• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Your best argument that god exists

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Indistinguishable - "that is right out"

1. Jesus was beaten until the bones were visible, spat on, cursed, rejected by every friend he had.
2. Your guy was probably surrounded by many loved ones and given any medicines to stop pain and anxiety needed.
3. Jesus felt every ounce of pain of his torture.
4. You guy was not conscious of the surgical operation at all.
5. Jesus refused even the wine/gall that was a very mild anesthetic held up to him on a stick and sponge.
6. Your guy had his choice of juice.
7. Jesus only had two choices to hang from the nails in his arms and suffocate or to stand on the nail through his heal. Most alternated between the two.

8. Your guy was in a hospital bed after his painless surgery and apparently in a blissful coma for 3 days. With every comfort possible provided.
9. Jesus was thorn in a cave and sealed shut.


His pain was only going to get worse for the next 3 days.


I have had facial reconstructive surgery twice (I guess I was that ugly). I would rather have 100 more than to spend 2 hours on the cross.

Jesus' ordeal just got worse after death. The bible says he went to hell for 3 days. It depends which version of view of hell you subscribe to. But in any description you are infinitely separated from God and all God comes with, love, contentment, joy, etc......... It is worse than hanging out with those death eaters from Harry Potter. This was the primary sacrifice. And it occurred to a man who voluntary surrendered all these after having enjoyed them from eternity past.

Also remember this. There is no necessity that Jesus physically suffer the worst possible pain wee can imagine. Just that he suffered something horrific and sufficient.

I will conclude with a coroners report of crucifixion. One of the least graphic ones.

The JAMA study led McKeating to the classic text in the field, A Doctor at Calvary, an exhaustive account written by French Catholic surgeon Pierre Barbet. Barbet completed his book in 1949 after decades of research.

McKeating praises both studies for their scholarship and their unflinching care.

"Anyone who studies the matter has to start with these sources," he said. "But keep in mind that it is a start. As we advance in medicine, we are able to learn still more about our Lord's passion."

How did crucifixion usually happen? Applying their medical knowledge to the historical data, doctors such as McKeating, Barbet and the JAMA team have attempted to reconstruct the events.


Maximum pain



The ancient Romans had a special genius for torture. It helped them keep order in a vast empire. The public spectacle of extreme suffering repeated with some regularity served as a deterrent to would-be rebels and insurgents.

Crucifixion was the utmost refinement of the Roman art of torture. The Jewish historian Josephus called it "the most wretched of deaths." It was designed to cause the most pain in the most parts of the body over the longest period of time.

Crucifixion was humiliating, too, so it was usually reserved for slaves, lower-class criminals or those whose crimes were especially heinous. The stripped man was exposed, naked, to a boorish crowd that delighted in such spectacles. They cast stones at him, spat at him, jeered at him.

The end began when executioners extended the condemned man's arms and bound them to a wooden beam. Sometimes, they would also drive nails through the man's wrists at the highly sensitive median nerve. The executioner relied on the element of surprise for the first hammer blow. The victim was unlikely ever to have experienced such pain before. It was "the most unbearable pain that a man can experience," Barbet concluded.

Nailing the second arm, however, could pose a problem, because the nervous system would instinctively recoil from any repetition of that pain. The executioner would need to struggle against an arm rigidly resistant to his efforts. All of this wrangling, involuntary on the part of the victim, would intensify the pain in the arm already nailed.

The beam then was attached to a pole. Every shift of the beam renewed the pain in the median nerve. But all of that was just a prelude to the real torture of crucifixion.

The victim found himself suspended above the ground, his body slumped forward, his knees bent and his feet positioned as if he were standing on tiptoe. That position made it almost impossible for him to draw a breath.

"Crucifixion stretches the chest cavity open," McKeating explained, "and the weight of the body pulls down on the diaphragm so the lungs are kept open. It requires great effort to breathe in and even greater effort to exhale which is normally a fairly passive process."

The victim could not breathe inward or outward without lifting his body up by the nails in his wrists and pushing up on the nail in his feet. With every breath, then, he felt the coarse metal tearing at his nerves.

Gradually, his limbs cramped and weakened. As he was less able to lift himself up, he began, slowly, to suffocate.

A victim of crucifixion alternated between the panicked sense of asphyxiation and the searing pain of the nails in his flesh. Relief from one inevitably brought about the other.

In a strong man, this could go on for many hours, even days. If the Romans wanted to accelerate the process, they would break the victim's legs so he could no longer push himself upward to take a breath.


Even before the cross


"Jesus was probably a strong man," McKeating said. "He was relatively young, He worked hard, and He tended to travel by foot. But by the time He reached Calvary, He had undergone many hours of preliminary tortures that alone might have killed him."

In the Garden of Gethsemane, "His sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground" (Lk 22:44). The JAMA article, following Barbet, attributes this to a phenomenon called hematidrosis or hemohidrosis hemorrhaging into the sweat glands. This is a rare condition that occurs in people at the extremes of human emotion. It leaves the skin very tender and highly sensitive to pain.

Jesus would have keenly felt every blow as His captors "mocked him and beat him" (Lk 22:63). The beatings continued through long hours in which He was also forced to walk from one interrogation to another before the Sanhedrin, before Pilate, before Herod and again before Pilate. The JAMA research concludes that He walked two-and-a-half miles during that sleepless night.

Pilate ordered Jesus to be flogged, and Roman flogging alone could kill a man. A typical whip of cords was studded with metal, sharp animal bones or shards of pottery. It was designed to bruise and tear the skin. Often, a man was whipped by two torturers, one on each side, while he was bound to a post or pillar. It was here that Jesus probably suffered His greatest blood loss.

His back, torn open by the Romans, then had to bear the rough wood of the crossbeam, which probably weighed 75 to 125 pounds. He had to carry the burden along an uneven roadway from Pilate's praetorium to the hill of Calvary, a third of a mile. Surely, He fell often.

"Some people say that Jesus' suffering was somehow easier because he was God," McKeating said. "But that's not so. Many theologians believe He suffered in a greater way because He had perfect knowledge of what was happening. Also, His senses would have been more acute and more sensitive to pain because they were not at all dulled, as ours are, by sin and self-indulgence."


Cause of death

What killed Jesus?

"I think it's multifactorial," McKeating said. "I think the proximate cause of death was probably suffocation asphyxia. But I think the end came relatively swiftly just three long hours because our Lord was probably in shock before He was actually crucified.

"After the exposure, the emotional duress, the severe beating and then the scourging, He was probably in Class 3 shock, out of a possible 4."

A great physiologist once described shock as the rude unhinging of the cellular machinery of our bodies.

"The technical definition," said McKeating, "is that it's inadequate perfusion of blood to the tissues of our body.

Our bodies normally have five liters of blood. McKeating said that "in a typical Roman scourging, a man would have lost a liter and a half."

Shock would have weakened Him and left Him anxious and confused, hastening the end.

The Gospels suggest other factors, McKeating said. "After Jesus died, the soldier's lance thrust brought forth blood and water (Jn 19:34). Where did the water come from? Probably pericardial effusion. Fluid would have built up from internal injuries, pulmonary contusions, bruises, beatings, and it would have filled His chest cavity or the sac around His heart. Every time the heart would beat, then, it couldn't expand the way it needed to, and it couldn't fill up. Eventually, it would stop."


Forensic scientists say that the better we know what killed someone, the more likely we are to find out who killed him.

Who killed Jesus? After a decade-and-a-half of study, McKeating doesn't hesitate to respond.

"I did," he said. "My sins did."
What Killed Jesus

The word excruciating derived from crucifixion.

Could be, yet he was still able to walk, carry a huge cross around and chat while he was hanging there. So, I don't think it was so bad, after all. I saw people in hospitals in much worse conditions. People who do not know they are God and that they will come back jumping and flying around as Masters of the Universe after the weekend. So, still not impressed, sorry.

And sorry, he did what? Did he go to Hell for those three days? He did not even stay dead for longer than a second? Did the Romans send Him there?

But what I really do not understand is why the disciples were so skeptical after the first reports of his resurrection. Why is that in your opinion? I think this is one of the main pieces of evidence that all these stories are made up to increase drama without concerns for credibility; a bit like a Hollywood movie.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Everyone who has to describe before the beginning of the universe has trouble with terminology. I am not going to speak for that person but out tie is space time. Two related things. I would refer to before the universe existed as God-time. Time discussions are very hard to have because language is too clumsy to accurately convey an exact claim. However as long as we are not unreasonable we can allow a little rationality to grant obvious meanings even if the language is clumsy. Craig actually wrote a very large paper on this exact problem and spelled out in great detail how he relates to statements about time before the big bang. I have never read it all but would recommend it. It is mainly our own fault. We have used the word time to describe space time so long that they have become synonymous.

I hope we agree that those philosophers did not know what they were talking about. So, their explanation that this being is actually able to choose is not convincing at all.

And I think we did already go through this. All I have to do is to invoke relativity (and its still immature quantum version), spacetime, and the block universe it supports, to defuse any talk of beginnings and causation. But that would be like killing a little bird with a hydrogen bomb.

So, let's see how far we can go even accepting the outdated concept of time held by Craig and co. So, let's grant this, the PSR and the existence of one or more necessary things that do not require further explanation, just for sake of discussion.

I still do not see how you go from "pinciple of sufficient reason", to "personal/conscious/moral, and able to choose".

Suppose that I tell you that this necessary being is, in reality, a dumb and eternal random generator of zillions and zillions of possible Universes that just exists, a brute and ultimate fact of reality. How would you attack this?

Ciao

- viole
 

kepha31

Active Member
The Mythology of an Anti-Christian Bigot - Crisis Magazine
also not credible.

By "not credible" you mean it refutes your novel "myth theory" that was invented a few decades ago.

An excerpt from the above link:
Lewis expects the already existent language of other mythologies to find fulfillment or answer in Christianity. Ratzinger shows that Christianity does not just fulfill but undermines, transforms, and transcends its historical antecedents. Indeed, there are no true antecedents or parallels but only an already existent language to be reworked and fulfilled. If God had to give us language along with his revelation, then we would, as it were, lack the vocabulary necessary to receive his Word; it would have to be immediately inserted into us, and this would be no revelation at all, but a simple dissolving of history into the divine.

I continue to find this supposed skeptical mode, this pretension to debunk, Christianity bizarre. Its argument seems to be that if sources for the language of scripture can be discovered, then the language of scripture itself has no integrity, and so, no reality as a revelation of a truth greater than the sum of its parts. Does such a claim withstand scrutiny even on the natural level?
Your attack on academia is not strong, it amounts to fanaticism.
I am not qualified to attack anything, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. The myth theory is a duck, and a rubber one at that.
I don't need to attack your cherry picked version of academia, I'll let professors do it for me:

These links don't prove Martin wrong, but what they show is that he is not the high priest of biblical knowledge you make him out to be, and highly criticized by his peers:
Dale Martin's Poststructuralist Persona and His Historical-Critical Real Self
An Exchange Between Robert Gagnon and Dale Martin over Martin's Critique of Gagnon in Sex and the Single Savior
Dale Martin's Postructuralist Persona and His Historical-Critical Real
Self by Robert A. J. Gagnon


Prof. Gagnon to Dale Martin, a portion of an email exchange:

"...A good deal of your argument is based on showing that a text—indeed, all texts—can be reasonably subjected to multiple interpretations, even interpretations that are at wide variance. To make this case you have to demonstrate this for every text and every reading; namely, that there are legitimate counter-interpretations for every argument that a given ancient text (to say nothing of modern) meant such-and-such in its context.* This you have not done, not even close. In fact, based on what you have already written and argued, it is apparent that you don’t believe that yourself—or you fail to recognize the logical inconsistency of your case. I can open to almost any page of what you have written, where the presumption of certainty as to what an ancient or modern text can mean or cannot mean is present.

Some Responses to "Dale Martin's Poststructuralist Persona and His Historical-Critical Real Self"
Some Responses to "Dale Martin's Poststructuralist Persona"
Ben Witherington: MARTIN VS. BARTON ON HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND THE ISSUE OF MEANING[/QUOTE]

There is lots more, but I think you get the idea.
 

kepha31

Active Member
Could be, yet he was still able to walk, carry a huge cross around and chat while he was hanging there. So, I don't think it was so bad, after all. I saw people in hospitals in much worse conditions. People who do not know they are God and that they will come back jumping and flying around as Masters of the Universe after the weekend. So, still not impressed, sorry.

And sorry, he did what? Did he go to Hell for those three days? He did not even stay dead for longer than a second? Did the Romans send Him there?

But what I really do not understand is why the disciples were so skeptical after the first reports of his resurrection. Why is that in your opinion? I think this is one of the main pieces of evidence that all these stories are made up to increase drama without concerns for credibility; a bit like a Hollywood movie.

Ciao

- viole
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
images
 

outhouse

Atheistically
By "not credible" you mean it refutes your novel "myth theory" that was invented a few decades ago.

You have no knowledge in this topic to speak of such things.

I do not propose Jesus is myth. But mythology was factually written about him in theology through rhetorical prose.

You would have to have an education on this topic to understand what im talking about.

I am not qualified to attack anything

Agreed

These links don't prove Martin wrong, but what they show is that he is not the high priest of biblical knowledge you make him out to be, and highly criticized by his peers:

I have studied under Dale.

I have never stated he is a high priest of biblical knowledge, but you sir cannot hold a candle to the man.


Second the link you provided is one that deals with Dales theology on sexuality. I never stated I agree with it, and its out of context to the thread at hand.

highly criticized by his peers:

You found one negative post. That does not mean he is highly criticized.

Your position is unsubstantiated.
 

outhouse

Atheistically

Sorry he is a known apologist, and not nearly well known as Dale.


Finding people with different opinions then a professor is a weak and pathetic means of debate, being very few scholars agree with each other and have their own ideas due to the nature of the study.

Now if you want to debate specific historical details, we can then attribute what different levels of plausibility they are viewed as holding in academia.
 

outhouse

Atheistically

kepha31

Active Member
Sorry he is a known apologist, and not nearly well known as Dale.

"Apologetics" is not an inferior discipline. It's function is to explain and defend. Truth rests on its own merits, not who says it, or how well known they are, or how many degrees they have. It seems you dismiss apologists because you can't refute them. BTW, apologetics is steeped in history. The link in question lists 20 responses, not just one apologist. Let's get back to unmasking the Jesus Seminar.

Unmasking the Jesus Seminar

by Dr. Mark D. Roberts
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Maybe this will help. You should have known this

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[
No, you misunderstand the field. Most scholars believe that Jesus is likely to have existed - not that it is established. It is a best guess, not a conclusion. And if you seriously imagine there is anything like universal assent, you are kidding yourself.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists.
I believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Old and New Testaments.
I know He exists because I have felt and experienced the power of the Holy Ghost throughout my life and have witnessed the blessings and miracles that come in obedience to his commandments.
If you want to experience the power of the Holy Ghost and know for yourself that my God exists and feel the power of the Holy Ghost for yourself you must seek God out for your self with a sincere heart, praying to know that he is there, learning about Him through the scriptures, (The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the words of his living prophets found on ww.LDS.org) and experiment by keeping his commandments.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Old and New Testaments.
I know He exists because I have felt and experienced the power of the Holy Ghost throughout my life and have witnessed the blessings and miracles that come in obedience to his commandments.
If you want to experience the power of the Holy Ghost and know for yourself that my God exists and feel the power of the Holy Ghost for yourself you must seek God out for your self with a sincere heart, praying to know that he is there, learning about Him through the scriptures, (The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the words of his living prophets found on ww.LDS.org) and experiment by keeping his commandments.
Sorry, but that isn't very convincing at all. No personal experiences and assertions are.
 

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that isn't very convincing at all. No personal experiences and assertions are.
Sorry, that is the best I got, though I do believe very strongly that all things stand as evidence that God exists, but it takes a personal experience with God to know that he is there and not on vacation somewhere.
 

kepha31

Active Member
It is not a discipline.
It's a branch of evangelism, and has nothing to do with spanking.

And it does so with faith instead of any credible methodology.
I dunno, Outhouse, you seem to be defending the Jesus Seminarians with the weirdest "voting" methods used for determining truth, not to mention self-refuting relativism. That makes you an apologist.

It is the opposite of academic. It has less then no credibility.
Perhaps you should encounter one.
I just got this today:

Relativists an Endangered Species?
by Helen Rittelmeyer
Relativists are an endangered species on America’s campuses, and in 30 years they will probably be extinct—or, if not, then sequestered in made-up departments that are denigrated by the rest of the faculty and eyed predatorily by budget directors on the lookout for programs to cut.

The Yale English department is a good example. In the directory for tenured and tenure-track faculty, “Marxist literary theory” is listed by five professors among their fields of interest, “gender and sexuality” by nine, and “colonial and postcolonial” by 11, or a quarter of the 44 professors. In the graduate student directory, however, the numbers for those subjects are one, three, and a fat goose egg. That’s quite a statistical drop-off, considering that grad students outnumber professors nearly two to one. The topics favored instead by these future scholars are Romanticism (six), Victorian literature (five), Milton (seven), and, oddly enough, religious literature (also seven). Honorable mentions include “Biblical exegesis,” “conversion narratives,” and “Middle English devotional, visionary, and anchoritic writing”—they’re not just reading the Bible, they’re reading monks.
Relativists an Endangered Species? - The Imaginative Conservative

Its best to verify the above with the Yale directory. You can't be 100% certain an internet source is accurate.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Relativists are an endangered species

So what? It has no relevance in this thread

I dunno, Outhouse, you seem to be defending the Jesus Seminarians with the weirdest "voting" methods used for determining truth, not to mention self-refuting relativism.

Quite a bit of their historical work is very good.

Im not defending them as much as throwing out the bias your calling methodology.

I don't follow them, but do have them on my facebook page lol,,,,, but I do follow some parts of the work some scholars produce that are in the group. I also fight against the work of some in the group.

If you actually understood the current state of academia in scholarship, we would not be having a debate.
 

kepha31

Active Member
So what? It has no relevance in this thread
It does when you have 2 generations of myth theorists and they are all relativists.

Quite a bit of their historical work is very good.

Im not defending them as much as throwing out the bias your calling methodology.

I don't follow them, but do have them on my facebook page lol,,,,, but I do follow some parts of the work some scholars produce that are in the group. I also fight against the work of some in the group.

If you actually understood the current state of academia in scholarship, we would not be having a debate.
What matters is the dogmatic declaration that Jesus did not rise from the dead, based on relative human scholarship. It's a form of Pelagianism, or works righteousness. If I wanted to verify information in the Yale directory, it is a given that Yale is the authority on what is in the directory. Similarly, if I wanted to verify information in the Bible, I would go to the authority that produced it. There are many faithful scholars who are not at odds with revealed truths, and many where truth doesn't exist.
 
Top