Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

Another Black and White Fallacy. There is a saying that you need to learn:
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The miraculous claims of Jesus are extraordinary and need much more evidence than the evidence for the works of Augustus Caesar which were much more mundane. You should look at the claims of other religions and why you reject them. For the same reasons that you reject other religions you should be rejecting your own.

I have looked at other religions. Some things i reject, some things i accept.

You saying paul is not lying about ananias, but is still wrong, THAT is extrordinary, for it defies logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have looked at other religions. Some things i reject, some things i accept.

You saying paul is not lying about ananias, but is still wrong, THAT is extrordinary, for it defies logic.

Wrong again, by your standards you are lying right now. Being wrong does not mean that one is lying. Logic is a tool that you do not appear understand.

By the way, your logical fallacy here is false dichotomy. It is not a case of either he is right or that he is lying. Very often there are more than two choices.

 

[leroy]

There probably was no tomb. The most common thing done with crucified people was to leave them up as a warning.

.

Well we have multiple independent early sources that confirm the burial.

Most Mexicans are not blond,blond Mexicans are unusual, but if you are told from multiple sources that Daniel is a Blond Mexican, wouldn't you grant that Daniel is blond, even if it is unusual?

 

[leroy]

and we have no idea what the apostles claim. There are meetings by them on this part of Jesus's life.

Multiple independent sources confirm that they where proclaiming the resurrection of Christ

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well we have multiple independent early sources that confirm the burial.

Really? What are they? Instead of claiming that you have such you should be linking these sources. Until you do all you have are empty claims.

 

[lukethethird]

actually it only has an empty tomb and an angel that says "He is arisen". Then Jesus 's gal pals beat feet and that is it. Not much of a resurrection. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean that they are lying.

A resurrection non the less and I was kidding about the lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Multiple independent sources confirm that they where proclaiming the resurrection of Christ

I know of only one. And it is not the best of sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A resurrection non the less and I was kidding about the lying.

Since all of the gospels rely on Mark to some extent this could be simply a common myth. One sign that it is myth is how the story gets more embellished with time. The original ending of Mark was rather simple. Matthew and Luke are more elaborate. It has been a while and I do not remember if John, the last gospel written, is even more so.

 

[Jollybear]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is your grandmother's birth in Poland extraordinary? Have only a handful of people been born there? On the other hand how many people claim to have come back from the dead?

Its only extrordinary due to our mundane experiences. Whats not normal to us is extrordinary. But if people wer to rise from death as a normal everyday thing, it not be extrordinary.

 

[leroy]

Really? What are they? Instead of claiming that you have such you should be linking these sources. Until you do all you have are empty claims.

Cor 15,3 -15

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

. . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

And we have all 4 gospels that confirm this event and confirm that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea .

As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

Math 27, 57-60; Marck15, 43-46; Luke3, 50-55; y Jhon 19: 38-42 describe this event.

Besides Pilate didtdi had anything against Jesus, he didn't considered him a ciminal so he would have made an exception and allow a proper burial

 

[leroy]

I know of only one. And it is not the best of sources.

All 4 gospels acts and Paul confirm the proclamation if the resurrection

 

[Jollybear]

Wrong again, by your standards you are lying right now.

How by my standards am i lying right now?

Being wrong does not mean that one is lying.

Thats true in SOME CASES, but not all cases. In the case of pauls claims about ananias its not the case. Paul is either lying or paul halucinated ananias too huh? Does that really make sense?

Logic is a tool that you do not appear understand.

By the way, your logical fallacy here is false dichotomy. It is not a case of either he is right or that he is lying. Very often there are more than two choices.

Im ready to bang my head on the table. Thats true, IN SOME CASES, but not all cases. In the case of paul claiming the lord spoke and told ananias where to meet him, this is not the case, because ananias could not be a halucination himself and ananias heard the Lord speak to him about paul concerning his experience with the Lord and to go meet him. Even telling him where paul was. And paul and ananias ACTUALLY met and talked.

So, if paul is not lying about that, how is he still wrong about that? Come on, your making no sense at all here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its only extrordinary due to our mundane experiences. Whats not normal to us is extrordinary. But if people wer to rise from death as a normal everyday thing, it not be extrordinary.

Nice attempt at a dodge, it didn't work.

 

[Jollybear]

Nice attempt at a dodge, it didn't work.

Its not a dodge, its a point you refuse to address

 

[Subduction Zone]

How by my standards am i lying right now?

Because you are obviously wrong. I have explained how you are wrong. You equate being wrong with lying, therefore by your standards you are lying.

Thats true in SOME CASES, but not all cases. In the case of pauls claims about ananias its not the case. Paul is either lying or paul halucinated ananias too huh? Does that really make sense?

Or he was simply delusional and reconstructed his past. That happens quite often with the mentally ill and religious zealots tend to fit into that category.

Im ready to bang my head on the table. Thats true, IN SOME CASES, but not all cases. In the case of paul claiming the lord spoke and told ananias where to meet him, this is not the case, because ananias could not be a halucination himself and ananias heard the Lord speak to him about paul concerning his experience with the Lord and to go meet him. Even telling him where paul was. And paul and ananias ACTUALLY met and talked.

You are forgetting that the stories were not written after they happened but long after the fact. He could tailor events to match what others said. Also the author of Acts was a follower of his so the tale in Acts is not independent of his story.

So, if paul is not lying about that, how is he still wrong about that? Come on, your making no sense at all here.

No, I am making perfect sense. You are simply not looking at the most reasonable explanation for his claims. Delusional does not mean lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its not a dodge, its a point you refuse to address

I addressed it more than once. You dodged.

 

[Jollybear]

Because you are obviously wrong. I have explained how you are wrong. You equate being wrong with lying, therefore by your standards you are lying.

Not true, no i dont. I told you its a case by case basis.

Or he was simply delusional and reconstructed his past. That happens quite often with the mentally ill and religious zealots tend to fit into that category.

So he told the truth that he halucinated on demascus road, but his companions hearing the voice and seeing the light and ananias hearing the Lord and being told where paul was, all those parts wer MADE up and what he made up he TRUELY believed? I understand that right?

Ok, how can you TRUELY believe something you make up? I dont think that exists anywhere in the human experience.

You are forgetting that the stories were not written after they happened but long after the fact. He could tailor events to match what others said. Also the author of Acts was a follower of his so the tale in Acts is not independent of his story.

I could tell you stories of my life from 30 years ago. In fact, 38 years ago. I remember my grandmother bathing me in the kitchen sink when i was a baby. I told her this and she confirmed it was accurate.

So, thats your defense, that paul FORGOT what really occured with ananias? Somehow he REMEMBERED his halucination, but forgot how things played out with ananias surounding the halucinatory experience?

No, I am making perfect sense. You are simply not looking at the most reasonable explanation for his claims. Delusional does not mean lying.

THAT is what the debate is, what REALLY is the most reasonable explanation. I have had some extra sensory experiences in my life, so for me to consider that as one of the options on the table with paul is not extrordinary to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true, no i dont. I told you its a case by case basis.



So he told the truth that he halucinated on demascus road, but his companions hearing the voice and seeing the light and ananias hearing the Lord and being told where paul was, all those parts wer MADE up and what he made up he TRUELY believed? I understand that right?

Ok, how can you TRUELY believe something you make up? I dont think that exists anywhere in the human experience.




I could tell you stories of my life from 30 years ago. In fact, 38 years ago. I remember my grandmother bathing me in the kitchen sink when i was a baby. I told her this and she confirmed it was accurate.

So, thats your defense, that paul FORGOT what really occured with ananias? Somehow he REMEMBERED his halucination, but forgot how things played out with ananias surounding the halucinatory experience?



THAT is what the debate is, what REALLY is the most reasonable explanation. I have had some extra sensory experiences in my life, so for me to consider that as one of the options on the table with paul is not extrordinary to me.

You do not appear to be doing a case by case basis. Nor are you approaching this subject rationally. You are treating Paul as if he was a sane individual and that does not appear to be the case. If he was not all there then you cannot apply the standards of being wrong and lying that you have been. Have you ever debated with creationists? They repeat claims that any sane person would know are false and do so even after being corrected. They are not lying when they repeat nonsense, they are merely delusional on a much smaller scale.

 

[Jollybear]

You do not appear to be doing a case by case basis.

Appearences can be missleading.

Nor are you approaching this subject rationally.

Your are not approuching this subject rationally.

You are treating Paul as if he was a sane individual and that does not appear to be the case.

Appearences are missleading and its creating in you the real delusion.

If he was not all there then you cannot apply the standards of being wrong and lying that you have been.

Yes i can because your assertion hes not all there has to be tested and challenged. Which i did by my points and questions about ananias and pauls memory. Conveniently you did not address that.

Have you ever debated with creationists? They repeat claims that any sane person would know are false and do so even after being corrected. They are not lying when they repeat nonsense, they are merely delusional on a much smaller scale.

Mentioning creationists does not help me at all and its not because i agree with them, its because im undecided, but i do hear good points brought up by them.

 

[Jollybear]

Very interesting topic

Yes, it is. Whats your take on it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Appearences can be missleading.



Your are not approuching this subject rationally.



Appearences are missleading and its creating in you the real delusion.



Yes i can because your assertion hes not all there has to be tested and challenged. Which i did by my points and questions about ananias and pauls memory. Conveniently you did not address that.



Mentioning creationists does not help me at all and its not because i agree with them, its because im undecided, but i do hear good points brought up by them.

Oh my, if you think that a creationist has ever brought up a good point then there may be no hope for you. Let's try not to be rude. But then you did fail early when I pointed out at least one of Paul's irrational beliefs. One can tell that he as not all there by his hatred of sex. I would like to see someone that has some experience in psychology analyze that phobia of his. Perhaps Paul was a latent homosexual trying to keep his own tendencies under control. A lot of Christianities repressive approach to sex can be attributed to him.