(July 13, 2015 at 7:41 pm)Pizza Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yes. Yes, you have. Big whoop. The God who created all life forms out of nothing by speaking them into existence is not constrained by your puny laws of nature.

But hey, why not actually make an argument as to why God would NOT be able to suspend His own laws if He chose to do so? Why not attempt any argument at all? See, if you're going to assert that the resurrection violates what we know of biology (which NO ONE disputes, btw), then your real mountain is to explain in no uncertain terms why God is somehow bound to obey the laws and priniciples which He himself created. You have not begun such a climb.

Don't shift the burden of proof. Give an argument that there is in fact a god that does " suspend laws." You can't just assume Christianity is true.

Let's go slower.

Was Jesus a real person?

(July 13, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 8:55 am)pocaracas Wrote: Because reality is devoid of magic.

Why do you believe that supernatural miracles do not occur?

For the same reason you do not think there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.  For the same reason you do not worry about getting bit by a vampyre.  For the same reason you do not concern yourself with werewolves.

(July 13, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: You know what the problem with your arguments is, Randy? They didn't convince you. You did not come to believe a purportedly magical Jew came back from the dead by the minimal facts approach. You were taught to believe that, so you do. All this *dramatic hand gesture* is just an excuse you make before rational people for believing what you believe, but it doesn't hold water. To find it valid, you need to already believe it to be true. It's making your way back from the conclusion, a big fat presupposition you can't erase, and without it your argument falls to pieces.

The question is....How do you expect your reasoning to convince us, if it didn't even convince YOU?

It is true that I did not find MY way to God by means of these arguments. My faith journey has been very different.

That does not mean, however, that no one comes to God by them.

I could give examples that I have seen in real life, or you could read the stories of Jews, agnostics and atheists who came to believe that Jesus is God by means of considering presentations like the one I have made in this thread.

Not everyone will. Maybe no one here will.

But apologetics - the why of our faith - is just as important as evangelism - the what of our faith, and I am confident that if you decide to objectively examine the evidence, you can come to a faith position.

Alternatively, you can continue as you are. Inertia is a powerful force.

It doesn't matter even if some are convinced, though I doubt there are many.

What I'm pointing out is not that your arguments are not convincing, but that they have a fundamental flaw: they were all formed with the presupposition that god exists and that the conclusion they reach is true. They are made through working your way back from the conclusion, which was never reached by critical thinking. To the contrary, if critical thinking is applied the conclusion cannot be reached.

These arguments were all invented much, much after faith came to exist. They are not the main reason people believe. They're the excuse made for believing. The presupposition they were formed with makes them invalid.

(July 13, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: That's all you got? REALLY? 'You can't make up a story I would accept, therefore I'm right'?

Nope, sorry. Doesn't work that way.

I lost my keys, then found them in the basement which was locked and nobody could've gained access to it, and my cat was restless. My theory is that it was a magical sentient cauliflower on a pogo stick. Do you need to have a better theory to dismiss mine as improbable?

Let's go slower.

Was Jesus a real person?

Oh yes, just repeat and reassert everything you've said thus far, that'll work.

No Randy, fuck you. You don't get to just proclaim that because you will not accept any other theory yours is correct.

Answer my fucking question. Do you need a better theory to dismiss mine as improbable? Do you need to have your own theory to make a judgment of mine?

Quote:Was Jesus a real person?

What evidence do you have that he was?


(And when you say "jesus" do you mean just any schlub by that name or do you mean the miracle-working, back from the dead, godboy.)

(July 13, 2015 at 7:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Q
M
L
Mark
Matthew
Luke
John
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Peter

plus all of the Jewish and Roman sources that I have cited previously in this thread.

We don't have Q, M, or L.  We infer them from Mark, Matthew and Luke.  Actually Q, M, L, Mark, Matthew, and Luke are not independent sources.  Independent means not dependent on each other.  The theory goes something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-document_hypothesis

It's an alternative to the two source hypothesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

In neither case do we actually have the independent sources.  Instead we have Mark plus two sources dependent on Mark: Luke and Matthew and hypothesized other source material (which we don't actually have and can only infer).  And if we infer it, and I do, we entirely undercut the theory that Mathew or Mark were the authors the church has since assigned to the gospels. 

The Gospel of Thomas is not a historical document at all, it's a collection of sayings of Jesus, not a biography or history of his life.  Many of the sayings are in the synoptic gospels, and it's been suggested that Thomas is Q.  Because it is a collection of saying and little more and we only have one copy, dating it is hard.   Serious scholars have suggested everything from 40-140.  Obviously it would have to be at the earlier end of the scale to be Q.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas  Regardless of it's date it says nothing about the life of Jesus.

John appears relatively independent of the synoptic gospels, but it describes rather different teachings than the synoptic.   And as a later work, probably written by several authors as several different times, is probably even less trustworthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John


The Gospel of Peter Dates from the 2nd half of the 2nd century.  It was condemned by the early church as the forgery of Peter that it is. It's also a bit of an anti-Jewish screed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter  It's an obvious reworking of the story to absolve Romans particularly Pontius Pilate, of all guilt.

Your Roman sources say no more than that there were Christians and they believed some stuff.  What we don't have is Romans who investigated Christian claims or even cared much about them. Certainly we don't have Roman witnesses to Jesus.

So no we don't have a bunch of independent sources.  We have the synoptic family and John.

But supposing we did, under what circumstances could a historical document prove a supernatural event?  I agree there was a rabbi known as Jesus, later called Christ who was crucified.  He probably said, or said something like a number of things in the snyoptics and Thomas.  But that does nothing to show he was raised from the dead let alone that he's god.

(July 13, 2015 at 7:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 7:16 pm)IATIA Wrote: Even if it can be proven that jesus lived and was crucified, it cannot be proven that he rose from the dead.  It cannot be proven that he was dead.  And it damn sure cannot be proven that he was the son of some invisible deity.  So unless you are willing to accept Zeus as a real god, quoting religious mythology is useless for anything other than entertainment, poorly written at that. Your bible speaks of Zeus and 33 other gods at last count.

Was Jesus a real person?

Did he die by crucifixion?

What are the facts?

Do not know and do not care as my position is not the validity of somebody having been crucified.  My position on the godboy is there are no facts proving he was the son of a deity, there are no facts substantiating his death, there are no facts on why the tomb was empty and there are no facts that he rose from the dead.

(July 13, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: It is true that I did not find MY way to God by means of these arguments. My faith journey has been very different.

That does not mean, however, that no one comes to God by them.

I could give examples that I have seen in real life, or you could read the stories of Jews, agnostics and atheists who came to believe that Jesus is God by means of considering presentations like the one I have made in this thread.

Not everyone will. Maybe no one here will.

But apologetics - the why of our faith - is just as important as evangelism - the what of our faith, and I am confident that if you decide to objectively examine the evidence, you can come to a faith position.

Alternatively, you can continue as you are. Inertia is a powerful force.

It doesn't matter even if some are convinced, though I doubt there are many.

What I'm pointing out is not that your arguments are not convincing, but that they have a fundamental flaw: they were all formed with the presupposition that god exists and that the conclusion they reach is true. They are made through working your way back from the conclusion, which was never reached by critical thinking. To the contrary, if critical thinking is applied the conclusion cannot be reached.

These arguments were all invented much, much after faith came to exist. They are not the main reason people believe. They're the excuse made for believing. The presupposition they were formed with makes them invalid.

Do you have any counter-arguments to show that the evidence I have presented - the evidence accepted as true by the vast majority of scholars teaching at major universities throughout the Western world - is false?

(July 13, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 8:40 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You are limping around on your worst arguments.  Why on earth would Pilate have cared about guarding the tomb? 

Normally, he wouldn't. Because crucified people normally stay dead.

Quote:If, and it's a big if, he decided to go against all precedent and allow a decent burial would he have cared if the tomb were guarded?  And why would anyone guard it?  The Romans weren't expecting a miracle.  Or a theft.  Why would they?  Pilate was not a Jew. 

The Jews pointed out to Pilate that Jesus had promised to rise from the dead, and collectively, they recognized that word of a risen Jesus would have spread quickly creating enormous problems for both the Jews and the Romans.

Quote:If he thought there was a possibility there would be claims of resurrection, he would have left that body to rot publicly on the cross.

Look at the sequence of events in Mt 27, Jenny. Pilate had already granted permission to Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus in his family tomb BEFORE the problem of the resurrection claim was brought to Pilate's attention.

You are straying far, far, from your minimal facts. 

You claim Pilate had Jesus cruxified.  I agree, that is most likely.  But, you haven't proven anything about what anyone said to Pilate.  That's the point.  We don't know what happened and the Biblical narrative is highly unlikely and not reliable in the details.  It's unlikely Pilate would have executed anyone for blasphemy against the Jews. Sedition is probably the answer (or theft of a donkey ).  It's unlikely Pilate would have allowed anyone to bury Jesus because that's not what the Romans did with crucified bodies.  And it's unlikely if that if Pilate thought the Jews would claim he had risen that Pilate wouldn't have just had the body rehung for all to see.  When worried about the possibility of a pretender, that's the classic answer, exhibit the body.  

The thing that amazes me about your arguments over and over is your innablility to accept "we don't know and never will know" as a possible answer.  When it comes to events that happened yesterday that is often the real answer.  When it comes to events that happened 2000 years ago, it's most often the only honest answer.

Q is bullshit.  Actually they are all bullshit but at least the others have manuscripts.