Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:50 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:22 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.
If the gospels were consistent your argument would at least be compelling. The fact that they are embellished as they go along destroys your case. Later gospels aren't just filling in gaps. Again, a boy says he is risen in Mark. Later gospels replace the boy with one or two angels. The women at the tomb in Mark never see Jesus, later they rub his feet. This isn't gap filling, it's embellishment and contradiction.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 11:57 am
(June 28, 2015 at 11:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)IATIA Wrote: Do you believe Adam and eve were created by god and set on the garden of Eden?
No.
(June 28, 2015 at 11:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:28 am)IATIA Wrote: Do you believe in talking snakes?
No.
Why do you not subscribe to the A&E story?
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: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 12:03 pm
(June 28, 2015 at 11:49 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Oh, Randy does believe in transubstantiation. We've gone over this like three times. It's hilarious.
I missed that one. He has a tendency to do the 'wall of text' thing sometimes and as what he has to say is usually unsubstantial (at least in relation to reality), there is a tendency for me to just skip it.
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 12:06 pm
(June 28, 2015 at 11:47 am)IATIA Wrote: 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 assert these things to be true, but you have not proved your case by providing sufficient support evidence.
However, "living a lie" means that you outwardly profess one thing while the opposite facts are actually true of you, your opinions and your ideas.
For example, living a lie is pretending to be a black female when you are actually 100% white.
Living a lie is pretending to be a Christian and playing in the church band when you are actually an atheist afraid to come out of the closet.
It's saying one thing and doing another.
Can you provide an example of how I am living a lie with respect to the beliefs I profess?
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 12:10 pm
You are living for a god that does not exist and the intent is to rise to heaven which does not exist in an afterlife that does not exist.
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 12:13 pm
(June 28, 2015 at 11:50 am)Cato Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:22 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.
If the gospels were consistent your argument would at least be compelling. The fact that they are embellished as they go along destroys your case. Later gospels aren't just filling in gaps. Again, a boy says he is risen in Mark. Later gospels replace the boy with one or two angels. The women at the tomb in Mark never see Jesus, later they rub his feet. This isn't gap filling, it's embellishment and contradiction.
If the gospels were in lock-step agreement, you anti-christers would be screaming "Collusion! The Church co-ordinated the stories!"
The very fact that the Catholic Church knew that the gospels contained varying accounts and STILL CHOSE TO INCLUDE ALL FOUR GOSPELS (instead of just one!) speaks to the fact that all four are considered both reliable and inspired. It's called the "criterion of embarrasment". Further, the differences give greater confidence that the authors provide multiple, independent attestation to the resurrection.
After the sinking of the Titanic, some of the survivors claimed that the ship broke in two before going beneath the waves. Other survivors testified that this did not happen. All of them were there. All of them were adamant about what they saw. Eyewitnesses don't always agree, but there is no question that the Titanic sank.
The synoptics represent different testimonies about Jesus. The authors don't agree on all the details - they may have chosen to emphasize different things for any number of reasons. But they all agree that Jesus died on the cross, was buried in a tomb and rose from the dead.
Mark included.
Posts: 2447
Threads: 19
Joined: May 13, 2015
Reputation:
8
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 12:15 pm
(June 28, 2015 at 11:57 am)IATIA Wrote: (June 28, 2015 at 11:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote: No.
(June 28, 2015 at 11:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote: No.
Why do you not subscribe to the A&E story?
I don't have cable, so I don't watch A&E.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 12:18 pm
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2015 at 12:18 pm by IATIA.)
Anyway, why not? (The Adam and Eve thing)
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: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 12:24 pm
Quote:The synoptics represent different testimonies about Jesus.
No, Randy. One fable by Mark later embellished and expanded by the other three for different audiences at differing times.
You have no fucking idea what the beginnings of your silly church were, do you? Comes from only listening to the later bullshit story concocted by the winners.
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 28, 2015 at 12:39 pm
(June 28, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The very fact that the Catholic Church knew that the gospels contained varying accounts and STILL CHOSE TO INCLUDE ALL FOUR GOSPELS (instead of just one!) speaks to the fact that all four are considered both reliable and inspired.
Mark included.
This of course after they amended Mark to include the horseshit stories that it didn't contain. Something so reliable and inspired wouldn't have been touched. You're in denial.
|
