And you guys call us crazy, he's one of yours and needs some help or to lay off the drink when posting.

GC

(May 27, 2016 at 2:47 am)Godschild Wrote: And you guys call us crazy, he's one of yours and needs some help or to lay off the drink when posting.

GC

Seriously just fuck off, if all you've got is denialism and childish insults. Face facts god's retard, we're smarter than you, more moral than you, more polite than you and we are not in an unsafe relationship with our own imaginations.

(May 22, 2016 at 9:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: This is not a thread for Jesus mythists, so let's suppose that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  Professor Bart Ehrman, in his 2008 debate with William Craig, gave a completely naturalistic explanation of Jesus' supposed "resurrection" from the dead, which I am going to embellish on my own:

Some of your embellishments are not within the likely course of events:

(May 22, 2016 at 9:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: 1)  Around age 30 Jesus went down to Jerusalem for the first time from Galilee after being born in Nazareth, got busted by the Romans for causing trouble in the Temple, went before a Roman proctor (probably, never even met Pilate -- few, if any, criminals ever did), was labeled a loon and insurrector, and with some likely influence from the Jewish authorities, was executed by crucifixion.

Scholars and Historians of Ancient Rome view it as extremely unlikely that a religious group (the Palestinian Jews or otherwise) could have had any influence over rule and order. They further point out that Jesus causing trouble in the temple would have been all the justification necessary to crucify him under Roman rule.

(May 22, 2016 at 9:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: 2)  Jesus had some sympathizers, and with some influence, his body was handed over to them and buried in a tomb.  The Jewish authorities likely agreed to this as some sort of "peace offering" to Jesus' followers.

The Jewish authorities would have had no authority over the body - nor would the disciples. Only his family would have had the authority to take possession of the body. The Gospels do say a secret disciple (Joseph of Arimathea) took the body and laid it in a stone-cut tomb, however that exact line of events is unlikely. It is likely that either his family or someone on their behalf (possibly Joseph of Arimathea) took possession of the deceased.

(May 22, 2016 at 9:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: 3)  However, some of Jesus' family members, followers and friends were unhappy with his burial arrangements, and so, in the middle of the night, they went and stole Jesus' body.  But while they were traveling with Jesus' corpse, they were discovered by a Roman watch, confronted, and after a brief scuffle, they were all killed by the Romans.  Their bodies, along with Jesus', were buried in an unmarked grave.

That's a implausible situation. Roman authorities did not kill people on sight - even grave-robbers. And even if such an event took place, as I mentioned above SOMEONE took possession of the body, therefore that person is not going to be unhappy about burial arrangements. Therefore you can't have everyone - family, friends, and followers, all unhappy at the same time. I think it's much more likely that the family removed the body from the tomb in the evening of "Sunday" (Nissan 16 c.30 AD) and that consequently in the morning his disciples found it empty.

(May 22, 2016 at 9:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: 4)  Later on some women followers of Jesus went to the tomb of his supposed burial and discovered that his body was missing.

5)  In the months and years following Jesus' death, his followers began having visions of the "risen" savior.

6)  Later on the letters of Paul were written (the earliest by Paul), and then the Gospels, Mark being the first.  After Mark, came Matthew and Luke, and finally, John, with its highly embellished accounts of Jesus' life, and finally, the Gospel of Peter, with even more embellishments than John.  It is likely that Mark contains some authentic history of Jesus, the fact that some women went to Jesus' tomb, discovering that it was empty and fleeing because "they were afraid" with Mark clearly ending at 16:8.  Later on the ending of Mark was embellished further.

You left out the fact that the gospel of Mark does not include the resurrection, clearly implying that the later accounts are growth of the original story that move beyond the historical-factual & superstitious events laid out in Mark.

(May 27, 2016 at 2:27 am)Godschild Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 7:02 pm)Jehanne Wrote: That's just nonsense:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Note that the Gospel of Thomas contains some unique history of Jesus.

 Those are not reliable or accepted teachings of Christ, the go against the Bible we now have.

GC

The Gospel of Thomas has been deemed to be somewhat historically reliable.  There was not one version of early Christianity, but many different ones.  Your version comes on the scene very late, being descended from the Anabaptists of the 16th-century, whom Martin Luther even persecuted.

In all, there are at least 44 different "Gospels" that were written prior to the 2nd century.  The Gospel of Peter, for instance, was supported in some of the early Churches and contains sayings of Jesus that are found in the Bible Gospels.

(May 27, 2016 at 7:12 am)Aractus Wrote: You left out the fact that the gospel of Mark does not include the resurrection, clearly implying that the later accounts are growth of the original story that move beyond the historical-factual & superstitious events laid out in Mark.

Beyond any doubt, Mark contains embellishments; the earliest visions of Jesus were "spiritual" visions; the disciples and Paul weren't even claiming corporeal visions.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "the earliest visions of Jesus were 'spiritual visions"? Are you claiming that there were later visions that were personable? Because that's not at all the account in the gospels and Acts. In their account the personable appearances of Jesus occur following the resurrection (i.e. post Resurrection and pre-Ascension), and the 'visions' are possibly what Paul has, though Paul actually says he receives things through 'revelation' rather than vision, so he in fact never actually claims to have had a vision of Jesus. It's perfectly possible that the disciples and others legitimately felt that they saw Jesus appear to them post-death (group hysteria is what it's called, and there are solid examples of similar incidents known to be cause through this phenomena).

Your use of the word 'embellishment' is wrong. Mythology grows organically, and I don't see Mark embellishing on things at all. His writing style is short and to the point. There are so many direct parallels between the Sermon on the Mount (in particular) and the Epistle of James that if the writer were to be embellish rather than relying on an account of the Sermon (probably a written account, but may have been oral) wouldn't be possible.

(May 27, 2016 at 8:10 am)Aractus Wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "the earliest visions of Jesus were 'spiritual visions"? Are you claiming that there were later visions that were personable? Because that's not at all the account in the gospels and Acts. In their account the personable appearances of Jesus occur following the resurrection (i.e. post Resurrection and pre-Ascension), and the 'visions' are possibly what Paul has, though Paul actually says he receives things through 'revelation' rather than vision, so he in fact never actually claims to have had a vision of Jesus. It's perfectly possible that the disciples and others legitimately felt that they saw Jesus appear to them post-death (group hysteria is what it's called, and there are solid examples of similar incidents known to be cause through this phenomena).

Your use of the word 'embellishment' is wrong. Mythology grows organically, and I don't see Mark embellishing on things at all. His writing style is short and to the point. There are so many direct parallels between the Sermon on the Mount (in particular) and the Epistle of James that if the writer were to be embellish rather than relying on an account of the Sermon (probably a written account, but may have been oral) wouldn't be possible.

There is no doubt that Mark incorporated already-existing embellishments within his Gospel.  As for Jesus' "appearances", Jesus has been appearing to people throughout the ages, 1st century included, up to our present day:

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

As with alien abduction claims, these experiences are almost certainly natural.

I think you meant "almost certainly non-supernatural in origin" in which case I'd agree.

Granting that the Romans actually crucified a Jewish upstart named Jeshua around that time (which I wouldn't even normally bother to do), on what basis do we now think that the empty tomb story has any merit? Wasn't it more typical for the Romans to leave crucified criminals out to rot and then throw them in a ditch with a bunch of others? As long as we're speculating about what might have actually happened to our fictional friend, why aren't we including possibilities from...like, reality and shit?


Or going farther? What if space aliens took it? What if he WAS a space alien?!

(May 27, 2016 at 9:54 am)Aractus Wrote: I think you meant "almost certainly non-supernatural in origin" in which case I'd agree.

Yes, I agree; these types of visions, as Sam Harris has pointed out, are "a dime a dozen".  GC can make all the special pleading that he wants with respect to the New Testament, but I seriously doubt that he accepts Marian apparitions, such as Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun, which even many Catholics say was just naturalistic and group hysteria.  If anything, I find the claims of the New Testament to be less trustworthy than the claims of the Mormons with their "3/8" witnesses who allegedly saw Moroni and/or the golden tablets.