• 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!

The Resurrection is it provable?

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You only think it's trivial because you refuse to recognize the fundamental importance of it. You bias against religion is blinding you to a very simple and obvious truth. Just as the bias of some religionists do the same to them.
So anyone who doesn't share your position on this is biased?

You may want to think about that rationale, or not, your call of course...
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
In John's gospel these people were there.
John 20:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
This is what we are given concerning the death of Jesus. The soldiers made sure He had died and the signs of the blood and water indicate death.
John 20:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”
They did not see Him wake up later, but they knew He died and saw Him up and well 3 days later. It is not that He was hobbling around or had bandages all over Him to help heal the wounds.
Then after making all this up, they began to teach it to the Jews and the whole world even though they were persecuted.
Is this verified anywhere else? No one was around in the other stories IIRC.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Because the truth doesn't care what we believe about God or religion. It just is. And in this instance it's a very important and life-saving truth.
Which truth is this, and HOW MUCH objective evidence can you demonstrate to support it, if any? Also how can truth care about anything?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But Christ IS within us and among us, and anyone can see that for themselves if they understand what Christ is, and they are willing to look.

Is this what you meant about pitying others for not having enough imagination? I find no value in such thinking. You attribute that to some cognitive defect caused by what you call materialism and scientism, but I attribute it to the idea having no value to me whatever my other beliefs might be. How do I know? From experience.

Like the idea of the man my father was is still with me, and in me, though my father is no longer here. He has passed away.

I understand that, but I don't confuse his memory with him, the map with the terrain. When he was alive, he was part of the terrain and on your map of it, but no longer.

The thing to understand is that Christ is an ideology about a way of being

Not according to Christians. Not according to Christians posting on this thread. He's a literal being, and the only way to get to heaven.

This is what the "resurrection" part of the story of Jesus represents.

To you, not to Christians. But if we're free to ad lib about what these things symbolize, I'm letting the resurrection stand for the return to reason and the kind of secular thought represented by the ancients such as Euclid and the ancient Greek philosophers, who dared to speculate that the world was made of water or it most basic principle was change. The ancients discarded the idea of received wisdom and engaged in speculation. The rejected the idea of the natural phenomena representing the caprice of gods. Then that died, as man lapsed into the abyss of faith, and with it, the Dark Ages. But about a millennium later, reason was resurrected, or "born again" (French renaissance) followed by the Enlightenment.

Next time, I can tell you what God symbolizes. Hint: an asymptote for humanity in human evolution.

You only think it's trivial because you refuse to recognize the fundamental importance of it. You bias against religion is blinding you to a very simple and obvious truth. Just as the bias of some religionists do the same to them. And that is sad. Because the truth doesn't care what we believe about God or religion. It just is. And in this instance it's a very important and life-saving truth.

I'll tell you here again what I've told you a half dozen times already when you've made other vague, sweeping claims like this one, but never have a single illustration of what makes such things "very important," "life-saving," or "truth." Where's the meat?

I wanted to share some doodles I did while sitting through a boring seminar 20 years ago when you and I were discussing atheists lack of imagination, since my wife just found them on an old (corrupted) CD, because I know that you're an artist of some sort (painter? sketcher? sculptor?), but I couldn't figure out how to upload them without my wife's help (she's the IT half of this relationship), and she was out of the house. I wanted to show you what kinds of things I imagine at times, and have since grade school. Isn't this the kind of thing that boys think about? I hope you like them even if you find them off-putting. The colorful stripes are now part of the composition courtesy of an acquired defect in the disc.


monsters.jpg
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
1. You said Eusebius agrees with "this". Why do you agree with Eusebius on that? Do you agree with everything he says or do you pick and choose what you like? What is your criteria?

2. What are the "Much More" evidences and what are they?
There are a multiplicity of reasons why one accepts 1 Peter. Googling support can be found without a problem...

Bible Introductions - 1 Peter by John MacArthur
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Is this what you meant about pitying others for not having enough imagination?
No. I pity them for not understanding that the imagination that they are so desperate to dismiss as meaningless nonsense is what makes them human, and even what makes them a materialist. It makes them who and what they are.
I find no value in such thinking. You attribute that to some cognitive defect caused by what you call materialism and scientism, but I attribute it to the idea having no value to me whatever my other beliefs might be. How do I know? From experience.
You imagine that it has no value, and therefor it has no value to you. And that's just sad. All you did was trap yourself in your own bias.
I understand that, but I don't confuse his memory with him, the map with the terrain. When he was alive, he was part of the terrain and on your map of it, but no longer.
So what? The person he was, and the person that mattered was not his physical body. It was the idea of him in the minds of those that knew him, and experienced knowing him. And that "him" is still with us, and in us. The experience of him no longer grows and changes, because we can no longer interact with him on a physical level. But still, "he" does remain, and so does the effect of him. Though it diminishes over time.

It's the reason I find materialism such a shallow and pathetic philosophy. To the materialist, a man is just a biologically programmed body, gone when the body dies and the program stops running. His identity that exists within the rest of us, of him, is just silly "make-believe" to the materialist. What an artless, heartless, way to look at human existence.
Not according to Christians. Not according to Christians posting on this thread. He's a literal being, and the only way to get to heaven.
If you want to go fight with these "believers", that's your choice. But by now you should have realized your just going to be tilting at other people's dragon-windmills.
To you, not to Christians.
I am a Christian. Just not a religious / magic believing Christian.
But if we're free to ad lib about what these things symbolize, I'm letting the resurrection stand for the return to reason and the kind of secular thought represented by the ancients such as Euclid and the ancient Greek philosophers, who dared to speculate that the world was made of water or it most basic principle was change. The ancients discarded the idea of received wisdom and engaged in speculation. The rejected the idea of the natural phenomena representing the caprice of gods. Then that died, as man lapsed into the abyss of faith, and with it, the Dark Ages. But about a millennium later, reason was resurrected, or "born again" (French renaissance) followed by the Enlightenment.
Sure, so now you are your own god. Except that you aren't, of course. But if that's the delusion you want to chase after, so be it.
Next time, I can tell you what God symbolizes. Hint: an asymptote for humanity in human evolution.
I find it humorous that you are annoyed by the fact we humans get to conceptualize God however it makes sense for us to do it. Just because you can't negate a God that morphs to fit every personality.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There are people who claim TFG won the 2020 election and even though they were there, he didn’t.

There are people who say Thomas Jefferson wrote much of the Constitution but "There are people who claim TFG won the 2020 election and even though they were there," so he didn’t." :cool:
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That might be a good point except that it was not the disciples who wrote but the anonymous authors after the passing of the original apostles, and still no 'return' of Jesus.
I don't agree... it is today's "scholars" who say they are anonymous.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I pity them for not understanding that the imagination that they are so desperate to dismiss as meaningless nonsense is what makes them human

You don't understand the humanist mind at all. You keep making the same mistake.

You imagine that it has no value, and therefor it has no value to you. And that's just sad. All you did was trap yourself in your own bias.

I'd say that the reverse applied to you is more correct. You imagine value where there is none even for you. I've asked you countless times what this value is, but you have no answer, just platitudes about humanness with a poor understanding of the humanity of the people you see as empty and who you condescendingly pity for it.

To the materialist, a man is just a biologically programmed body, gone when the body dies and the program stops running. His identity that exists within the rest of us, of him, is just silly "make-believe" to the materialist. What an artless, heartless, way to look at human existence.

Here's more Roombaism. Empiricists are so shallow and empty, while lotus eaters are so deep and "human."

so now you are your own god.

Nobody else is. Does it bother you that I don't worship a god?

I find it humorous that you are annoyed by the fact we humans get to conceptualize God however it makes sense for us to do it.

I don't care what you believe about gods. Why did you think otherwise? I've never tried to talk you out of your beliefs, and in fact, have told you explicitly that I wouldn't if I could. It would be cruel. What I've told you is that there is no value there for me.

What I object to is you validating yourself on the backs of others who don't need a god belief with condescension and an offensive, mean-spirited depiction of atheists, misunderstanding who you demean and implying that they are less human than you for not having your needs. Go pity somebody else. Or pity yourself for having that need and allowing it to manifest as you do. It's very unflattering to you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
:) Yes, Seriously...

I'll give you a head start:
The Authenticity of the New Testament Documents
So a nonscholar that bases his claims on what he says an outdated and refuted professor said. Not very convincing. There was nothing in there about why it is was thought that the Gospels were written by the people whose names that they bore. All that you had was an appeal to authority but no rational argument in that article.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I disagree. The question is 'which' John is meant.
But those verses are not a case of John naming himself. It is at best only John hinting heavily that he did write it. And of course of all of the Gospels that one is least likely to have been written by the one that it is name for.
 
Top