Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It knows past future and across any space it can possibly reside in.

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does it know about the past and future?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What ‘evidence’ is there for the mind surviving bodily death? None!

As mentioned previously, the law of identity..and being the bright man that you are, consider the law of identity and tie that together with mind/body dualism, and the case is made.

And as far as I’m concerned there is no evidence for consciousness coming from non-consciousness either

I refuse to get suckered in to this nonsense.

Question begging!

I don't see what is question begging about me basically claiming that "there could exist a being with the power to raise people from the dead".

‘In this life’ means the same mortal life described in the Bible in which we are expected to believe the deceased came back from the dead.

And?

No it’s not necessarily true, of course it isn’t. For many religious people their faith is not beyond question and they work continuously to justify their beliefs to themselves. Believers, like unbelievers, come from all walks of life and neither side has the monopoly on intelligence and knowledge. But with very few exceptions the faith is prior to the reasoning, although the believers’ reasoning will to be tuned to accommodate the teaching or elements of the preferred doctrine or belief system. So my argument is that belief in God together with the allegiance to a particular faith is learned and established mostly in the formative years, facilitated by a predisposition; in other words this faith does not come about only after weighing probabilities on the balance of reason. It is, with respect, founded on dogmatism.

But all of that is irrelevant though, cot. My continued belief in God has stemmed from arguments that have been used for centuries. The arguments help corroborate any and all presuppositions that I had before I even knew such arguments existenced.

And arguments aside...in order for me to NOT believe in God, I would have to believe that life came from nonlife, that consciousness came from unconciousness, that intelligence came from nonintelligence, that sight came from a blind process, and that language came from non-speech (process)....

That we get a complex digestive system from something that didn't know what food or energy is...that we get an immune system from something that didn't know what disease or virus is...that we get a circulatory system from something that didn't know what blood or veins are....that we get sight from something that didn't know what vision is.

If God doesn't exist, I would have to believe that a mindless and blind process somehow orchestrated all of this specified complexity, and I am sorry, I just can't get myself to believe that. As I grew older, it made more sense to me that intelligent design is more plausible than naturalism..it just makes more sense.

So is your argument is ‘God exists therefore talking donkeys, a woman being turned into salt, and humans living to be 600 years of age is credible.’?

My argument is; If God exists, then talking donkeys, a woman being turned into salt, and humans living to be 600 years old is credible. I really don't see what the big deal is about this, cot...the hypothesis is that God exists...that is the hypothesis throughout the bible, which is where these specific cases in question are derived from.

If so then again you are beginning with the answer

If God exists he can perform miracles
The Resurrection was a miracle.
The Resurrection is therefore true
Thus God exists and he can do miracles

So which premise is false? A case can be made for each premise, certainly #1.

In some ways the Resurrection itself almost has an air of disinterestedness and a genuine search for the truth about it. There is nothing particularly fantastic in the account; there are no supposed witnesses to an invisible force that effortlessly rolled back the huge stone that closed off the tomb, and no mention, for example, of angels appearing to bear Jesus up to heaven followed by his reappearance in a brilliant flash of white light, or some such thing. In fact the entire matter proceeds lawyerly-like on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But then there is Matthew’s testimony, the saints leaving their graves and strolling into the city, a momentous event by any standards, but not supported by any circumstantial or anecdotal evidence, which is remarkable. His account is sensational but spoken in a very flippant way, devoid of detail, and just given to impress and convince the readership in my view. And if we can doubt his testimony on a matter such as this, the dead coming to life, then why should we accept the central premise of his testimony which is that Jesus was resurrected?

Ok, so let me ask you this; if Matthew recorded a detailed account of the resurrection of the holy men from their tombs, and recorded the account of many people that believed because of this...would you become a Christian? In order words, what would that do for you?

 

[viole]

Ok, so using Cantor's work...explain to me how long it will take you to travel an infinite distance...if a zillion dollars was in a huge brief case waiting for you to retrieve, and it is an infinite distance away from your current location, and you began to walk....using whatever equation or formula you want, explain to me how long it will take you to get there, and what finite point would complete the journey...I will wait.

Simple. An infinite amount of time. What is the problem?

I believe the space in the universe is finite, yes.

I did not ask you about space extension. I asked how many points in space we can count. Is there a minimal distance I can travel?

That is to assume that all possible state of affairs is a sum total of infinity, and I doubt this is the case.

Ok. But then all state of affairs are bound to repeat themselves for all eternity. It could be, but it looks rather boring.

God knows all true propositions, and if we don't assume there is an infinite number of propositions to know, then your question is pointless.

Do you think there a finite amount of true propositions?

I don't believe there will be free will in heaven.

Fair enough. This raises a whole lot of theological questions that might deserve a separate thread.

Last I checked, practically every historical event that historians care about were written in books, and the bible is no difference. So if that is your argument, then your argument will apply for any alleged event that history books claim happened in the past.

True. But the events depicted in the Bible (for instance people living three days in a whale or mega floods) are not taught in history classes, at least in Europe.

And for some reason, no man has ever seen an animal produce another animal that is different from what it is (macroevolution), and no one has ever seen life come from non-living material (abiogenesis)...no matter how much wishful thinking scientists have, no one has ever seen it, and these two things are SUPPOSED to be natural occurrences.

Well, nobody ever saw people living three days in a whale, either, therefore they cannot exist.
But "The origin of species" is also a book. So, it must be true. Lol.

You are telling me what it could have been, and I am telling you what the disciples CLAIMED.

Everybody can claim things. Or write about people claiming things.

Yeah but your friend is not claiming her recently departed mother ROSE FROM THE DEAD, now is she?

How do you call a dead person that appears to you and speak to you?

Paul wasn't grieving though, so you can't reason your way like that regarding him, and notice that delusions STILL doesn't explain away the empty tomb.

There is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul.

It depends on the claim. Is the claim that people have seen Elvis because he rose from the dead? Or is the claim that he really wasn't dead in the first place? It depends.

It does not matter, really. What matters is the evidence of both claims. Which is vanishingly small.

Well, what the heck do you think "raised from the dead" means lol? If a man dies, and you see this man's spirit after his dead, you won't say the man was "raised from the dead". But if the man dies, and you see his physical body after death, you will say the man was "raised from the dead".

Are you telling me Paul saw the body of Jesus after He allegedily took off to Heaven? I doubt the ascension took place 5 years after the resurrection.

But if that won't convince you, consider what Paul said in Acts 13:34-37, where he is speaking to the assembling:

34 God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said,
“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’[c]

35 So it is also stated elsewhere:
“‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’[d]

36 “Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

In verse 36 he is stating that basically, David was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed, but Jesus' body did not see decay, contrary to David's body, which stayed in his grave, and decayed. He is drawing a parallel between David's body and Jesus body...and not only that, but he is harmonizing what Peter said in chapters previous...Acts 2: 29-32

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Also keep in mind that both Peter and Paul are recalling the prophecy of David in Ps 16:8-11.

So please, stop it with the spiritual stuff...it is clear that both the disciples and Paul preached a physical resurrection.

Who wrote Acts? Luke talks about Paul saying things that himself never wrote. Everybody can do that.

Not so fast...1 Corin 15:3-7 has been dated to within 5 years of the cross, so I don't know where you get this "later" stuff from.

Well, I was not referring to Paul, who never mentioned an empty tomb, for some reason.

Then I will tell you the same thing I told him....if the concept of a god is logically flawed, then such a god cannot exist..and if such a god cannot exist, then such a god cannot be seen.

I think he can possibly exist. Millions believe in Him. What kind of logical contradiction do you see in the Mormon's God?

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb or the origin of the disciples belief.

The empty tomb myth has been added later. And not by Paul, who forgot it, apparently.

Gullibility would be an understatement.

Careful with that

Ciao

- viole

 

[Katzpur]

It is just a cool video

I'm not surprised.

I just want to know did Joseph Smith actually say that...and based on that question, it is a simple yes or no, because either he did, or he didn't.

Either he said it, or he didn't. I am not interesting in looking at your side-stepping dance moves. Either he said it, or he didn't...and there isn't much wiggle room to blossom out of that cocoon.

Nobody's trying to wiggle out of anything or side-step any issues. I have offered you the opportunity to discuss this further and you have declined. Apparently gaining real knowledge and understanding doesn't fit in with your "Christian" agenda of proving Mormonism to be a fraud.

I do

I can see that. Sorry, but I'm not going to be backed into a corner over an off-topic comment.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Simple. An infinite amount of time. What is the problem?

The problem is an "infinite amount of time" has to correspond to a specific time, so what time? If you can reach the destination, then the calculation should be very easy to do. So since you mentioned Cantor...use Cantor's work on set theory to form a calculation (or whatever you have to do) to give a specific time on how long it will take.

I did not ask you about space extension. I asked how many points in space we can count. Is there a minimal distance I can travel?

I don't know, but since the universe began from 0 space, and has been expanding ever since, it should be easy to calculate...and if I am not mistaken, that is how we are able to calculate the age of the universe, based on the rate of expansion. The point is; it can be calculated. The answer may be astronomical, but a finite number nevertheless.

Ok. But then all state of affairs are bound to repeat themselves for all eternity. It could be, but it looks rather boring.

Assuming that time is circular, right? I think time is linear, but any particular view on time is irrelevant to the fact....and I don't agree with all state of affairs repeating themselves...as this strikes me as absurd.

Do you think there a finite amount of true propositions?

I think so.

Fair enough. This raises a whole lot of theological questions that might deserve a separate thread.

True. Start a thread, and I will see you there.

True. But the events depicted in the Bible (for instance people living three days in a whale or mega floods) are not taught in history classes, at least in Europe.

And that really doesn't surprise me.

Well, nobody ever saw people living three days in a whale, either, therefore they cannot exist.

Jonah saw it lol.

But "The origin of species" is also a book. So, it must be true. Lol.

Have you ever saw an animal produce a different kind of animal? I sure as heck haven't...what about yourself?

Everybody can claim things. Or write about people claiming things.

I feel the same way about macroevolution...which is nothing but people about writing things that they believe happened or happens over time.

How do you call a dead person that appears to you and speak to you?

If the person is speaking to me, then it seems quite apparent that the person isn't dead, which is why we have to distinguish a physical manifestation from a spirtual manifestation.

There is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul.

Well, he didn't explicitedly say "empty tomb", but the concept is there. It is obvious...If my grandmother died and appeared to me in a physical form after her death...I am going to assume that if she is physically in my presence that her body is not in the grave.

Not to mention the fact that the disciples didn't even believe (specifically Thomas) that Jesus had risen from the dead based on the empty tomb alone, they believed based on the post-mortem appearances. If Jesus had appeared to them before they discovered the empty tomb, then they would have NEVER visited the tomb in the first place.

It does not matter, really. What matters is the evidence of both claims. Which is vanishingly small.

It does matter, if no one is claiming that Elvis rose from the dead then the example sucks in terms of comparison.

Are you telling me Paul saw the body of Jesus after He allegedily took off to Heaven?

He said he saw Jesus manifested in the form of light.

I doubt the ascension took place 5 years after the resurrection.

The ascension took place about 40 days after the Resurrection.

Who wrote Acts?

Luke

Luke talks about Paul saying things that himself never wrote. Everybody can do that.

Is that the best you got? Please. He is quoting something that someone said, viole. What is so hard to believe and accept about that, or are you just looking for any petty reason to continue in your unbelief?

Well, I was not referring to Paul, who never mentioned an empty tomb, for some reason.

Again, if they were claiming that Jesus appeared bodily to them, then it is obvious to anyone with common sense that the tomb was empty. If I am at work and I am told that my son passed away in his crib....and within 5 minutes I hear "Daddy!!!" and I turn my head to see my son physically running up to me and jumping into my outstretched arms......it would be quite foolish of me to rush home and check for a "empty crib", now wouldn't it?? Just flat......ridiculous lol.

I think he can possibly exist. Millions believe in Him. What kind of logical contradiction do you see in the Mormon's God?

They believe god was once a man, and he became god...as we can all become gods...how can you "become" god...either you are, or you aren't. So if god himself "became" god, who gave him this power? Other gods before him...and the chain is extended to past eternity...of one exalted god from another...this is logically absurd, and it came directly from the founder of the religion itself, Joseph Smith.

The empty tomb myth has been added later. And not by Paul, who forgot it, apparently.

I've already given you the scripture at which Paul implies a physical Resurrection and your response was basically, since Luke wrote it and not Paul, that Paul didn't believe it...which is quite again...ridiculous.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm not surprised.

Nobody's trying to wiggle out of anything or side-step any issues. I have offered you the opportunity to discuss this further and you have declined. Apparently gaining real knowledge and understanding doesn't fit in with your "Christian" agenda of proving Mormonism to be a fraud.

I can see that. Sorry, but I'm not going to be backed into a corner over an off-topic comment.

I am sure idav wouldn't mind, would you, idav?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Say whatever you need to say to make yourself sleep good at night.

Not really a rebuttal.

The ancient historian Thallus did mention the darkness in his works, and this was referenced by Julius Africanus...he said that Thallus mentioned a darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus.

Citation?

Now before you go looking everything up and then telling me how wrong he was...that isn't the point..the point is Thallus said that there was darkness, and he looked for a naturalistic explanation to explain this darkness, namely, an eclipse.

Citation?

That is bull crap. Virtually all historians agree that Jesus existed, so to claim that Jesus didn't exist, or claim that there is no "rock solid evidence" that Jesus existed is to be placed in a very small minority group. Even the most radical skeptics acknolwedge the fact that the historical evidence supports the existence of Jesus.

Citation

We have evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources that Jesus existenced. That conclusion is inescapable, no matter how much you want to deny it.

Citation

Then you are apparently ignorant of the letters of Paul, particularly 1 Corin 15:12-14, which states:

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of th dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Verse 20..

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep"

It is contested that he actulaly meant a physical Resurrection. What of the rest of his miracles? Anything? Why were there no third party individuals speaking of his impressive miracles? especially the ability to raise people from the dead?

I would hope we can keep the ignorance to a minimum. Read before you post.

Wow. But alright. I'll do the same if you also abide by the same ruling.

 

[cottage]

As mentioned previously, the law of identity..and being the bright man that you are, consider the law of identity and tie that together with mind/body dualism, and the case is made.

Well yes, it’s entirely obvious where that one is going. But I won’t steal your thunder. I’ll let you state the argument (if it can even be called an argument!) before I give you my response.

I refuse to get suckered in to this nonsense.

Please explain?

I don't see what is question begging about me basically claiming that "there could exist a being with the power to raise people from the dead".

You said: ‘Only if god doesn't exist would it be neither probable or possible.’
…which is to say God is probable! And that’s begging the question!

And?

‘And?’ (!) You asked me what in ‘this life’ means, and I told you.

But all of that is irrelevant though, cot. My continued belief in God has stemmed from arguments that have been used for centuries. The arguments help corroborate any and all presuppositions that I had before I even knew such arguments existenced.

And arguments aside...in order for me to NOT believe in God, I would have to believe that life came from nonlife, that consciousness came from unconciousness, that intelligence came from nonintelligence, that sight came from a blind process, and that language came from non-speech (process)....

That we get a complex digestive system from something that didn't know what food or energy is...that we get an immune system from something that didn't know what disease or virus is...that we get a circulatory system from something that didn't know what blood or veins are....that we get sight from something that didn't know what vision is.

If God doesn't exist, I would have to believe that a mindless and blind process somehow orchestrated all of this specified complexity, and I am sorry, I just can't get myself to believe that. As I grew older, it made more sense to me that intelligent design is more plausible than naturalism..it just makes more sense.

But you don’t believe in God because of those arguments; they came after, and you use them to buttress and confirm what you want to believe is true.
And considering the central premise of your argument is entirely based on material existence coming from non-material existence (God), I don’t understand the problem you have with all the above examples you’ve given.

My argument is; If God exists, then talking donkeys, a woman being turned into salt, and humans living to be 600 years old is credible. I really don't see what the big deal is about this, cot...the hypothesis is that God exists...that is the hypothesis throughout the bible, which is where these specific cases in question are derived from.

Yes, but God’s existence is what you’re supposed to be proving here by finding for the truth in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the truth isn’t established by reference to other supposed miracles.

So which premise is false? A case can be made for each premise, certainly #1.

It is a fallacious argument! It isn’t proved with the conditional opening premise (God can perform miracles) that the Resurrection is true from the fact that resurrections are conceptually understood as miracles, and therefore a miracle-performing God exists. The third premise does not follow from the preceding ones, and the conclusion is therefore false.

Ok, so let me ask you this; if Matthew recorded a detailed account of the resurrection of the holy men from their tombs, and recorded the account of many people that believed because of this...would you become a Christian? In order words, what would that do for you?

Well, in that case I wouldn’t have singled Matthew out as being given to recounting what has all the hall marks of a fictitious narrative. In any case it is all hypothetical, for Matthew’s words cannot be unwritten.

 

[idav]

What does it know about the past and future?

Read and understand what i cited. As it is we have veered too much off topic especially when you just think it is "foolishness".

I am sure idav wouldn't mind, would you, idav?

I would prefer not to turn this into a Mormon theology debate. As others and myself noted, your arguments undermine your own theology. It doesn't help the historicity of the miracles of Jesus when you deny people claiming to have seen Jesus as if Paul was the only possible vessle for it. You give the same arguments atheists do against your theology, irony much.

 

[idav]

I've already given you the scripture at which Paul implies a physical Resurrection and your response was basically, since Luke wrote it and not Paul, that Paul didn't believe it...which is quite again...ridiculous.

Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection, being reborn in spirit is what Jesus said must be done. The flesh is in conflict with the spirit, they are two different things. His vision was a spiritual vision. It is described as if the spirit is within us all. It is a transformation.

1 Corinthians 15
40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
.......
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
.........
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well yes, it’s entirely obvious where that one is going. But I won’t steal your thunder. I’ll let you state the argument (if it can even be called an argument!) before I give you my response.

I think an execellent case can be made for it...but no need to turn this into a discussion on mind/body dualism...at least not yet.

Please explain?

You have a history of saying things like (or implying) "I don't believe in god, but i don't believe life came from nonlife either", and it sounds like the statement you made about consciousness is following along those same lines, and with all due respect, I think that is ridiculous.

You said: ‘Only if god doesn't exist would it be neither probable or possible.’
…which is to say God is probable! And that’s begging the question!

Yeah, because I am assuming that for one to rise from the dead, that would defy the laws of nature, as natural law would be unable to explain such an ocurrence...so based on that, a natural resurrection would be neither probable or possible.

‘And?’ (!) You asked me what in ‘this life’ means, and I told you.

And I am asking what was the point that you were making?

But you don’t believe in God because of those arguments; they came after, and you use them to buttress and confirm what you want to believe is true.

Forgive me for discovering sound and valid arguments to corroborate my presuppositions. With the right moon alignment and the right hour of the night, crazy things like that tend to happen from time to time :yes:.

And considering the central premise of your argument is entirely based on material existence coming from non-material existence (God), I don’t understand the problem you have with all the above examples you’ve given.

Well, the existence of God seems very much conceivable to me, and the "happenings" of those examples doesn't seem conceivable at all. I mean, granted, neither one of us have all the answers, but it is clear, in my opinion, what side the logic and reason is on.

Yes, but God’s existence is what you’re supposed to be proving here by finding for the truth in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the truth isn’t established by reference to other supposed miracles.

If we have more plausible reasons than not to believe it, then it does help to establish the truth.

It is a fallacious argument! It isn’t proved with the conditional opening premise (God can perform miracles) that the Resurrection is true from the fact that resurrections are conceptually understood as miracles, and therefore a miracle-performing God exists. The third premise does not follow from the preceding ones, and the conclusion is therefore false.

Well first off, a case has to be made for all premises that are listed, and once there are reasons given for why the premises are true, and they can be demonstrated as true, then the premises are true. So "God can perform miracles" would be based on the various arguments that one can give at which a case is made for the existence of God, and once that is established, then it becomes obvious that such a being can perform miracles.

Well, in that case I wouldn’t have singled Matthew out as being given to recounting what has all the hall marks of a fictitious narrative. In any case it is all hypothetical, for Matthew’s words cannot be unwritten.

Ok, but that doesn't answer the question, cot lol.

 

[viole]

The problem is an "infinite amount of time" has to correspond to a specific time, so what time? If you can reach the destination, then the calculation should be very easy to do. So since you mentioned Cantor...use Cantor's work on set theory to form a calculation (or whatever you have to do) to give a specific time on how long it will take.

Well, infinite time means that it will never reach its destination. The two things are basically equivalent. I do not see your point. Is never reaching a destination (=taking infinite time) also a contradiction? why?

After all, you mentoned God being able of crossing infinities, whaever that means. Was He crossing something that cannot possibly exist?

I don't know, but since the universe began from 0 space, and has been expanding ever since, it should be easy to calculate...and if I am not mistaken, that is how we are able to calculate the age of the universe, based on the rate of expansion. The point is; it can be calculated. The answer may be astronomical, but a finite number nevertheless.

Yes, the earth has also one point at the north pole. But the equator consists of more than one point. How many physically relevant points do you think there are? Suppose they are 1 billion. That would mean that I cannot travel for less than one billionth of its circumference.

Is that what you believe?

Assuming that time is circular, right? I think time is linear, but any particular view on time is irrelevant to the fact....and I don't agree with all state of affairs repeating themselves...as this strikes me as absurd.

Nope. Time can stay linear. But if the amont of state of affairs is limited, then you will find yourself living your finite amount of state of affairs for ever. You cannot experience one more than this finite amount.

That, is boring, maybe.

I think so.

It can be easily proven that there are infinite truth propositions.

If there were n, then I can claim that there are n truth propositions. That means, they are n+1, which is a contradiction.

True. Start a thread, and I will see you there.

Probably. Maybe next week.

And that really doesn't surprise me.

It shouldn't.

Jonah saw it lol.

Yes, and probably he wasn't smelling very good after that experience.

Have you ever saw an animal produce a different kind of animal? I sure as heck haven't...what about yourself?

I have never sawn and animal. Although I have been tempted sometimes.

Have you even SEEN people resurrecting in bodily form from death?

I feel the same way about macroevolution...which is nothing but people about writing things that they believe happened or happens over time.

Except, we have a lot of independent evidence. Just go to the zoo and have a close look at the apes area: evolution will stare you in the eyes.

Many Christians accept evolution (don't ask me how), whereas I don't know any atheist that accepts empty tombs or people living in whales. So, it seems that evolution has more penetration power.

If the person is speaking to me, then it seems quite apparent that the person isn't dead, which is why we have to distinguish a physical manifestation from a spirtual manifestation.

And what motivated the disciples to think otherwise?

Well, he didn't explicitedly say "empty tomb", but the concept is there. It is obvious...If my grandmother died and appeared to me in a physical form after her death...I am going to assume that if she is physically in my presence that her body is not in the grave.

Lol. We could say the same about my friend's mother. You are using special pleading here, I am afraid.

Not to mention the fact that the disciples didn't even believe (specifically Thomas) that Jesus had risen from the dead based on the empty tomb alone, they believed based on the post-mortem appearances. If Jesus had appeared to them before they discovered the empty tomb, then they would have NEVER visited the tomb in the first place.

That is not rational. If an ex-dead person appears to you, speak to you and eat with you, do you check the tomb? I wonder why. To be sure that you were not hallucinating? Well, if you hallucinate, than the empty tomb could be a hallucination, too.

That just provides evidence that the empty tomb myth had the only intention to add some drama to an otherwise unconvincing story.

It does matter, if no one is claiming that Elvis rose from the dead then the example sucks in terms of comparison.

I really wonder why. Is the claim "I rose from death" more credible than the claim "I saw Elvis" or "I have been abducted by aliens"?

I could say that whomever says to be risen from death is clearly not believable. You cannot compare alien abduction with things like resurrections.

Special pleading, again.

He said he saw Jesus manifested in the form of light.

Do bodies emit retinas exciting photons? Well, that would solve our energy problems.

It is obvious that he just experienced a vision. The heat, you know

The ascension took place about 40 days after the Resurrection.

Therefore, he could not have experienced a body. Unless, of course, that was the second coming. How many comings can we expect?

Luke

Yeap. Decades later.

Is that the best you got? Please. He is quoting something that someone said, viole. What is so hard to believe and accept about that, or are you just looking for any petty reason to continue in your unbelief?

If someone puts words on the mouth of someone else who had plenty of possilities to say it himself, and he din't, then it is rational to be skeptic.

These things happen all the time, even in the secular world. My boss just recently claimed I said something I didn't say.

Never experienced that?

Again, if they were claiming that Jesus appeared bodily to them, then it is obvious to anyone with common sense that the tomb was empty. If I am at work and I am told that my son passed away in his crib....and within 5 minutes I hear "Daddy!!!" and I turn my head to see my son physically running up to me and jumping into my outstretched arms......it would be quite foolish of me to rush home and check for a "empty crib", now wouldn't it?? Just flat......ridiculous lol.

Again, if it is obvious, then there is no need to check and let poor apologists try to rule out all possible natural explanations (stolen body, never buried there, whatever).

My impression is that the visual of an empty tomb is used as a strong argument for the resurrection. As if the witnessing of talking with Jesus and seeing HIM fly away to Heaven would not be enough evidence, as you said.

Many apologists use it as physical evidence, don't they? And they do not realize how self defeating that is.

They believe god was once a man, and he became god...as we can all become gods...how can you "become" god...either you are, or you aren't. So if god himself "became" god, who gave him this power? Other gods before him...and the chain is extended to past eternity...of one exalted god from another...this is logically absurd, and it came directly from the founder of the religion itself, Joseph Smith.

There is no contradiction. You can have any sequence of Gods without any logical contradiction. That time does not extend to eternal past is your belief. They don't share it and that's it.

I could be God and promote others to Gods. I am almighty, after all. If the chain can extend in the infinite future, why not in the infinite past?

I've already given you the scripture at which Paul implies a physical Resurrection and your response was basically, since Luke wrote it and not Paul, that Paul didn't believe it...which is quite again...ridiculous.

I didn't say he did not believe it. i said that Luke is not a sufficient condition to infer that he did. After all, Paul could have said it himself, and there is nothing in Paul about physical resurrections or empty tombs.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Citation?

Consider WLC's assement on the topic at hand...at which a questioner asks for external sources for the darkness...and Dr. Craig addresses the question...citations included.

Thallus on the Darkness at Noon | Reasonable Faith

Citation

Check the summary and the citation links. Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation

• Jesus is mentioned by the historian Josephus in his work, The Antiquities, towards the end of the first century. In this work, he also mentions James, brother of Jesus. Josephus mentioned that Jesus was called “The Christ”.

• Josephus also mentions Jesus is a lengthier context, which is called the Testimonium Flavianum. This passage is hotly disputed and controversial. It is generally accepted that the context of this passage contains interpolations. Nonetheless, once the alleged interpolations are removed, what you have is a corroborating source that mentions the fact that Jesus was a wise man and that he was crucified by Pilate, and those who loved him did not give up their affection for him and the “tribe of Christians” still live to this day.

3. Jesus is mentioned by Tacitus in A.D. 115, in his Annals . Tacitus stated that the Roman Emperor Nero persecuted the early Christians. He mentioned that “Christus”, suffered the penalty of death at the hands of Pilate and a “mischievous superstition” spread through the Roman Empire. Tacitus states that a movement was based upon a crucified man, which corroborated with the book of Acts.

• Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia stated that some of the early Christians that were interrogated “met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god.” The passage seems to speak of Christ as if he was a person that actually lived. The passage does not seem to question whether Christ was an actual person that once lived in Ancient Rome at some point in time.

Also, to a lesser degree, we have Lucian of Samosata, who lived in the second century AD, wrote about the Christians and gives Jesus a shout out indirectly, he stated:

“The poor fools (Christians) have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.”[26]

Passing of Peregrinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And to an even lesser extent, Mara bar Serapion asks "What advantage did the Jews gain by executing their wise king....." And then he goes on to mention this "wise king" in the context of his death and the "new law he laid down"...and this letter is dated to within 73 AD....an EARLY non-Christian source.

We have at least 5 different sources which makes a case for the historical Jesus.

It is contested that he actulaly meant a physical Resurrection.

In Acts 13:36-38, Paul said "the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay". If he thought that Christ' body remained in the grave, then such a statement would be meaningless.

What of the rest of his miracles? Anything? Why were there no third party individuals speaking of his impressive miracles? especially the ability to raise people from the dead?

Paul was less concerned about the exploits of Jesus while on earth and more concerned about things like fellowship, marriage, victory over sin, strengthening the church, you know, Christian stuff. We have four Gospels that gives us that, and more.

Wow. But alright. I'll do the same if you also abide by the same ruling.

Agreed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, infinite time means that it will never reach its destination.

My point exactly. So use that same line of reasoning and apply it to the event of your birth...if there was an infinite number of births which preceded it, the event of your birth would never be reached.

The two things are basically equivalent. I do not see your point. Is never reaching a destination (=taking infinite time) also a contradiction? why?

If you are walking towards a destination that is an infinite distance away, for every step you take, you have an infinite amount MORE to go...so with every step you take, you are not getting any closer to the destination...kind of like running on a treadmill, you are running, but you are not getting anywhere.

Every event in time is dependent upon a prior event, and there is no denying that...so for any event to come to past, there had to be an infinite number of events which led to this event, but if that were the case, the event would never be reached, as you just admited. See?

After all, you mentoned God being able of crossing infinities, whaever that means. Was He crossing something that cannot possibly exist?

I never mentioned that, you got the wrong guy

Yes, the earth has also one point at the north pole. But the equator consists of more than one point. How many physically relevant points do you think there are? Suppose they are 1 billion. That would mean that I cannot travel for less than one billionth of its circumference.

Is that what you believe?

The total number of spatial points in the universe amounts to a finite number.

Nope. Time can stay linear. But if the amont of state of affairs is limited, then you will find yourself living your finite amount of state of affairs for ever. You cannot experience one more than this finite amount.

It is hard for me to NOT picture time in a state of motion for some reason lol. I don't quite understand where you are going with this...give an analogy to demonstrate what you mean, please.

It can be easily proven that there are infinite truth propositions.

Then by all means, prove it.

If there were n, then I can claim that there are n truth propositions. That means, they are n+1, which is a contradiction.

I don't get it.

Have you even SEEN people resurrecting in bodily form from death?

No, but I have reasons to believe that it is possible, and that it occured. I don't have any reasons to believe that life can come from nonlife and that animals can produce different kind of animals.

Except, we have a lot of independent evidence. Just go to the zoo and have a close look at the apes area: evolution will stare you in the eyes.

When I go to a zoo, I see different kinds of animals. I have no reasons to believe that the animals that I see today came from a different animal of yesterday.

Many Christians accept evolution (don't ask me how), whereas I don't know any atheist that accepts empty tombs or people living in whales. So, it seems that evolution has more penetration power.

I am not saying evolution is NECESSARILY incompatible with Christianity, but what I am saying it is necessarily incompatible with naturalism.

And what motivated the disciples to think otherwise?

To think otherwise what?

Lol. We could say the same about my friend's mother. You are using special pleading here, I am afraid.

There is a distinct difference between seeing a physical body and seeing a vision. I hope you would know the difference.

That is not rational. If an ex-dead person appears to you, speak to you and eat with you, do you check the tomb? I wonder why. To be sure that you were not hallucinating? Well, if you hallucinate, than the empty tomb could be a hallucination, too.

That just provides evidence that the empty tomb myth had the only intention to add some drama to an otherwise unconvincing story.

That would be a good argument if it weren't for the fact that Jesus appeared to many people at one time and at different places, and people don't hallucinate about the exact same thing at the exact same time.

I really wonder why. Is the claim "I rose from death" more credible than the claim "I saw Elvis" or "I have been abducted by aliens"?

Each claim could be credible on its own merit.

I could say that whomever says to be risen from death is clearly not believable. You cannot compare alien abduction with things like resurrections.

Who is making the comparison? You, or me?

Do bodies emit retinas exciting photons? Well, that would solve our energy problems.

LOL. If all bodies were that of Jesus Christ, then the answer would be yes. Since all bodies aren't, then the answer is no.

It is obvious that he just experienced a vision. The heat, you know

Still doesn't explain the empty tomb or the origin of the disciples belief.

Therefore, he could not have experienced a body. Unless, of course, that was the second coming. How many comings can we expect?

What?

Yeap. Decades later.

I just seen a documentary on Jim Jones and the Jonestown incident, and that happened decades earlier. I guess I shouldn't believe the accounts of those that were there because it happened earlier..decades earlier.

If someone puts words on the mouth of someone else who had plenty of possilities to say it himself, and he din't, then it is rational to be skeptic.

He did say it himself...he just didn't write it down himself. Big difference.

These things happen all the time, even in the secular world. My boss just recently claimed I said something I didn't say.

Was he hallucinating?

Again, if it is obvious, then there is no need to check and let poor apologists try to rule out all possible natural explanations (stolen body, never buried there, whatever).

Stolen body or wrong burial site doesn't explain the post-mortem appearances.

My impression is that the visual of an empty tomb is used as a strong argument for the resurrection. As if the witnessing of talking with Jesus and seeing HIM fly away to Heaven would not be enough evidence, as you said.

Many apologists use it as physical evidence, don't they? And they do not realize how self defeating that is.

I don't understand.

There is no contradiction. You can have any sequence of Gods without any logical contradiction. That time does not extend to eternal past is your belief. They don't share it and that's it.

No, there is no "that's that". If I conduct a thought experiment, and the concept cannot be formulated in my mind, then such a event cannot happen in reality. For any given god to be created, exalted (or however they put it), an infinite sequence of past gods had to be created or exalted, so that no god could be created or exalted if an infinite number of gods preceded it.

That problem isn't going ANYWHERE. We are talking about a logical absurdity here, and that can't be simply swept under the rug as "we just don't agree". It can't happen.

I could be God and promote others to Gods. I am almighty, after all. If the chain can extend in the infinite future, why not in the infinite past?

You are confusing potential infinity with actual infinity. If you are one god on an infinite chain of gods extending to an infinite past....how would you reach the point of godship if the number of gods that preceded you is infinite? Can't happen.

I didn't say he did not believe it. i said that Luke is not a sufficient condition to infer that he did. After all, Paul could have said it himself, and there is nothing in Paul about physical resurrections or empty tombs.

Ok so let me ask you this...what do you think the disciples claimed, taught, and preached about the Resurrection? Spiritually or physically?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Consider WLC's assement on the topic at hand...at which a questioner asks for external sources for the darkness...and Dr. Craig addresses the question...citations included.

Thallus on the Darkness at Noon | Reasonable Faith

Did some research on this. There is no definite timeline of when this is. In fact it is supported that it is impossible for it to have happened then as they knew about Solar Eclipses and there didnt' seem to be any indication that this one was special.

There is no known timeline of when Thallus was even alive anywhere near the time of Jesus. It would kinda strip the meaningfulness of this "darkness" if it happened 40 or 50 years before or after Jesus's time wouldn't it?

It is also notable (though obvious after what I have stated) that there was never any link between the report and Jesus when it was written. It was Christians who later claimed it as "evidence" far after the fact.

I can also link you to several hundred sources of solar eclipses over time from Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Egyptians, ect ect ect. All of which also don't point to the existence of Jesus.

Check the summary and the citation links. Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now your back peddling. Unless you didn't read the link. You have specifically stated that you are arguing that there was historical evidence of Jesus that rose from the dead and preformed miracles. None of the evidences even come close to stating that. So are you arguing that there was possibly an outspoken Rabbi at the time or are you talking about a mystical man of miracles?

• Jesus is mentioned by the historian Josephus in his work, The Antiquities, towards the end of the first century. In this work, he also mentions James, brother of Jesus. Josephus mentioned that Jesus was called “The Christ”.

It was written roughly 60 years after Jesus was crucified. Most historians also note that he was more than likely a fraternal brother (or follower rather) rather than an actual sibling who would be nearly 90 years of age at the time. More than likely it was the author of the Epistle of James in the bible.

He also does not mention any of the miracles of Jesus but simply that his followers thought of him as "The Christ". It is also argued that the name Yeshua (Jesus's real name) was more or less common during those times.

• Josephus also mentions Jesus is a lengthier context, which is called the Testimonium Flavianum. This passage is hotly disputed and controversial. It is generally accepted that the context of this passage contains interpolations. Nonetheless, once the alleged interpolations are removed, what you have is a corroborating source that mentions the fact that Jesus was a wise man and that he was crucified by Pilate, and those who loved him did not give up their affection for him and the “tribe of Christians” still live to this day.

No. The general consensus is that it was altered later by Christians and that once the interpolations were removed it would be a discussion on Early Christianity but nothing definitively of Jesus or any miracles that he would have done.

3. Jesus is mentioned by Tacitus in A.D. 115, in his Annals . Tacitus stated that the Roman Emperor Nero persecuted the early Christians. He mentioned that “Christus”, suffered the penalty of death at the hands of Pilate and a “mischievous superstition” spread through the Roman Empire. Tacitus states that a movement was based upon a crucified man, which corroborated with the book of Acts.

• Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia stated that some of the early Christians that were interrogated “met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god.” The passage seems to speak of Christ as if he was a person that actually lived. The passage does not seem to question whether Christ was an actual person that once lived in Ancient Rome at some point in time.

Also, to a lesser degree, we have Lucian of Samosata, who lived in the second century AD, wrote about the Christians and gives Jesus a shout out indirectly, he stated:

“The poor fools (Christians) have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.”[26]

Passing of Peregrinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And to an even lesser extent, Mara bar Serapion asks "What advantage did the Jews gain by executing their wise king....." And then he goes on to mention this "wise king" in the context of his death and the "new law he laid down"...and this letter is dated to within 73 AD....an EARLY non-Christian source.

We have at least 5 different sources which makes a case for the historical Jesus.

And not a single one of them say anything about miracles, being the son of god or being raised from the dead.

Are you arguing that a man named Yeshua existed and started a cult religion (intentionally or unintentionally) or are you trying to say that there is solid historical evidence that he did in fact preform miracles?

In Acts 13:36-38, Paul said "the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay". If he thought that Christ' body remained in the grave, then such a statement would be meaningless.

And "to be born again" literally means to crawl in your mother's womb and be birthed a second time? Its impossible that he meant it in a spiritual way?

Paul was less concerned about the exploits of Jesus while on earth and more concerned about things like fellowship, marriage, victory over sin, strengthening the church, you know, Christian stuff. We have four Gospels that gives us that, and more.

But it really seems like it would be important to drive that home with letters to people. To inspire them. But rather he simply gave them teachings. None of the miracles that the 12 disciples could supposedly preform were mentioned either.

Especially since the 4 gospels were all believed to have been written AFTER Paul wrote his letters....so... plot hole anyone?
Paul write letters from 51-58. The estimated time Mark was written (the first book chronologically to be written of the 4) was 65 but more often believed to be 68. That is a full 10 years after Paul wrote his letters.

 

[cottage]

I think an execellent case can be made for it...but no need to turn this into a discussion on mind/body dualism...at least not yet.

An interesting subject. If you would like to state your argument, here or as a new thread, I would be pleased to give you my take on the mind/body ‘problem’.

You have a history of saying things like (or implying) "I don't believe in god, but i don't believe life came from nonlife either", and it sounds like the statement you made about consciousness is following along those same lines, and with all due respect, I think that is ridiculous.

Unlike you I’m not wedded to any dogma; I’m only interested in the arguments. And I would appreciate you quoting me correctly. I said:

“What ‘evidence’ is there for the mind surviving bodily death? None! And as far as I’m concerned there is no evidence for consciousness coming from non-consciousness either, but that cannot be taken as some kind of affirmative argument for disembodied consciousness.”

And also read this:

“Well I have said ‘God does not exist’ many, many times. That’s the proposition to be tested, and I’ve not yet found myself contradicted. And it is utterly false to say rejection of god-belief means belief in life from non-life. I believe no such thing, quite regardless of whether that state of affairs is actually the case – which may even be true! All we know is that life began, just as we know that the world began. And the world beginning with existent life is logically possible. “

Yeah, because I am assuming that for one to rise from the dead, that would defy the laws of nature, as natural law would be unable to explain such an ocurrence...so based on that, a natural resurrection would be neither probable or possible.

I said:

Originally Posted by cottage
Well of course the dead living again breaks no law of logic any more than does life coming from non-life! The argument is from probability, not possibility, and it is more probable that the dead will remain dead than they will spring to life again.

You replied:

"Only if god doesn't exist would it be neither probable or possible."

So you are begging the question for an existent God that makes the Resurrection probable, when the question is whether a miracle was probable and the Resurrection a truth that proves the existence of God.

And I am asking what was the point that you were making?

The point has been made! Please look back at the last three posts and follow the discussion.

Forgive me for discovering sound and valid arguments to corroborate my presuppositions. With the right moon alignment and the right hour of the night, crazy things like that tend to happen from time to time :yes:.

That approach would be far more convincing had it happened the other way about. It never seems to be the case where somebody comes to faith because of what used to be called natural theology; instead the faith is held from a prior belief that is usually taken up in the formative years and becomes ingrained in the individual’s psyche. My view is that some people have a psychological or emotional disposition to believe in gods, which allows them to find an accommodation with whatever supports or agrees with their faith but which also allows suspension of belief in anything that contradicts the doctrine.

Well, the existence of God seems very much conceivable to me, and the "happenings" of those examples doesn't seem conceivable at all. I mean, granted, neither one of us have all the answers, but it is clear, in my opinion, what side the logic and reason is on.

So, you are happy to believe that a Supreme Being that hankers after human affection is a logical and reasoned belief?

If we have more plausible reasons than not to believe it, then it does help to establish the truth.

But that isn’t the proper way to conduct an argument. If an argument is being made to the truth of the Resurrection we wouldn’t for example interject with the Cosmological Argument, saying that, in my opinion, it proves God and therefore the Resurrection must be true.

Well first off, a case has to be made for all premises that are listed, and once there are reasons given for why the premises are true, and they can be demonstrated as true, then the premises are true. So "God can perform miracles" would be based on the various arguments that one can give at which a case is made for the existence of God, and once that is established, then it becomes obvious that such a being can perform miracles.

The above is not an argument. And it is still the case that you’ve been assuming God’s existence to argue for the resurrection in order to establish the existence of God.

Ok, but that doesn't answer the question, cot lol.

Okay, so if you are asking if I would believe in a being that died and then came to life again after three days, on the basis of claims in a book, then the answer is ‘No!’

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Did some research on this. There is no definite timeline of when this is. In fact it is supported that it is impossible for it to have happened then as they knew about Solar Eclipses and there didnt' seem to be any indication that this one was special.

There is no known timeline of when Thallus was even alive anywhere near the time of Jesus. It would kinda strip the meaningfulness of this "darkness" if it happened 40 or 50 years before or after Jesus's time wouldn't it?

It is also notable (though obvious after what I have stated) that there was never any link between the report and Jesus when it was written. It was Christians who later claimed it as "evidence" far after the fact.

There are arguments pro, and arguments con regarding this subject.

Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending of rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer.

Read more: Thallus on the Darkness at Noon | Reasonable Faith

This Phlegon character, apparently recorded the same event, and this was during the time of Tiberius Caesar, who WAS the emperor of Rome at the time of Jesus.

Now your back peddling. Unless you didn't read the link. You have specifically stated that you are arguing that there was historical evidence of Jesus that rose from the dead and preformed miracles. None of the evidences even come close to stating that. So are you arguing that there was possibly an outspoken Rabbi at the time or are you talking about a mystical man of miracles?

There is historical evidence that Jesus existed, which is what I provided you prior to this post...and there is evidence that Jesus' followers believed he Resurrected from the dead based on the empty tomb AND post-mortem appearances.

It was written roughly 60 years after Jesus was crucified.

The biographies of Alexander the Great were written about 400 years after his death, and historians don't regard these biographies as non-credible or unreliable at all. Compare 60 years to 400 years..which one is closer to the events? The 60 years, right? Second, based on your flawed logic, no one should be able to write about anything prior to 60 years if they were not alive at the time, correct?

Most historians also note that he was more than likely a fraternal brother (or follower rather) rather than an actual sibling who would be nearly 90 years of age at the time. More than likely it was the author of the Epistle of James in the bible.

Regardless of who you view James as, the point is, Jesus' name is mentioned in the context.

He also does not mention any of the miracles of Jesus but simply that his followers thought of him as "The Christ". It is also argued that the name Yeshua (Jesus's real name) was more or less common during those times.

Now who is back-peddling? First, you were making it seem as if Jesus never existed, or at least wanted evidence that he existed. I gave you the evidence, and now you want down-grade your skepticism to "Oh, there are mentions of Jesus, but it doesn't have him performing miracles and blah blah blah".

My point was simple...there existed a man named Jesus who lived during the 1st Century AD, who started a religious movement called "Christianity" which spread through the Roman empire. That...is historical.

No. The general consensus is that it was altered later by Christians and that once the interpolations were removed it would be a discussion on Early Christianity but nothing definitively of Jesus or any miracles that he would have done.
And not a single one of them say anything about miracles, being the son of god or being raised from the dead.

Historians already know what part of the passage was interpolated, Monk. Just because a portion of the passage was interpolated you don't throw out the entire passage. Second, if the entire passage WAS interpolated by a Christian, then we would expect to be there exactly what you are claiming isn't there, that the passage would be filled with miracles, theological implications, and everything else. But the fact that it ISN'T, it is clear that this is just a man (Josephus) making a brief mention of a man named Jesus Christ.

Are you arguing that a man named Yeshua existed and started a cult religion (intentionally or unintentionally) or are you trying to say that there is solid historical evidence that he did in fact preform miracles?

I am saying there is solid historical evidence that the original disciples were going around town claiming that they saw the risen Jesus. That is the extent of my claims regarding the historicity of miracles.

And "to be born again" literally means to crawl in your mother's womb and be birthed a second time? Its impossible that he meant it in a spiritual way?

The problem with this is...Jesus already explained what he meant to be "born again"...as Nicodemus asked the same question in John 3:1-4, so it was explained that to be "born again" meant spiritually. Second, as I mentioned at least for the 4th time, both Paul and Peter were contrasting the fact that David's body saw decay, but Jesus' body didn't see decay...and this would only make sense if one body (David) stayed in the grave and decayed, and the other body (Jesus) abandoning the grave, and NOT decaying.

But it really seems like it would be important to drive that home with letters to people. To inspire them. But rather he simply gave them teachings. None of the miracles that the 12 disciples could supposedly preform were mentioned either.

But the letters were to believers....and the fact that Jesus performed miracles from a Christian perspective would have been a given.

Especially since the 4 gospels were all believed to have been written AFTER Paul wrote his letters....so... plot hole anyone?
Paul write letters from 51-58. The estimated time Mark was written (the first book chronologically to be written of the 4) was 65 but more often believed to be 68. That is a full 10 years after Paul wrote his letters.

Right!!! So if Paul wrote his letters before the four biographies of Jesus were even written, then wouldn't it seem apparent that the beliefs about Jesus were already a given?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

An interesting subject. If you would like to state your argument, here or as a new thread, I would be pleased to give you my take on the mind/body ‘problem’.

Maybe I will. I haven't dropped a classic thread since my Ontological Argument thread...which was a classic.

Unlike you I’m not wedded to any dogma; I’m only interested in the arguments. And I would appreciate you quoting me correctly. I said:

“What ‘evidence’ is there for the mind surviving bodily death? None! And as far as I’m concerned there is no evidence for consciousness coming from non-consciousness either, but that cannot be taken as some kind of affirmative argument for disembodied consciousness.”

My apologies for misquoting you, but at the same time you conveniently didn't address the part where you claimed something along the lines of "I don't believe in a god, but life didn't come from nonlife either". Lets see your self-quote of that.

And also read this:

“Well I have said ‘God does not exist’ many, many times. That’s the proposition to be tested, and I’ve not yet found myself contradicted. And it is utterly false to say rejection of god-belief means belief in life from non-life. I believe no such thing, quite regardless of whether that state of affairs is actually the case – which may even be true! All we know is that life began, just as we know that the world began. And the world beginning with existent life is logically possible. “

Appreciate'cha. My point exactly....that is absolutely ridiculous. If life began, and there is no god...then life came from nonlife.

I said:

Originally Posted by cottage
Well of course the dead living again breaks no law of logic any more than does life coming from non-life! The argument is from probability, not possibility, and it is more probable that the dead will remain dead than they will spring to life again.

You replied:

"Only if god doesn't exist would it be neither probable or possible."

So you are begging the question for an existent God that makes the Resurrection probable, when the question is whether a miracle was probable and the Resurrection a truth that proves the existence of God.

Ok so lets take this step by step...I have a question for you...if a being such as GOD exists, do you believe that Resurrections are possible? Yes or no?

The point has been made! Please look back at the last three posts and follow the discussion.

I'm lazy.

That approach would be far more convincing had it happened the other way about. It never seems to be the case where somebody comes to faith because of what used to be called natural theology; instead the faith is held from a prior belief that is usually taken up in the formative years and becomes ingrained in the individual’s psyche. My view is that some people have a psychological or emotional disposition to believe in gods, which allows them to find an accommodation with whatever supports or agrees with their faith but which also allows suspension of belief in anything that contradicts the doctrine.

How a person comes to believe in something doesn't have anything to do with the truth value of the belief.

So, you are happy to believe that a Supreme Being that hankers after human affection is a logical and reasoned belief?

Yes...because that is what being PERSONAL is all about. Personal beings have feelings and emotions, cot.

But that isn’t the proper way to conduct an argument. If an argument is being made to the truth of the Resurrection we wouldn’t for example interject with the Cosmological Argument, saying that, in my opinion, it proves God and therefore the Resurrection must be true.

Right, we would interject with the argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The above is not an argument. And it is still the case that you’ve been assuming God’s existence to argue for the resurrection in order to establish the existence of God.

It is a belief based on inference, cot. If I am going to believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, I can't believe this if I don't have any good evidence to believe that there is a such thing as "President of the United States". I start off with the belief that there is a such thing as a President...and there is a such thing as "United States", and that there is a such thing as "President of the United States".

We can't believe in the Resurrection if we don't have background evidence that God exists.

Okay, so if you are asking if I would believe in a being that died and then came to life again after three days, on the basis of claims in a book, then the answer is ‘No!’

Sigh

That wasn't the question...but ok.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are arguments pro, and arguments con regarding this subject.

Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending of rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer.

Read more: Thallus on the Darkness at Noon | Reasonable Faith

This Phlegon character, apparently recorded the same event, and this was during the time of Tiberius Caesar, who WAS the emperor of Rome at the time of Jesus.

The "evidence" is that there was supposedly a solar eclipse within a certain amount of time that is similar to when Jesus was supposed to have existed. There is those who think that the solar eclipse played a part in the story that was told later. Some cosmological event that was later given significance.

Or it could be unrelated. Though it is also notable that I am having a hard time finding an on-christian source that places Phlegon as citing the darkness. And his lived 200 years later in the 2nd century in Greece. Quite a ways away from Rome. Why did others not write this? People who could have seen it first hand?

There is historical evidence that Jesus existed, which is what I provided you prior to this post...and there is evidence that Jesus' followers believed he Resurrected from the dead based on the empty tomb AND post-mortem appearances.

]
The first does have some loose evidence. The second is more questionable. Though I can find Scientology followers to make even more absurd claims today. What separates them from other cults?

The biographies of Alexander the Great were written about 400 years after his death, and historians don't regard these biographies as non-credible or unreliable at all. Compare 60 years to 400 years..which one is closer to the events? The 60 years, right? Second, based on your flawed logic, no one should be able to write about anything prior to 60 years if they were not alive at the time, correct?

My problem is that you are saying that he met people first hand. We also have mountains of evidence dating back to the time when Alexander the great was alive that can prove his existence. Evidences from the countries he conquered ect. But even so there is incredible amounts of evidence that is from several sources. There is no doubt that Alexander the great existed.

Jesus on the other hand has the bible, a text that has been changed and edited over time whose whole existence is based upon it being true ( much like every other sacred text in the world) and a few strands of weak 3rd party evidences. Zero third party evidences for vast miracles or Resurrection.

Regardless of who you view James as, the point is, Jesus' name is mentioned in the context.

It matters. You were attempting to pass it off as if someone at the time of Jesus talked to the literally genetic brother of Jesus Christ in person to get first hand accounts. However the truth is that he talked to the inheritor of the cult of Christianity in its early years. And it is someone who had not seen Jesus personally and everything he knew was at best second hand.

Now who is back-peddling? First, you were making it seem as if Jesus never existed, or at least wanted evidence that he existed. I gave you the evidence, and now you want down-grade your skepticism to "Oh, there are mentions of Jesus, but it doesn't have him performing miracles and blah blah blah".

I think I have made it clear in my posts throughout the forum that I don't say its impossible that an outspoken Jewish Rabbi named Yeshua didn't whip up some political shinanigans and get a cult following. I have made it clear that there is zero evidence that the Jesus of the bible existed in the way Christians claim. You have attempted to prove that historically we have mentions of Jesus therefore all of the bible is correct. Which is false.

We KNOW that Muhammad existed. There is zero doubt in any historian that he existed. Does that make Islam the correct religion?

My point was simple...there existed a man named Jesus who lived during the 1st Century AD, who started a religious movement called "Christianity" which spread through the Roman empire. That...is historical.

If we want to get technical Jesus didn't create Christianity and nor did he coin the term. Not even the bible claims this. He was a Jew. He even said he was not here to destroy the old law. (if we were to go by the bible).

What I am telling you is that there is some weak evidence that suggests that there is some shreds of truth to the image that an outspoken political Jewish Rabbi inspired some people with whatever he stated. Then his followers created the religion in his wake. This theory seems far more supported by the evidence at hand.

Historians already know what part of the passage was interpolated, Monk. Just because a portion of the passage was interpolated you don't throw out the entire passage. Second, if the entire passage WAS interpolated by a Christian, then we would expect to be there exactly what you are claiming isn't there, that the passage would be filled with miracles, theological implications, and everything else. But the fact that it ISN'T, it is clear that this is just a man (Josephus) making a brief mention of a man named Jesus Christ.

You do question the credibility of the passage. And the point (again) isn't that he in no way mentioned "Yeshua" but rather there is still nothing to indicate he had any supernatural abilities.

I am saying there is solid historical evidence that the original disciples were going around town claiming that they saw the risen Jesus. That is the extent of my claims regarding the historicity of miracles.

Does this mean that Wiccan's going around claiming that magic works by default mean that Wicca is correct?

The problem with this is...Jesus already explained what he meant to be "born again"...as Nicodemus asked the same question in John 3:1-4, so it was explained that to be "born again" meant spiritually. Second, as I mentioned at least for the 4th time, both Paul and Peter were contrasting the fact that David's body saw decay, but Jesus' body didn't see decay...and this would only make sense if one body (David) stayed in the grave and decayed, and the other body (Jesus) abandoning the grave, and NOT decaying.

I could bring up dozens of other accounts in the bible that are not taken literally but that would be a waste of my efforts.

Are you trying to say that it is impossible for it to have had a spiritual meaning? That your interpretation is the one and only way it could have happened and that the evidence supports it so much that you can make claims of truth about Jesus?

But the letters were to believers....and the fact that Jesus performed miracles from a Christian perspective would have been a given.

No it wouldn't. If we didn't have the gospels and we only had the letters then we would not be able to assume there was anything about miracles. There was no mention of his miracles. Nothing.

Right!!! So if Paul wrote his letters before the four biographies of Jesus were even written, then wouldn't it seem apparent that the beliefs about Jesus were already a given?

as before. No. It does however lend evidence to the legend theory which states that as time went on the ventures of Yeshua would become told with more and more flavor. Which is why the first chronologically written gospel had the least amount of "magical" or "supernatural" appeal and then with each new writing it got more and more supernatural. All of which of course are still far beyond anything Paul wrote.

 

[cottage]

Maybe I will. I haven't dropped a classic thread since my Ontological Argument thread...which was a classic.

Good idea! Oh, and you haven’t made any responses at all to the MOA thread I started. Can we continue with that?

My apologies for misquoting you, but at the same time you conveniently didn't address the part where you claimed something along the lines of "I don't believe in a god, but life didn't come from nonlife either". Lets see your self-quote of that.

See my response to these remarks below.

Appreciate'cha. My point exactly....that is absolutely ridiculous. If life began, and there is no god...then life came from nonlife.

There is no such entity as ‘non-life’. Life cannot come from non-life any more than something can come from nothing. But something can exist where before there was nothing. There is no contradiction in a thing coming into existence uncaused. Look back at as many posts in as many threads as you like and you will see I have been entirely consistent in arguing this point. But there are two opposing cosmological possibilities to the God hypothesis and in both cases the world is uncaused. Here is the second:
But first a quick refresher.

The Kalam or First-Cause argument states that everything that begins to exist needs a cause for its existence. The universe began to exist, it is said. Therefore the universe requires a cause for its existence for there cannot (it is said) be an infinite regress and so this cause must end at something uncaused. The argument wants to infer the existence of a supernatural being from the existence of the natural world. It says:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
P2. The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe was caused to exist

But the world could still be eternal, the cause of all events, existing originally as an infinitesimally dense particle of matter which at the occurrence of the Big Bang expanded to become what we have now. The usual response is that the eternity of the world is an impossible concept because the world exists in time which means there would be an infinite number of past events. But if the Big Bang was the beginning of time then there is no infinite regression of past events.

So, let’s reformulate the argument:

P1. All events are caused
P2. The universe is not an event
Conclusion: The universe is uncaused

Premise 1 is in empirical agreement with what we observe to be true. Premise 2 cannot be denied without begging the question, and the conclusion follows necessarily.

Ok so lets take this step by step...I have a question for you...if a being such as GOD exists, do you believe that Resurrections are possible? Yes or no?

Well of course if God exists the Resurrection is possible, but you’re starting with the probability of God’s existence to find for the truth of the Resurrection, which in turn proves the existence of God.

How a person comes to believe in something doesn't have anything to do with the truth value of the belief.

I really could not agree more with that statement.

Yes...because that is what being PERSONAL is all about. Personal beings have feelings and emotions, cot.

LOL! That was genuine laughter by the way. We are not talking about personal beings per se, we’re talking about God. It is logically absurd to propose the Supreme Being, one who is sufficient and complete in all possible things, as being affected or emotionally troubled by something beyond or outside his omnipotence.

Right, we would interject with the argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Yes of course because that is the subject that is being debated!

It is a belief based on inference, cot. If I am going to believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, I can't believe this if I don't have any good evidence to believe that there is a such thing as "President of the United States". I start off with the belief that there is a such thing as a President...and there is a such thing as "United States", and that there is a such thing as "President of the United States".

We can't believe in the Resurrection if we don't have background evidence that God exists.

Belief in God isn’t based on inference; it is based on faith. Any inferences are subsequent and not antecedent to the faith.

Sigh

That wasn't the question...but ok.

You asked if I’d become a Christian if there were a detailed, recorded account of people that believed in the resurrection of the holy men. I replied that I wouldn’t on the basis of claims in a book, which seems to me to be an entirely reasonable response by any standard.