hallelujah!
    Mary: It’s as if he’s standing right in front of us, talking to us.
    John: Yes, that’s exactly what it’s like. He’s here with us. I can feel him. He’s back from the dead, I’m sure of it (John 20.19).
    Peter: Let’s tell people we’ve seen him. They’re bound to believe us. I mean, we don’t live in a superstitious first-century backwater village for nothing.
    Thomas: Jesus Christ! Next you’ll be trying to convince everyone that this story is actually true.

    Witnesses Explain the Most Momentous Event in History
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  2. InChrist

    InChrist Free4ever

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,913
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    Do not be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap. Galatians 6:7
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Since the Bible invites mockery does that not tell you that it is not the "word of God"?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Yet ironically it is the Christians here that hate knowledge more than the atheists. You seem to be striking out here with your quote mining.

    What was inaccurate about the OP, if anything?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,933
    Ratings:
    +2,944
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The OP is a serious crit of the four conflicting gospel accounts of the resurrection, and there are two others, in Paul (1 Corinthians 15) and in Acts 1. All six differ from the other five in major and irreconcilable ways.

    And that's only part of the problem. None of the accounts is an eye-witness account, or claims to be.

    If we take the crucifixion to be an historical event, then there's a conventional view that it happened in 30 or 33 CE, so the earliest account, Paul's, is at least 20 years after the event, Mark's is at least 42 years, Matthew's, at least 47 years, Luke's about the same, Acts not less than 61 years and John mebbe 67 years. So the closest thing we have to a contemporary account is Paul's, who never met Jesus, twenty years on.

    And none of the accounts is an independent account.

    Compare this video of a miracle (begins at 2:48), a statue of Ganesha drinking milk. Do you believe it's a miracle? I don't. But as evidence it's light years ahead of the quality of evidence for the resurrection.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    Or to paraphrase what I complain about with certain religious types " I own a necklace with stones I am an expert in geology and let me tell you all about it".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    Is it possible that the text is actually is reflective not informative? A bit like trying to shoe horn a poem into an explanation.
     
  8. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    The story is art and poetry not unlike lyrics of music.
     
  9. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,933
    Ratings:
    +2,944
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    If it's a poem, a story, an emotional expression rather than a factual expression, then it doesn't have to be historically true to be effective, any more than a myth does.

    But at Easter, all I hear is the resurrection asserted as historical fact, a claim which in my view is simply not available for a variety of reasons, not least the evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,989
    Ratings:
    +3,462
    short report of a real account

    some guy spent 14yrs behind bars
    finally gets a good lawyer

    invites the judge to the scene of the event
    on a night when the moon and street lights are similar to the event

    a car drives by .....and within a few feet of the judge
    someone makes a gesture out the window as if a drive by shooter

    the judge is then questioned if he might identify that pretend shooter in line up

    no

    the witness that sent the guy to jail was much further way

    after 14yrs of incarceration
    the alleged 'shooter' goes free

    might not seem relavent
    but think about it
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So you are saying that the biblical account probably has nothing to do with reality?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Perhaps. And it appears that we have another confirmation that the Bible has little to do with reality.
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Perhaps. And it appears that we have another confirmation that the Bible has little to do with reality.
     
  14. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    20,933
    Ratings:
    +13,212
    Religion:
    None
    The Bible has a lot to do with reality. The reality of 1st century Judea.

    But modern USA? Not much. You just cannot square personal liberty or laissez faire capitalism or representative government with Scripture.
    Tom
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    It doesn't belong as a science narrAtive it never was and really a lot of it is horrid philosophy over a long span.

    The catch with the story is that it's archetype into Human experience. That's not going to be explainable scientifically and certainly scientizing the text moves further from the story not closer to it.

    A topic can be true and totally not understood. A lot of that going on in religion for sure. But science is not exempt from that exact same phenomena. Scientific American recently in an article said "the deepest mysteries today in science is the human brain and the cosmos". Which is true. But to paraphrase that correctly " the two deepest mysteries today in science are our selves and the world around us".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    A bit like saying women are irrelevant to sex.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,629
    Ratings:
    +16,785
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Not really. Except for the bits of the Bible that are roughly historic what validity does it have?
     
  18. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,933
    Ratings:
    +2,944
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The resurrection is 'horrid philosophy'? But there three resurrection stories in the Tanakh ─ four if you count Samuel's ghost talking to Saul ─ and two more + Jesus + Matthew's zombies, in the NT. Osiris, Dionusos, Herakles, all were resurrected, and the ancient world was overflowing with resurrection tales. What's the 'horrid philosophy' you speak of?
    My concern is not with it as a story (any more than the other resurrection stories). My concern is its assertion as historical fact, in my view a wholly untenable claim.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  19. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    Well as an evolutionist very valid.

    I believe, I don't believe, I am agnostic are irrelevant in context to nature or God or cosmos. So I might say I believe, I don't believe, I am agnostic have a shared common irrelevant view arguing who's irrelevant view is correct seromantically.

    Now you can counter that the believers are relevant to the text. You seemed to have confused the believers with the text. Just as the believers have confused themselves with the text. Apparently you agree with them in that confusion.

    So a nice semantic tree is here... and I will follow with a Darwin tree. Same tree. Or is that confusing?
    Well it is historical fact actually but in a much larger way than in a small room with people with way too much time on their hands and far to many books and capacity to write and not much understanding.

    Example of lack of understanding

    how does a heretic who is executed develop a religion around himself and the followers eventually then begin to execute people for being heretics? That actually makes no sense at all. At face value.

    That's more interesting to me than the symptom, the resurrection is literal. We can discuss the symptom, what's the causality? The symptom is not the causality.
     
  20. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    Exactly like it. I am an evolutionist. I had no idea how dense geologists could be!!!

    I have the worst degree in the world for application to the bible it's called theology. but its A fantastic psych tool for understanding intellectual development over thousands of years. Because like biology human thought is in fact singular and interconnected. Or as a scientist would you like some magic gaps here? No gaps how hard is this concept?

    There isn't such a thing as a magical objective platform for the intellect to stand upon observe objectively itself and the natural world around it, no matter how many books it creates or how often it changes it's opinions.

    The " I am now the opinion of today and obviously it determines the future, thus your opinion of yesterday is invalid to my opinion of today which is well all of tomorrow."

    That's a parroted meme just behaviourally repeated throughout history. Stand in the bronze age and your claiming the copper age are idiots. Stand in the copper age and claiming the stone age are idiots. It's a repeating statement. Like a dog barking at movement.

    Biologically we are the idiots and the one making the claims at historical stupidity at the same time... you can't separate the past from the present and understand evolution at the same time. Impossible. Your statements fly in the face of evolution bad science.
     
    #20 David T, May 15, 2018
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
Loading...