(September 28, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Actually, we do know a few things:

1. 1. he was a wealthy man (cf. Mt 27:57)
   
2. 2. he was a member of the Jewish ruling council (Mk 15:43)
   
3. 3. he was a secret disciple of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57, Jn 19:38)
   
4. 4. he asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:58)
   
5. 5. he buried Jesus by wrapping Jesus’ body in a linen cloth, placing it in his own tomb (caved out of rock) and rolling a stone over the entrance. (Mt 27:59-60)
   

6. He liked his coffee with milk and sugar (Mk 99:99)
7. He had a birthmark on his left testicle. (Mt 69:88)
8. He gave the best head in Nazareth (Mt 111:55)
9. He smelled bad (Mk 97:23)
10. He was secretly Batman (Dc 201:49)

It's Groundhog Day ... again?

There's no need for anyone to claim to be certain about anything. Reasonable doubt is sufficient to withhold belief. And withholding belief is not the same as announcing the claim to be absolutely false, either.

I don't understand why a resurrection would even be considered impressive. If you're already assuming God created the universe, along with the laws of the universe, and has unlimited power, this is rather a feeble display of it.

If you're not assuming such things, this puts God at the level of some sort of D&D necromancer or something, (or even just an illusionist) perhaps with some telekinesis to make it look like the body ascends into heaven. It doesn't take much to "wow" some people into belief, especially incredibly superstitious ignorant humans around at that time.

And what's this "only son" crap? That's simply by his own choosing, isn't it? He could make billions of sons and flood the world with them, couldn't he?

(September 28, 2015 at 9:35 pm)robvalue Wrote: There's no need for anyone to claim to be certain about anything. Reasonable doubt is sufficient to withhold belief. And withholding belief is not the same as announcing the claim to be absolutely false, either.

I don't understand why a resurrection would even be considered impressive. If you're already assuming God created the universe, along with the laws of the universe, and has unlimited power, this is rather a feeble display of it.

If you're not assuming such things, this puts God at the level of some sort of D&D necromancer or something, (or even just an illusionist) perhaps with some telekinesis to make it look like the body ascends into heaven. It doesn't take much to "wow" some people into belief, especially incredibly superstitious ignorant humans around at that time.

And what's this "only son" crap? That's simply by his own choosing, isn't it? He could make billions of sons and flood the world with them, couldn't he?

If I didn't hate reading apologetics so much (after all the early years of doing so, before and after I first left the faith), I'd probably look into this "five minimal facts" concept to see why they don't seem to consider the glaringly obvious explanation/hypothesis that the disciples made this shit up (from Joseph of "Arimathea"... that town over there!!!) the secret-Christian-on-the-council to the burial and resurrection, as a way to explain why they hadn't just wasted the last three years of their lives following a false messiah. Even if he was buried by JoA, it could have been any of his fanatics who was the "angel" who moved and disposed of the body, then made the first claim that he "appeared" to him, still alive. That story wouldn't have been too hard to pass along. That's why I'm so critical of people who say, "Look at what was written 20 years later, see how it agrees?" So fucking what that it agrees? That only means that parts of it weren't invented years after the fact, though other parts clearly were (Gospel of John, pretty much entirely). It could have all come together as a storywithin a week of his death, since they had clear motive to not admit their cult leader had died ignobly.

"Um, no, he's not dead. We all saw him after the death and burial! He, uh, appeared to us! Yeah. And, uh, he still had the wounds!! Yeah, that's it... and, he said he's coming back. Soon! So you better keep following our teachings, 'cuz he said we're the new teachers of The Way and the Word, yeah, and uh, we all saw him ascend into heaven, that's why he came back and isn't here now. Right guys? James? You saw it, didn't you?"

---

(September 28, 2015 at 9:35 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't understand why a resurrection would even be considered impressive. If you're already assuming God created the universe, along with the laws of the universe, and has unlimited power, this is rather a feeble display of it.

If you're not assuming such things, this puts God at the level of some sort of D&D necromancer or something, (or even just an illusionist) perhaps with some telekinesis to make it look like the body ascends into heaven. It doesn't take much to "wow" some people into belief, especially incredibly superstitious ignorant humans around at that time.

Good point, Rob. 

You wanna impress us, Jesus? Invent the calculus. Or even algebra! Explain what germs are and how they work.

I mean, for fuck's sake... magic? Try telling us something, anything, that's demonstrably true that the ancients of the first century C.E. didn't know. Like, "the earth goes around the sun, despite how it appears". Or, "there are other continents you don't know about".

Remember what you are dealing with here.  Randy thinks this is real, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Quote:Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change by which the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance, or reality, of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood

I mean he has set his believability bar pretty low.  As the saying goes, the church likes them stupid.  Randy must be captain of the team.

Yeah...some pervert priest fresh from grabbing an altar boy's dick is very "holy."

Nanomachines.

A Sword in a Field
A short clip from the 1999 film The Messenger : I find it somewhat relevant to the mystery surrounding the empty tomb; at least in regards as to how people examine possibilities.

Could you respond the the person who made these arguments, instead of posting your response to his arguments here? It seems kind of silly to argue with him without actually arguing with him. Using us as a proxy instead if just manning up and arguing with the person you disagree with is pretty lame. And exhausting. Just sayin'.