Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 8, 2024, 8:05 am

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 27, 2015 at 9:28 am)Cato Wrote: Not according to Mark they didn't.

Wrong. Look at what the original ending of Mark says concerning the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:Mark 16
16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Even in the shorter version of Mark 16, we see the clear proclamation, "He has risen!" And Mark leaves his readers with no doubts that the disciples will see Jesus just as He promised. Further, given that Mark wrote 25-30 years after the resurrection, he obviously knew of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples even if he did not record them in his gospel.

Even the skeptic must admit that even if Mark knew NOTHING of such appearances, he knew and proclaimed the resurrection in the words of the young man (angel) recorded in v. 6.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 27, 2015 at 9:23 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

Can I ask why you're still doing this when it's roundly apparent to everyone else that your "minimal facts" approach does not contain sufficient facts for belief in a supernatural claim? You're still acting as though "some guys I can't verify existed believed some stuff, if you accept the circular reasoning that a book's claims can support other claims in the book!" is some sort of solid evidence.

Between you and GC's latest masterpiece of an argument ("Well, you're dumb!") I don't know how your position could get any worse.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Randy.

[Image: CakjE.png]
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 27, 2015 at 9:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Even the skeptic must admit that even if Mark knew NOTHING of such appearances, he knew and proclaimed the resurrection in the words of the young man (angel) recorded in v. 6.

When Pliny the younger wrote down his observations of the eruption at mount Vesuvius, we could verify his account by geological and archeological findings. When Mark (If he was Mark) penned his account, it just stays unverifiable say so.

That's the difference between evidence and hearsay, fact and legend.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 27, 2015 at 2:12 am)Godschild Wrote:
(June 26, 2015 at 11:43 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Man, it's like GC never read Genesis 2:17, which is the only warning god gave Adam and Eve about eating the Fruit.  "Don't eat it, or even touch it, or you shall surely die."  The warning makes it seem that the Fruit itself will kill them, not god as a result of exiling them and cursing them.

Regarding their naivety, their sudden lack of naivety in all of chapter 3 is what tipped god off that they ate the Fruit.

So, again, the point remains - god created a horribly designed garden.  He didn't baby proof it at all, and he blames the baby for what happened.  Not an entity I would willingly follow.

You opened yourself for this so take it and shut up.

LMAO, what?

Quote:Eve's the one who added to God's commandment the words "even touch it," God never said that, so now we know who lives by the hearsay and not by actually reading the Bible, what a dope you have made of yourself, thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.

None of this refutes my point. None of it. Do you even understand what I'm saying? I'm saying that your god, in his infinite wisdom, placed the one thing he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat in a place where they could easily get to it. That your god, in his infinite wisdom, created the Serpent who tempted Eve. That your god, in his infinite wisdom, created a pair of people so dumb and gullible that after he said, "Don't eat it, you'll die," and the Serpent said, "Nah, man, you won't die. Have a bite," that Eve, and subsequently Adam, went along with the Serpent rather than god.

Does this sound like the work of an intelligent creator? Yes or no will suffice. This isn't a riddle.

You keep harping on the insignificant details in an attempt to shift the conversation away from an area that makes you uncomfortable. It's your favorite tactic, along with your flaccid attempts at insulting me and others. It's not very Christian of you to be so bitter. Christ would show a lot more patience and kindness, wouldn't he?
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 27, 2015 at 9:23 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

They were first hand witnesses and they had to "believe"? Didn't they know? Hadn't they witnessed enough miraculous events yet?!
Sounds like someone manufactured the story well after the alleged fact.

But you can go on believing that they believed it... Just shows how much thought you poured into your favorite myth.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Quote:They were first hand witnesses and they had to "believe"?

They sound like the dumbest bunch of fucks ever invented.  NO matter how many miracles they were supposed to have seen they were always amazed when he did it again!  What would it have taken for those douchebags to catch on?

They're function seems to be like the Greek Chorus.  They stand there and go "Oh, WOW, Lord."


Amazing that modern idiots can fall for such absurd notions but religion makes people gullible.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
They believed it but forgot to tell Mark about it, whoops. Then someone had to "remember" it.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Paul Wrote:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:11-12
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Minimal facts approach... how honest of you Randy. Zero facts is pretty much minimal, for sure Angel
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 3496 March 19, 2023 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God? Greatest I am 98 9316 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 20691 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 17825 November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus but not alien abductions? Jehanne 72 13379 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 41918 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 29761 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 20745 April 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2) His_Majesty 1617 383621 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 7859 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)