PDA

View Full Version : Body of Christ discussion etc sf. Origins



Spiny Norman
01-12-2007, 04:41 PM
Not necessary to this discussion Spiny.
No, not necessary, but I am curious ... can you conceive of a test which you personally would find convincing? If so, what would such a test look like? Why would God participate?

Here's a few examples that I personally find sufficient:

1. Lets say my daughter dies prematurely. Someone comes and prays for her. She lives again.

2. I pray and ask God to reveal Himself to me. After praying, I find that I have a perception of His existence which was not previously there.

How 'bout you?

Aaron Guthrie
01-12-2007, 05:25 PM
No, not necessary, but I am curious ... can you conceive of a test which you personally would find convincing?As long as we are on interesting questions, how about you give your run of what evidence you would take as refuting your belief in a (Christian) God?

And my run on what would convince me, well, my first inclination is I would be convinced by a convincing argument!

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2007, 05:27 PM
As long as we are on interesting questions, how about you give your run of what evidence you would take as refuting your belief in a (Christian) God?
Producing the body of Christ would have done it. But neither the Romans nor the Jewish leaders could do so. Because it was no longer dead!

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2007, 05:37 PM
I didn't doubt some knowledge was learned ni those times. Particularly prior to the rise of Rome. The Roman world was not conducive to learning and the dark ages wiped out much of the knowledge created and acquired by the greeks prior to Rome's ascendancy.
The idea of a "dark age" is 19th century revisionism. The Church kept much knowledge alive, and saw much technological advance. The stirrup and pommelled saddle revolutionized both cavalry warfare and plowing. Water and wind power was developed, and architectural feats of genius, such as the flying buttress, built huge cathedrals. Buridan, who I've already mentioned for his ingenious solution of liar paradoxes, challenged Aristotelian physics, and his notion of "impetus" was a fore-runner to Galileo's "inertia" and Newton's 1st Law of motion.


The undisputable fact is that without science people did not have a systematic way of evaluating claims and greater superstition and beliefs that no one today entertains, were common place.
It was Christian Europe that was the birthplace of modern science. Science was stillborn in Greece and China, for example. See for example For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/) by Rodney Stark


Either way your objection carries no weight as your position is: People at the time COULD have found evidence but didn't, therefore the resurrection is a fact.
So what happened to the body then? Or are you going to bore us all with more chronological snobbery?


I certainly can't be held responsible for the lack of scientific method in Judea 2000 years ago. It was hardly a center of learning and enlightenment.
How much learning do you need to know whether a body is dead or alive? The Romans, unlike most modern westerners shielded from the harsh reality of bodily changes after death, knew what death looked like.


It was a troublesome outer province of the Roman Empire with a native population that was bordering on revolution. It was a place of harsh and swift justice, death was common place and the authorities did not have the time or manpower to conduct coronial inquiries.
Come off it. They were anxious to put down new religions that threatened the supremacy of Caesar.

Rincewind
01-12-2007, 06:58 PM
No, not necessary, but I am curious ... can you conceive of a test which you personally would find convincing? If so, what would such a test look like? Why would God participate?

Here's a few examples that I personally find sufficient:

1. Lets say my daughter dies prematurely. Someone comes and prays for her. She lives again.

2. I pray and ask God to reveal Himself to me. After praying, I find that I have a perception of His existence which was not previously there.

How 'bout you?

Perhaps you should start a new thread or add it to the God thread. This is specifically about origins - evolution, ID and creationism.

Rincewind
01-12-2007, 07:05 PM
There's a considerable number, myself included, who believe that defending basic tenets of Christian faith is a very noble task. But perhaps you'd best leave the assessment of the value of Jono's service to Christ to the only Person whose opinion counts ... ;)

I think Jono is in fact weakening christianity by setting it up as opposed to science. There is no reason one cannot be a christian and a scientist.

For example see The American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org/). I don't share their faith but they show how for many christian scientists, the basic tenets of the bible is not in conflict with scientific fact. I suggest you have a look around. None of their papers were of much interest to me as they were written for a christian audience.

Desmond
01-12-2007, 07:13 PM
Producing the body of Christ would have done it. But neither the Romans nor the Jewish leaders could do so. Because it was no longer dead!But there is no body that could be produced that could ever remotely convince you since it would be at odds with your holy book and therefore your mind would be closed to the evidence.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 11:21 AM
But there is no body that could be produced that could ever remotely convince you since it would be at odds with your holy book and therefore your mind would be closed to the evidence.
The point is that Christianity would have been nipped in the bud by producing Christ's dead body. But your mind is closed to the evidence that He rose from the dead.

Rincewind
02-12-2007, 11:27 AM
The point is that Christianity would have been nipped in the bud by producing Christ's dead body. But your mind is closed to the evidence that He rose from the dead.

Do you have any evidence that anyone put any effort into trying to find it?

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 11:31 AM
Do you have any evidence that anyone put any effort into trying to find it?
The intense preceived need to quash this dangerous new religion, a threat to both the exclusive claims of Caesar and the Jewish religious leaders. The fact of the empty tomb was shown early on when stories were made up about the disciples stealing the body (after rolling back a stone weighing tons, overcoming the guards) then proclaiming with force that the Messiah had risen.

Desmond
02-12-2007, 11:46 AM
The point is that Christianity would have been nipped in the bud by producing Christ's dead body. No, the point is that there is no evidence that could ever be produced that could convince you, because you simply explain it away if it is at odds with your story book.


But your mind is closed to the evidence that He rose from the dead.How would you know?

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 11:59 AM
No, the point is that there is no evidence that could ever be produced that could convince you, because you simply explain it away if it is at odds with your story book.
Why don't you produce this alleged evidence? Fact remains, if the body of Christ had been produced, there would have been no Christianity or New Testament.


How would you know?
If it looks like a dogmatic materialist, sounds like a dogmatic materialist, talks like a dogmatic materialist, then it probably is a dogmatic materialist :P

Desmond
02-12-2007, 12:16 PM
Why don't you produce this alleged evidence? Are you listening? It is impossible to do enough to convince you because your eyes are closed.


Fact remains, if the body of Christ had been produced, there would have been no Christianity or New Testament.If I gave you a 2000 year old corpse, there is no test that anyone could do on it to convince you it was that of Jesus.



If it looks like a dogmatic materialist, sounds like a dogmatic materialist, talks like a dogmatic materialist, then it probably is a dogmatic materialist :PGuess again.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 12:20 PM
Are you listening? It is impossible to do enough to convince you because your eyes are closed.
Are you listening? It is impossible to do enough to convince you that Jesus really did rise from the dead because your eyes are closed.


If I gave you a 2000 year old corpse, there is no test that anyone could do on it to convince you it was that of Jesus.
What test would convince you or anyone else that it was Jesus, for that matter?

Rincewind
02-12-2007, 12:22 PM
The intense preceived need to quash this dangerous new religion, a threat to both the exclusive claims of Caesar and the Jewish religious leaders. The fact of the empty tomb was shown early on when stories were made up about the disciples stealing the body (after rolling back a stone weighing tons, overcoming the guards) then proclaiming with force that the Messiah had risen.

So that would be... none. :lol:

Good try, Jono... not.

Desmond
02-12-2007, 12:27 PM
Are you listening? It is impossible to do enough to convince you that Jesus really did rise from the dead because your eyes are closed. Ah, invoking the "I know you are but what am I" defense. The problem with that for you is that your mission statement backs up my claim that it applies to you, but you have nothing to pin the "eyes-closed" badge onto me.



What test would convince you or anyone else that it was Jesus, for that matter?Edit: I'm not familiar with the specifics of the relevant scientific testing. I assume there are test that could be done re: age, ethnicity, where the body was found etc.

Spiny Norman
02-12-2007, 12:30 PM
As long as we are on interesting questions, how about you give your run of what evidence you would take as refuting your belief in a (Christian) God?
Fair question. Faith is a complex thing. I'm not sure that I can wrap it up in simple terms, but I'll try.

First and foremost, my faith is based on some kind of fundamental perception of God's existence. That is to say, I don't think its "propositional". (I'm fumbling for the right words here!). Not in the sense that: proposition A, proposition B, therefore God exists. Its a basic belief.

That basic belief (perhaps a basic deism, or perhaps even theism) finds its expression in Christianity.

So I think firstly that it might be possible to shake my belief in a specifically Christian God, yet not necessarily shake my fundamental belief in "a" God. I suppose I've never really thought about the two as separate beliefs, but that's how it seems to me at present.

Now, what could shake my belief? Some of the following I would find particularly difficult to reconcile with my present understanding of Christianity:
-- life on other planets
-- demonstration of spontaneous generation of life (unassisted by humans)
-- production of a crystal clear series of transitional fossils (e.g. from no wings, to half a wing, to wings, etc)
-- unequivocal proof that Jesus was not resurrected (say, production of a body and some proof that this particular body really did belong to Jesus)

But the big one would be: loss of the perception of God's existence.

That would kill it stone dead in a heartbeat I expect.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 12:39 PM
Ah, invoking the "I know you are but what am I" defense.
Of course! I have no intention of letting dogmatic materialists use the "I'm so open-minded but you're closed minded" attack without a counterattack.


The problem with that for you is that your mission statement backs up my claim that it applies to you,
It doesn't explain WHY one would adopt such a mission statement. How about the overwhelming evidence that Jesus said was who He said He was? It's similar to many things that scientists like me believe, e.g. the laws of thermodynamics. Many would appear to be dogmatic when rejecting claims to the contrary, e.g. incorrect reportage or experimental error. But WHY are they dogmatic—because of the overwhelming support for these laws.

Similarly, critics of the New Testament argue that the writers were biased. But WHY were they biased is the question. The only reasonable answer is concrete proof of the Rez.


but you have nothing to pin the "eyes-closed" badge onto me.
Just your dogmatic rejection of anything that challenges your blind atheistic faith.


Edit: I'm not familiar with the specifics of the relevant scientific testing. I assume there are test that could be done re: age, ethnicity, where the body was found etc.
How much more could opponents have produced the body at the time? IF it were able to be produced! That is a falsification test that even a naïve falsificationist like Rincewind should be happy with, if were not likewise a dogmatic materialist.

Spiny Norman
02-12-2007, 12:42 PM
If I gave you a 2000 year old corpse, there is no test that anyone could do on it to convince you it was that of Jesus.
Just wanted to interject and observe that the right time for opponents of the new Christian sect "The Way" (as they were known back then) to produce the body of Jesus was then.

I find this quite intriguing. It would have been a trivial matter for either the Jewish or Roman leader to acquire a body, bearing the marks of crucifixion, battered so as to be unrecognisable, then claimed that this was Jesus' body.

Yet the Gospels record that instead, there was but a rumour that the disciples "stole the body". Seems clear enough to me that it was, by then, common knowledge that there was no body in the tomb in question (and many at that time would have known which tomb it was).

The Romans weren't exactly new at this crucifixion business, and they knew a dead body when they saw it ... and the alternative explanation (that Jesus didn't really die) is rather ludicrous.

Leaving the only other plausible explanation ... that the disciples took the body.

Anyway, the time for body production was back then, and the authorities missed their chance. Its up to individuals such as you and me to work out why that is.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2007, 01:06 PM
Just wanted to interject and observe that the right time for opponents of the new Christian sect "The Way" (as they were known back then) to produce the body of Jesus was then.
And it wasn't just the empty tomb, but credible reports of Jesus being alive, and really physical (eating fish), and that these appearances ceased abruptly after 40 days rather than continuing. See also Hallucinations and the Risen Jesus: A Closer Look at the Subjective Visions Hypothesis (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/wildvis.html).


Yet the Gospels record that instead, there was but a rumour that the disciples "stole the body". Seems clear enough to me that it was, by then, common knowledge that there was no body in the tomb in question (and many at that time would have known which tomb it was).
Exactly. See also Could the Body of Jesus Have been Stolen by Grave Robbers? (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/graverob.html) As if such a secret wouldn't become known, considering how conspiracies to lie unravel so easily. It is even more serious in those days, since the disciples had every incentive to retract (torture, death), as well as with everyone minding everyone else's business in that honour-shame culture so it was much harder to do things in secret.


Anyway, the time for body production was back then, and the authorities missed their chance. Its up to individuals such as you and me to work out why that is.
But dogmatic misotheists like Boris and Rincewind are closed-minded to any non-materialistic explanations.

Rincewind
02-12-2007, 02:27 PM
Anyway, the time for body production was back then, and the authorities missed their chance. Its up to individuals such as you and me to work out why that is.

Is there any evidence that anyone went looking for the body?

Spiny Norman
03-12-2007, 06:09 AM
Is there any evidence that anyone went looking for the body?
Yes. Firstly, there was a guard on the tomb, to prevent the disciples robbing the tomb (the authorities weren't stupid). Secondly, the guards, having found an empty tomb, went and reported to the authorities what had happened and got paid off (better than being executed I suppose). Ref: Matt 27:62-66 and Matt 28:11-15. I can't imagine any government official just paying people off for no reason. Seems clear that there really was no body there.

Rincewind
03-12-2007, 08:53 AM
Yes. Firstly, there was a guard on the tomb, to prevent the disciples robbing the tomb (the authorities weren't stupid). Secondly, the guards, having found an empty tomb, went and reported to the authorities what had happened and got paid off (better than being executed I suppose). Ref: Matt 27:62-66 and Matt 28:11-15. I can't imagine any government official just paying people off for no reason. Seems clear that there really was no body there.

The guard (assuming there was a guard) lost what he was guarding. Not the first time this has happened.

It not clear to me why you think the alleged paying off is significant.

But based on what you have provided, no one went looking.

Next?

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 09:07 AM
The guard (assuming there was a guard) lost what he was guarding. Not the first time this has happened.
If a Roman guard fell asleep, he would be executed.


It not clear to me why you think the alleged paying off is significant.
Should be obvious. There was no body left in the tomb, and the heavy stone was rolled back uphill.


But based on what you have provided, no one went looking.
Who who took the body? Where did they put it?

The situation became worse for Christianity's opponents when there were credible reports that Jesus was alive again. But the first reports would have been regarded in those days as not credible, because they came from women. It's not something that would be made up, because it harms credibility.

You just prove my point: you whinge about the alleged dogmatism of creationists, but you're a dogmatic closed-minded misotheist yourself.

Rincewind
03-12-2007, 10:33 AM
You just prove my point: you whinge about the alleged dogmatism of creationists, but you're a dogmatic closed-minded misotheist yourself.

No I am just waiting for evidence. As yet none has been presented.

Did anyone go looking for the body?

TheJoker
03-12-2007, 12:52 PM
Of the thousands of people crucified I believe only one corpse has been found:eek:

It is belived most of the corpses were left on the cross to decay.

According to the bible: Joseph of Arimithea "requested" to take christ's body so that it could be placed in tomb owned by him. Pilate having confirmed that the execution had indeed taken place agreed to relinquish the body.

Therefore I doubt the was any security at the tomb (apart from the stone) let alone a roman guard.

Hence a myriad of theories can explain the absence of the body (all with at least the same pluasibility as the resurrection).

For example, Jewish leaders are said to have been angered by the use of the tomb for the body. They removed the body (dumped or burned).

Generally scholars agree on the Markan priority, and many of the earliest versions (more authentic??) of Mark end at 16:8 (i.e. prior to any sightings of a resurrected christ).

If I were a christian I would base my faith on a little more than the absence of the body of christ.

And of course the discovery of a body would not end the possibility of a resurrected christ as in some verses of the bible christ's followers were unable to recognise him immediately, inferring the possibility that during the resurrection he entered a different body.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 01:21 PM
Of the thousands of people crucified I believe only one corpse has been found:eek:
So? Of the millions of people who died in first century Israel, how many corpses have been found?


It is belived most of the corpses were left on the cross to decay.
But not on the Sabbath.


According to the bible: Joseph of Arimithea "requested" to take christ's body so that it could be placed in tomb owned by him. Pilate having confirmed that the execution had indeed taken place agreed to relinquish the body.
And confirmed that He was already dead, despite not having His legs broken.


Therefore I doubt the was any security at the tomb (apart from the stone) let alone a roman guard.
Doubt all you like, but credible reports say otherwise, and it is to be expected since both the Romans and the Jewish leaders wanted to make sure that the body would be there after three days, to refute the prophecies.


Hence a myriad of theories can explain the absence of the body (all with at least the same pluasibility as the resurrection).
Living up to your name I see. :P


For example, Jewish leaders are said to have been angered by the use of the tomb for the body. They removed the body (dumped or burned).
First, no record. Second, no motive, because it was in their interest to make sure that the body could be found, to disprove claims of His resurrection.


Generally scholars agree on the Markan priority,
"Scholars agree" — a common dodge. But J.P. Holding points out (http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html)that not only did the early church agree that Mark was not the first, but that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew:


Matthew composed a Gospel first, in Aramaic. In its order it was more like Mark is now.
Mark composed a Gospel next, or perhaps at the same time, but either way independently of Matthew's, using the same core apostolic tradition all of the apostles had access to (including Matthew and Peter, Mark's source). Peter and Matthew as apostles would of course transmit the same traditions, and in as much the same order as possible, having been both part of the apostolic ministry. Peter, however, expanded upon the material while preaching by adding eyewitness and personal observations, and it is possible that Peter (as well as Matthew later) did his own thematic arrangement now and then — as opposed to the idea [Hawk.HS, 126] that Matthew went through deleting so much material, it makes much more sense that Peter added his own touches to a common core he and Matthew shared. (An irony to note here [Farm.SP, 134] is that greater and more specifics in detail are a characteristic of the later apocryphal literature, which would make Mark by this standard a later document than either Matt or Luke!)
Luke came next, using Mark (likely), AND Matthew in Aramaic (definitely).
Finally we have Greek Matthew, which was not just a Greek compositional original but was also substantially reorganized for use as a teaching tool.



and many of the earliest versions (more authentic??) of Mark end at 16:8 (i.e. prior to any sightings of a resurrected christ).
We all know about the end of Mark. But even the genuine verses up to 8 clearly teach an empty tomb, stone rolled back, women as the first witnesses, and the clear teaching that Jesus was not in the tomb because He had risen.


If I were a christian I would base my faith on a little more than the absence of the body of christ.
So would I: the reports that Jesus had appeared alive both to followers and non-followers, and the startling growth of the Church despite all the cultural factors against it (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html).


And of course the discovery of a body would not end the possibility of a resurrected christ as in some verses of the bible christ's followers were unable to recognise him immediately, inferring the possibility that during the resurrection he entered a different body.
Piffle. There was never any body discovered, and equally important, a shrine was never made of the tomb, because there was no dispute that the body was no longer there.

It is hardly surprising that Jesus was not immediately recognized, since they expected that he was still dead.

TheJoker
03-12-2007, 04:26 PM
TheJoker,showing his true christophobic colours (which should have been obvious to blind Freddie and his deaf guide dog anyway

Actually Jono you are wrong I am not christophobic, my girlfriend is catholic and I attend church services with her on occassion. I am generally in favour of the teachings of Jesus, who I consider to very wise spiritual teacher, however I have not come to the conclusion that he is the saviour of mankind.

I think it is you who are showing your true colours by launching a personal attack on me for expressing my thoughts on the resurrection.


So? Of the millions of people who died in first century Israel, how many corpses have been found?


My point exactly even if there were a body to be found there is buckley's chance that one ever will be. (Not that I am saying there is a body I just entertaining the possibility).



Doubt all you like, but credible reports say otherwise, and it is to be expected since both the Romans and the Jewish leaders wanted to make sure that the body would be there after three days, to refute the prophecies.

Ok if you have credible sources that the tomb was guarded then I'll stand corrected. But seems strange that the romans would relinquish the body in the first place if they were so bent on proving the prophecy incorrect.


First, no record. Second, no motive, because it was in their interest to make sure that the body could be found, to disprove claims of His resurrection.

There is a problem in the logic here. There were no claims of his resurrection until after the body went missing.


"Scholars agree" — a common dodge. But J.P. Holding points out (http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html)that not only did the early church agree that Mark was not the first...

Ok I'll correct myself there is apopular scholarly opinion that the gospel of Mark was written first , there are of course alternate views on which gospel was written first.


We all know about the end of Mark. But even the genuine verses up to 8 clearly teach an empty tomb, stone rolled back, women as the first witnesses, and the clear teaching that Jesus was not in the tomb because He had risen.


the reports that Jesus had appeared alive both to followers and non-followers, and the startling growth of the Church despite all the cultural factors against it (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html).


I am not discounting the resurrection, just mentioning that there are other plausible theories.

Remember Elvis was also seen after his death by fans and non-fans alike.


It is hardly surprising that Jesus was not immediately recognized, since they expected that he was still dead.

Well if one of my dead grandmother walked into the room I would recognise her immediately, and she has been dead for a lot longer than 3 days. So I would say that unless he was in another body it is surprising that his "disciples" did not recognise him after the resurrection.

My posts were not intended to offend you in any way but to point out that I believe that the resurrection story may not be historically accurate, and that they may be other plausible theories.

Since you pride yourself on providing an alternate veiwpoint as to the origin of life (i.e. creationism), you seem a little quick to slander people for providing alternate veiwpoints on other topics. I can appreciate you debating my points, and you have a strong arguement especially since so many millions of people believe in the resurrection; but labelling me as a christophobic was out of line.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 05:40 PM
Actually Jono you are wrong I am not christophobic, my girlfriend is catholic and I attend church services with her on occassion.
Clearly not a very mature one if she is willing to be "unequally yoked" to a misotheist, in violation of 2 Cor. 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Co%206:14;&version=31;).


I am generally in favour of the teachings of Jesus, who I consider to very wise spiritual teacher,
That is not an option. Jesus clearly claimed to be God himself (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesusclaimshub.html), and if he was not telling the truth He was either lying or severely delusional (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html).


My point exactly even if there were a body to be found there is buckley's chance that one ever will be.
Not so at the time. That's why it was an ideal falsification test.


Ok if you have credible sources that the tomb was guarded then I'll stand corrected. But seems strange that the romans would relinquish the body in the first place if they were so bent on proving the prophecy incorrect.
I've already told you: they didn't want to upset the Jews unnecessarily by having a dead body hanging on the Sabbath. And there were thousands of of Temple staff available. Both sides had a vested interest in making sure that the body didn't disappear.

J.P. Holding makes another point:


In addition to preventing theft of the body, the tomb would also need to be watched for a specific cultural reason: As one condemned to a criminal’s death, custom forbade Jesus to be mourned. Supervision at the tomb was necessary to prevent his death from being mourned by his followers. This would offer all the more reason why the tomb would effectively be guarded by persons allied with the priests who would observe from hiding and report anything suspicious, as opposed to the formal koustodia that were being requested by the priests. (This also explains, incidentally, why only Matthew mentions the guard in the first place: It was something shameful which took away from Jesus’ honor.)


There is a problem in the logic here. There were no claims of his resurrection until after the body went missing.
There wouldn't be any claims if the body was still in the tomb. To a Jew, there could be no Rez with the body rotting away; they only considered bodily resurrection.


Remember Elvis was also seen after his death by fans and non-fans alike.
Not at all a comparison. Where was the empty tomb? Were any of those sighters put under torture to retract? Where was the equivalent of Jesus' appearance to 500 at once? Why did the reports of Jesus' appearances stop so abruptly after 40 days? Are there 17 cultural factors against an Elvis cult as there were against Christianity ever getting off the ground?


Well if one of my dead grandmother walked into the room I would recognise her immediately, and she has been dead for a lot longer than 3 days. So I would say that unless he was in another body it is surprising that his "disciples" did not recognise him after the resurrection.
Would you really if you were sure she was dead, and all your hopes and dreams had rested on her?


Since you pride yourself on providing an alternate veiwpoint as to the origin of life (i.e. creationism), you seem a little quick to slander people for providing alternate veiwpoints on other topics.
Hardly a slander to call a denier of Christ a christophobe. There were no personal attacks associated with it. I leave it to the Left to resort to those, all on the line that one must be uncompassionate/sexist/racist for opposing leftist policies, on the grounds that opposing must be motivated by hatred of those that the polices are ostensibly meant to help.


I can appreciate you debating my points, and you have a strong arguement especially since so many millions of people believe in the resurrection;
Thanx. All the same, it is surprising that you haven't heard these arguments from your Catholic contacts.

TheJoker
03-12-2007, 06:00 PM
Clearly not a very mature one if she is willing to be "unequally yoked" to a misotheist, in violation of 2 Cor. 6:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Co%206:14;&version=31;)..

Now you are attacking the maturity and faith of my girlfriend! You are unbelieveable!


That is not an option. Jesus clearly claimed to be God himself (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesusclaimshub.html), and if he was not telling the truth He was either lying or severely delusional (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html).

It cleary is an option since I have chosen it. Who are you to decide what I believe in?

And all the comments on the guarding tomb are speculation there is no supporting evidence, eyewitness accounts etc.



As for Elvis it was intended as a humourous remark. :wall:



Would you really if you were sure she was dead, and all your hopes and dreams had rested on her?

Yes definately!! I might be in shock but i would recognise her.


Hardly a slander to call a denier of Christ a christophobe. There were no personal attacks associated with it.

Yes it is; you imply that I have an irrational fear (phobia) of Christ or christians, this is untrue and defamatory.


Thanx. All the same, it is surprising that you haven't heard these arguments from your Catholic contacts.[/QUOTE]

All the christianS I know are not fundamentalists like you!

Desmond
03-12-2007, 07:14 PM
Of course! I have no intention of letting dogmatic materialists use the "I'm so open-minded but you're closed minded" attack without a counterattack.Not surprising since your mission statement clearly says that you are closed minded, you have no defense but to try to throw some of your own mud at others.


It doesn't explain WHY one would adopt such a mission statement.Who gives a fig why? The ends do not justify the means.


Similarly, critics of the New Testament argue that the writers were biased. But WHY were they biased is the question. The only reasonable answer is concrete proof of the Rez.Tell that to the Jews.


Just your dogmatic rejection of anything that challenges your blind atheistic faith.Guess again. I hope your doctorate and divine inspiration is not supposed to extend to profiling.


How much more could opponents have produced the body at the time? IF it were able to be produced! That is a falsification test that even a naïve falsificationist like Rincewind should be happy with, if were not likewise a dogmatic materialist.Then why would you suggest that production of the body would convince you, when you know that it could not?

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 08:42 PM
Not surprising since your mission statement clearly says that you are closed minded, you have no defense but to try to throw some of your own mud at others.
Nope, it is perfectly reasonable to cite the dogmatic materialism of our critics. And you commit the genetic fallacy anyway, since the truth of our beliefs is independent of any dogmatism of those who hold them.


Who gives a fig why? The ends do not justify the means.
Instead of mindlessly spouting slogans, think about them (although it's hard to imagine how a brain which you confess is rearranged pond scum could think :P). It makes every difference. The overwhelming evidence means that we have every reason to doubt any claim to the contrary, just as many scientists would doubt that the laws of thermodynamics have been broken.


Tell that to the Jews.
I am a Jew, and I've told myself.


Then why would you suggest that production of the body would convince you, when you know that it could not?
A body would have falsified Christianity at the time. The opponents had their chance, but there was no body to produce.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 08:48 PM
Now you are attacking the maturity and faith of my girlfriend! You are unbelieveable!
You were the one who unfairly brought her into the conversation to try to help your case!


It cleary is an option since I have chosen it. Who are you to decide what I believe in?
It is not an option that Christ's teachings gave anyone to hold without self-delusion.


And all the comments on the guarding tomb are speculation there is no supporting evidence, eyewitness accounts etc.
Yes there were: the Gospels. You presuppose what you need to prove.


All the christianS I know are not fundamentalists like you!
No point resorting to religious swear words. But the Rez really is fundamental. Someone who denies that is not a Christian. Even Rincewind's hero Jensen agrees with that.

Rincewind
03-12-2007, 08:59 PM
<Sigh>

Would anyone mind if I moved all the discussion related to

You can't disprove the resurrection therefore christianity must be true

to a new thread?

This thread was supposed to be about Origins, ID and Creationism. But since Spiny and Jono are getting their butts spanked they seem to have dodged and weaved 4000 years after the supposed creation.

Desmond
03-12-2007, 09:08 PM
A body would have falsified Christianity at the time. The opponents had their chance, but there was no body to produce.
Then why are we talking about it? The topic came up as a way that Spiny would be convinced here and now that the creationist faith was not on the money. This is all a side issue. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of what evidence would convince you that your creationism beliefs were not correct.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2007, 09:44 PM
This thread was supposed to be about Origins, ID and Creationism. But since Spiny and Jono are getting their butts spanked they seem to have dodged and weaved 4000 years after the supposed creation.
6000 years. Can't you get anything right in your self-delusion?

Rincewind
03-12-2007, 10:07 PM
6000 years. Can't you get anything right in your self-delusion?

Let's see.

Alleged creation 6,000 years ago
Alleged resurrection 2,000 years ago

You do the math, (ex-)Chemist. :lol: :lol: :lol:

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 09:46 AM
It is not an option that Christ's teachings gave anyone to hold without self-delusion.


I agree with some of his teachings, forgiveness, treat your neighbour as you would wish to be treated etc (all very wise). I don't however ascribe to his ideal of God, Heaven, or that he was the messiah.

I also admire some of Gandhi's teachings of passive resistance, does mean I agree with his sexual abstinace position.

You can't understand this train of thought because you have a fundamentalist approach; i.e. it's either "all or nothing", "with us or against us"



Yes there were: the Gospels. You presuppose what you need to prove

Can you give the reference. As I said if there is a credible reference that the tomb was guarded then I will stand corrected.

I believe you also sighted one of the reason a guard was in place was to ensure that there was no mourning allowed. Why then was Mary on her way to anoint Jesus with spices when she found the tomb empty.



But the Rez really is fundamental. Someone who denies that is not a Christian.

I agree the rez is fundamental and one who denies it is unlikely to be considered christian. My point was that the christians i now personally, except one, do not oppose alternate views on the ressurection. That is they are comfortable in their own beliefs and are comfortable for me to have a different belief, and do not judge me for having differing beliefs.

P.S. I agree this is off topic (however I doubt I have anything further to add if it was moved to a new thread).

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 09:59 AM
As I said if there is a credible reference that the tomb was guarded then I will stand corrected.
Matthew 27 clearly says there was a guard. Up to you whether you accept that this is true, or not.

Why then was Mary on her way to anoint Jesus with spices when she found the tomb empty.
If this was after the Sabbath/passover then I think the time period during which mourning was not permitted would have passed by then (if I am understanding Jono's argument correctly).

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 10:02 AM
Would anyone mind if I moved all the discussion related to:
You can't disprove the resurrection therefore christianity must be true

to a new thread? This thread was supposed to be about Origins, ID and Creationism.
I don't mind ... I'll go with the flow ...

But since Spiny and Jono are getting their butts spanked ...
:eh: :snooty:

TheJoker
04-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Matthew 27 clearly says there was a guard. Up to you whether you accept that this is true, or not.

If this was after the Sabbath/passover then I think the time period during which mourning was not permitted would have passed by then (if I am understanding Jono's argument correctly).

Thanks for the reference I had only read Mark.

Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 11:01 AM
Its interesting that Matthew is (I think) the only one of the four Gospels that mentions the guard ... depending on your p.o.v. this might mean:

-- absolutely nothing;
-- that its an important factoid that ought to be considered; or
-- its not mentioned in the other Gospels and so is not confirmed

I tend towards the middle view, that its there for a reason. I'm sure Rincewind would disagree ... :)

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 12:18 PM
Its interesting that Matthew is (I think) the only one of the four Gospels that mentions the guard ... depending on your p.o.v. this might mean:

-- absolutely nothing;
-- that its an important factoid that ought to be considered; or
-- its not mentioned in the other Gospels and so is not confirmed

I tend towards the middle view, that its there for a reason. I'm sure Rincewind would disagree ... :)
You are right, as explained in post # 479 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=176041&postcount=479), citing Could Jesus’ body have been stolen before the guards arrived? (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5264) by James Patrick Holding, an expert in the historical context of the Bible.

Bereaved
05-12-2007, 09:51 AM
Hello everyone,

I don't often participate in these discussions as it seems that they frequently seem to descend into an "are" "are not" form quickly.

Firstly, we have in the corner of Knowledge, Rincewind. We have no knowledge to prove that there was a search made for, or an attempt made, to produce the body of Jesus. Hence it didn't happen.

Secondly, we have Jono, who I greatly feel is trying his very best to help those who don't/won't understand what it is that they are arguing about.

And Thirdly, we have Spiny Norman, who is very much in accord with most of my thought.

Finally, we have me. I have a very important question to ask. Those who are participating in this discussion who do not have Christian faith seem to be very zealous in their attempts to disprove Christian Faith. This is not only puzzling, but also very concerning. You are jeopardizing your immortal souls, and you do not know it, and you are attacking those who seek to fulfil the word of God in their lives.

I would ask those who are busy attacking in this thread, versus those proclaiming, to consider two simple things.

Firstly between Knowledge and Belief, the bridge is Faith. That none of you who deny the truth of Jesus' resurrection seem to be willing to use the option of faith that is freely available to you is a very unfortunate, for you individually, matter.

The second point is something of an ideological statement;

If I believe ( A positive ) in God ( again a positive )

It is surely much better than

I Don't Believe ( a negative ) that God Exists ( a negative again ).

What an empty piece of thought that the second option presents; how horrible to confront a world and one's future within it with the arrogance to presume that you control your whole existence?

I will pray for those who are seemingly unable to accept the truth of Christ's resurrection in this thread; remember

Christ is Died,
Christ is Risen,
Christ will come again

When he comes, I will be glad. I would not want to be one of those who are not among the saved upon that day.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS If responses to this contain any form of non substantial argument, I will not respond. If you feel that you have something to say about this post that addresses the actual points raised in this post, I probably will respond

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 12:11 PM
I also admire some of Gandhi's teachings of passive resistance, does mean I agree with his sexual abstinace position.
But someone claiming to be God is a very high-order delusion or lie — if delusion or lie it was


You can't understand this train of thought because you have a fundamentalist approach; i.e. it's either "all or nothing", "with us or against us"
The latter is something Jesus said! There is no middle ground. Mt 12:30 and Lu 11:23—


"He who is not for me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."


I believe you also sighted one of the reason a guard was in place was to ensure that there was no mourning allowed. Why then was Mary on her way to anoint Jesus with spices when she found the tomb empty.
So no one ever does anything that's officially forbidden? :confused: :P

TheJoker
05-12-2007, 12:26 PM
But someone claiming to be God is a very high-order delusion or lie — if delusion or lie it was

Indeed, but what is you point! That a delusional person or lier cannot make some wise statements? If so, I totally disagree.



The latter is something Jesus said! There is no middle ground. Mt 12:30 and Lu 11:23—

"He who is not for me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

So in your opinion was Jesus a radical or a moderate? And in your opinion should christians take the radical approach that all non-chistian are enemies or the moderate approach that people should be judged on their merit regardless of their faith.



So no one ever does anything that's officially forbidden? :confused: :P

They do, but I wonder how she planned to move the "one-ton" tomb stone without attracting the attention of the guard.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 01:11 PM
Indeed, but what is you point! That a delusional person or lier cannot make some wise statements? If so, I totally disagree.
But why even follow someone as delusional or lying to such an absurd degree.


So in your opinion was Jesus a radical or a moderate?
My opinion of Him is that He should be taken at His word, not pigeonholed into modern categories.


And in your opinion should christians take the radical approach that all non-chistian are enemies or the moderate approach that people should be judged on their merit regardless of their faith.
These words themselves beg the question. One doesn't have to think of an opponent as an "enemy" to regard them as someone against Christ. Compare my response to an inquirer to CMI (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5475/).


They do, but I wonder how she planned to move the "one-ton" tomb stone without attracting the attention of the guard.
She wondered the same thing (Mark 16:3)! But although she was grieving, she was still extremely loyal.

TheJoker
05-12-2007, 01:57 PM
My opinion of Him is that He should be taken at His word, not pigeonholed into modern categories.


These words themselves beg the question. One doesn't have to think of an opponent as an "enemy" to regard them as someone against Christ. Compare my response to an inquirer to CMI (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5475/).


She wondered the same thing (Mark 16:3)! But although she was grieving, she was still extremely loyal.

Fair enough.

Since, after 2,000 years the ressurrection can niether proved nor disproved, I doubt anyone is going to do so in this thread. And considering the plausiblity of the resurrection has no effect on my personal beliefs, there is no point in me taking any further interest in this thread. Over and Out;)

Rincewind
05-12-2007, 04:05 PM
Firstly, we have in the corner of Knowledge, Rincewind. We have no knowledge to prove that there was a search made for, or an attempt made, to produce the body of Jesus. Hence it didn't happen.

Hi Mac, welcome to the thread.

I would just like to clarify that my position is not that a search didn't take place. Merely that the evidence is weak that any sort of concerted search DID take place. The reason for this is that the position of Jono/Spiny is that the was the responsibility of the authorities at the time was to produce a body, as it appears no body was discovered, then Christ must have risen. However, without any evidence of a search this is a shaky argument. The body may not have turned up simply because no one bothered to make much of an effort to find it.


Those who are participating in this discussion who do not have Christian faith seem to be very zealous in their attempts to disprove Christian Faith. This is not only puzzling, but also very concerning. You are jeopardizing your immortal souls, and you do not know it, and you are attacking those who seek to fulfil the word of God in their lives.

In these threads I have not been trying to disprove the christian faith at all. What I have been doing is challenging a literal interpretation of the bible which claims that everything was created in six 24-hour days around 6,000 years ago. That goes against the accumulated wisdom of science in so many fields as to be a totally implausible description of the providence of the universe and our place in it.

Christians in general and certainly the mainstream faiths of catholicism and anglicism don't adhere to the young earth creationist description and therefore not opponents to anything I've been venturing in these threads.


What an empty piece of thought that the second option presents; how horrible to confront a world and one's future within it with the arrogance to presume that you control your whole existence?

On the contrary, Mac. By taking responsibility for our actions and not assuming we have been created in the image of a god in a universe constructed purely for our benefit is a far less arrogant position. Appreciating the immense magnitude of the universe and our absolute insignificance is an incredibly humbling experience.


If responses to this contain any form of non substantial argument, I will not respond. If you feel that you have something to say about this post that addresses the actual points raised in this post, I probably will respond

I don't know if this response will pass your test of "substantial" but I don't see it as an argument. I care for you as a person and your faith is a part of who you are. If you find positive answers in your faith, then I am happy for you and wish you well.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2007, 07:32 PM
You are jeopardizing your immortal souls, and you do not know it, and you are attacking those who seek to fulfil the word of God in their lives.

Since the will of an all-powerful deity is absolutely unknowable, those who criticise the Christian view are no more likely to be risking their souls than those who support it. Indeed any God who leaves Her creations insufficient evidence to prove Her existence completely beyond doubt, and then punishes those who fail to believe, is far too petty to be worshipped. Whenever I come across such Gods, all-powerful or otherwise, I pick them up in my hands and crush them into tiny little pieces, so if you worship such a God, I suggest that you tell It to hide. :lol:


If I believe ( A positive ) in God ( again a positive )

It is surely much better than

I Don't Believe ( a negative ) that God Exists ( a negative again ).

What it is better to believe shouldn't concern you in the slightest. What should concern you is what is true.

For instance, believing that we will live forever on this earth and can fly through the sky unaided are both positives (compared to the negative beliefs that these things are both not possible) but anyone believing in those positives is either a certifiable lunatic or a very very very little child.


What an empty piece of thought that the second option presents; how horrible to confront a world and one's future within it with the arrogance to presume that you control your whole existence?

Nowhere near as arrogant as pretending that a made-up deity you follow controls not only your existence but also everyone else's. :hand:

Actually, you can have some more of those.

:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:


PS If responses to this contain any form of non substantial argument, I will not respond. If you feel that you have something to say about this post that addresses the actual points raised in this post, I probably will respond

Well I've gone for both, though I'm taking your post as seriously as it deserves to be taken, which is, in short, not at all. :lol:

What you do with it is your affair, and does not trouble me.

[/stirner]