The Resurrection of Christ

[1137]

Usually I am pretty humble. But I think you're nuts.

Yeah, you're not a hypocrite at all.

 

[Prophet]

Baseless namecalling won't aid your path to enlightenment.

 

[1137]

Baseless namecalling won't aid your path to enlightenment.

Glad I dont engage in it. Pointing out one's hypocracy is not name calling. In fact, I find being able to look internally and criticize yourself greatly aids in seeking enlightenment. Don't you think it is at least worth a try?

Now go and redefine 'name calling.'

 

[Prophet]

Go ahead and "set me right". Or get off your arrogant high horse and look up these concepts so you know the difference. I am not a first grade teacher, I do not have time to explain and define such unbelievably simple things.

Learn how to read before engaging in philosophical debates. You have to set priorities! I said if you have no self-interest you are easy to control. We are not talking about selfishness and selflessness, we are talking about having self-interest. You say you are aware of the differences, but evidence says otherwise.

Now I remember why I don't debate with children.

And I attack you personally because you bring nothing into the conversation thay we can discuss and make it personal.

This was cherrypicked from one thread. You most definitely do engage in baseless namecalling.

 

[1137]

This was cherrypicked from one thread. You most definitely do engage in baseless namecalling.

Haha wow, you really do not take losing well.

Please leave me alone. Some of us adults are trying to have intelligent and important debates. Let it go already. When you act childish, calling you out on it is not name calling. An enlightened being should be beyond grudges. I get it, you are an all knowing enlightened being, far above human definitions and philosophical logic. I am not. So please, leave me in peace to accept definitions and use logic. I'm pretty sure harrassment is against forum rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd love to hear them, if you'd look into.

But isn't this a different test and burden of proof than the one you suggest for the Christian miracle claim? If we need to come up with a reason to discount the Resurrection if we're not going to accept it as true, then doesn't this also apply to Sikh miracle claims... as well as the miracle claims of every other religion?

After actually looking into parallels they all seem superficial, especially since so much of Christianity is rooted in Judaism there was no room for other influences

Is there anything specific you think needs adressing?

What I was getting at more wasn't necessarily the specific claims of the Resurrection (though there do seem to be a fair number of dying/re-born god-man myths from other religions kicking around), but just that - in a general sense - it's no more compelling than the miracle claims of other religions.

Yes, I'm sure that the Christian story has details that aren't precisely echoed in other religious tales, but so what? I'd be hard pressed to find scriptures of some other religion that describes a winged horse with the face of a woman carrying someone to Heaven, but this uniqueness by itself wouldn't be a good reason for me to accept the Quran.

11 of the Apostles (John was likely the only non-martyr)

Well... I suppose we can infer the names from this, but there's still two parts of what I asked for that you failed to provide:

- details
- reasons why we should accept these accounts as factual.

The pink elephant is so bizarre and doesn't actually exist, it would be clear to be a hallucination.
The Risen Christ however is not something trippy you would see on an acid trip, If He was a hallucination they only one person would see Him at a time, that wasn't the case.

Wait one minute: it seems you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, you're arguing that the Resurrected Christ is so unique that it means Christianity is on a higher level than other religions. Now it seems that you're saying that the Resurrected Christ is "normal" enough and so within the realm of experience that it's most plausible to assume that the Gospel story is an accurate account of what happened.

Which is it? If Christ is normal and plausible, then he's not unique and special.

The only reason why we would consider the appearance of a pink elephant as implausible: because it's never happened once in all of recorded history. It is completely alien to all human experience.

Now... consider this: you're telling us that except for this one instance, the resurrected Christ is also completely alien to all human experience. Except for the one time you're trying to convince us actually happened, it's never happened either.

IOW, unless we accept your claim as true without bothering to consider its merits (which would be irrational), the resurrected Christ is in exactly the same category as the pink elephant... based on the parameters that you yourself have given us.

On top of that He eat food with the disciples and Thomas touched his wounds. The idea that the apostles made it up seems so silly, because we have no record of any other messianic cult doing that, because once a messiah died people usually gave up, that was the pattern. Mary when visiting the tomb thought first that the Phariseehs had stolen the body, and when Christ came to her she was so surpised she didn't recognize Him.
From these events I don't know how we come to the conclusion that Christ had just an enlightenment, as we are even given the length of time he spend on the cross.

It's an interesting story, but what reason do you have to think that it actually happened? I mean, we can look at the Odyssey and read specific details about, say, Odysseus' crew being turned into animals, and I sure haven't heard of any cult making up that sort of thing. So what makes the Bible special? Why is it believable when so many other miracle tales aren't?

 

[outhouse]

whats really important here to understand is that the gospels are only simular version's of the real history grouped together.

They are only a glimpse into the past, not a literal complete legend that paints a perfect view of the past.


This is backed by archeology, scholarships, historians and the pope himself would probably back my statements

 

[fallingblood]

whats really important here to understand is that the gospels are only simular version's of the real history grouped together.

They are only a glimpse into the past, not a literal complete legend that paints a perfect view of the past.


This is backed by archeology, scholarships, historians and the pope himself would probably back my statements

And nearly any historic book from that time is the same. Your point being what? You try way to hard to discredit these works, when, if examined like other books from that time, one would be able to look at them in a more well balanced light.

 

[outhouse]

And nearly any historic book from that time is the same. Your point being what?

wrong

you discount others at will like the nag hammadi that actually back your gnostic view of a spiritual resurrection

You try way to hard to discredit these works

I only discount the literal reading of such text because they were never ment to be read that way and as I stated quite clearly "they only give us a glimpse of history due to all the theological fiction added.

if examined like other books from that time, one would be able to look at them in a more well balanced light.

I do not agree

By examination of previous books without theology added and edited in, we see much more clearly how much fiction was added.

You can take the whole birth and just about throw the baby and the bathwater out.

 

[outhouse]

And nearly any historic book from that time is the same. Your point being what? You try way to hard to discredit these works, when, if examined like other books from that time, one would be able to look at them in a more well balanced light.

your nit picking at this point, my statement is not only sound, it stands correct.


not one statement I made discredits the works, it only addresses a historical perspective which the whole bible has never been.

 

[blueman]

Objective proof and a logical philosophy, to answer your question. The problem is that the resurrection, or even the existence of Jesus, cannot be verified. The Bible is full of contradictions and errors. The 'gospel' changed constantly, from Paul until today. There's no solid ground to stand on. It's all metaphysical speculation, at best. And really there's nothing in your post that can't be found in other religions. And to address the topic of why did Christianity survive? Because, through the fact that it survived 300 years of persecution, it eventually became the religion of the empire.

the existence of Jesus has been verified by Scripture, non-secular sources such as Josephus, Lucien, Tacitus, etc. You stack-rank the NT Gospels against any other work of antiquity, there is nothing that comes close in terms of historical criticism. Stop it with the Jesus' existence cannot be verified nonsense.

 

[outhouse]

the existence of Jesus has been verified by Scripture, non-secular sources such as Josephus, Lucien, Tacitus, etc. You stack-rank the NT Gospels against any other work of antiquity, there is nothing that comes close in terms of historical criticism. Stop it with the Jesus' existence cannot be verified nonsense.

I agree whole hearted

 

[Nakosis]

the existence of Jesus has been verified by Scripture, non-secular sources such as Josephus, Lucien, Tacitus, etc. You stack-rank the NT Gospels against any other work of antiquity, there is nothing that comes close in terms of historical criticism. Stop it with the Jesus' existence cannot be verified nonsense.

Don't think anyone has been trying to argue against the existence of this person. Just more the significance/circumstances of the resurrection.

The main argument seeming between a physical and spiritual resurrection. I think a spiritual resurrection could easily account for the stories.