Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:05 am
(June 27, 2015 at 9:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: (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.
You're helping to make my case. The author of Mark did not witness the events. He stops his story with a boy saying that Jesus is on his way to Galilee. Why would the author of Mark omit these happenings and the witnessed ascension from his account it they were known to him. This is preposterous. You keep claiming that he knew of these events, which makes the fact that he didn't include them in his story even more ridiculous. It's far more reasonable to conclude that later gospels embellished Mark's story. Take for instance how the boy at the tomb becomes one and then later two angels. The changing to the women's immediate interaction with Jesus (feet rubbing) is a clear addition that begins to set up the physical resurrection. It's all a sham and you've been taken in.
Consider all the other bullshit believed by people at this time. Care to share with everyone what the locals did during lunar eclipses and why? They went outside and screamed and made a racket to ward off the witches they thought were pulling down the moon. You are relying on a group of people that believed in this and other bullshit as valid testimony for you claims. Your witnesses can easily be dismissed as unreliable.
Posts: 97
Threads: 2
Joined: June 19, 2015
Reputation:
10
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:06 am
I enjoy attending still. It's like going to a movie. For a few hours a week you can disconnect and live inside the fairytale. Oh and it certainly makes for great discussion afterwards! 
**Crickets** -- God
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:12 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:04 am)IATIA Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:02 am)Randy Carson Wrote: There's no sense living a lie.
And yet you do.
Can you be more specific?
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:18 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:12 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you be more specific?
Transubstantiation.
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:22 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:05 am)Cato Wrote: (June 27, 2015 at 9:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Wrong. Look at what the original ending of Mark says concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
You're helping to make my case. The author of Mark did not witness the events. He stops his story with a boy saying that Jesus is on his way to Galilee.
Heh...you conveniently skipped over a bit there, Cato.
Quote:Mark 16:5-8
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.
Mark declares the resurrection in the words, "He is risen!"
Quote:Why would the author of Mark omit these happenings and the witnessed ascension from his account it they were known to him. This is preposterous. You keep claiming that he knew of these events, which makes the fact that he didn't include them in his story even more ridiculous. It's far more reasonable to conclude that later gospels embellished Mark's story. Take for instance how the boy at the tomb becomes one and then later two angels. The changing to the women's immediate interaction with Jesus (feet rubbing) is a clear addition that begins to set up the physical resurrection. It's all a sham and you've been taken in.
Mark wrote a brief account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus based upon the preaching of Peter. It's only 16 chapters long. The other gospels are longer and fill in some blanks. Nothing unusual about any of that.
Quote:Consider all the other bullshit believed by people at this time. Care to share with everyone what the locals did during lunar eclipses and why? They went outside and screamed and made a racket to ward off the witches they thought were pulling down the moon. You are relying on a group of people that believed in this and other bullshit as valid testimony for you claims. Your witnesses can easily be dismissed as unreliable.
If you think people should dismiss the gospels, then you ought to provide some reasonable arguments for doing so.
There is a thread entitled, "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". That would be a great place to post your thoughts.
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:23 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:18 am)Cato Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:12 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you be more specific?
Transubstantiation.
Can you be more specific?
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:28 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:23 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you be more specific?
Do you believe in transubstantiation?
Do you believe in god?
Do you believe that jesus died on the cross for you?
Do you believe Adam and eve were created by god and set on the garden of Eden?
Do you believe in talking snakes?
Do you believe in the resurrection?
Do these beliefs steer your life?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:40 am
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2015 at 11:42 am by Randy Carson.)
(June 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)IATIA Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:23 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you be more specific?
Do you believe in transubstantiation?
Yes.
Quote:Do you believe in god?
Yes.
Quote:Do you believe that jesus died on the cross for you?
Yes.
Quote:Do you believe Adam and eve were created by god and set on the garden of Eden?
No.
Quote:Do you believe in talking snakes?
No.
Quote:Do you believe in the resurrection?
Yes.
Quote:Do these beliefs steer your life?
Yes.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:47 am
Your life is being steered by those fictional ideas, therefore you are living a lie. There is no afterlife, at least nothing that is remotely ascribed to by absolutely anyone.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:49 am
Oh, Randy does believe in transubstantiation. We've gone over this like three times. It's hilarious.
Randy here deeply believes that a chemical reaction, as in the changing of one or more substances into one or more different substances can occur without the changing of the initial substance(s)' properties, which is the definition of changing into a different substance and the core requirement of a chemical reaction. IOW, he thinks that a substance can become another substance without actually becoming another substance.
How? Catholicism.
|
