Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[GrandizerII]

It is way more likely they were mistaken, or just plain made it up. People get mistaken all the time. They also make things up all the time.

It was also written by non-eye witnesses 30 years after the event, so they didn't see anything. They heard rumours.

Why?  Do you have any support for your assertions here?

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

[John V]

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

Miracles are by definition unlikely, so arguing that they're unlikely isn't really saying anything.

[GrandizerII]

Not more of this die for a lie shit? How many times!

Something doesn't have to be a lie to be untrue. People can be mistaken. And when you're mistaken, you don't know you're mistaken, because you're mistaken. It's only a lie when you deliberately mislead someone. Why do some people think no one from that era could ever be mistaken?

What this broken argument is sneakily trying to say is no one would die for a falsehood. That's not the same thing, as it assumes everyone is aware at all times which of their beliefs are actually true. This is clearly not the case, and can never be the case.

At least in the case of the death and resurrection of Jesus, I think that a mistake is unlikely.  Remember, that the distinction that is being made  is not just what is believed to be true, but people who are claiming to have seen what they are reporting.  Jesus death was public, and it is likely Romans would have ensured that the sentence was carried out.  Also in that culture, you didn't send a dead body to a funeral home, so those closest to him, would have personally prepared the body for burial.  As to the resurrection, what is going to lead to mistakes is a lack of familiarity, proximity, or time.  I don't think that any of these are lacking in the account of Jesus's resurrection that would allow for the claim that they where just mistaken.  There are also multiple testimonies so multiple people would need to be mistaken in the same way.

Jesus' death may have been public, but was the resurrection public, visible by many? Early copies of Mark do not support this.

[GrandizerII]

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

Miracles are by definition unlikely, so arguing that they're unlikely isn't really saying anything.

They're extremely unlikely, you got that right.

[RoadRunner79]

Why?  Do you have any support for your assertions here?

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

Can you please provide some of this heaps of evidence.... most of what I have seen, is just making up a different story and denying the actual historical evidence, because of a priori bias against any type of miracle.  It's not considered good historical scholarship at all.

If I wished to deny evolution, can I just deny the evidence, and say that it is more likely that they are mistaken or made things up, simply because of a priori bias?

[Redbeard The Pink]

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

Can you please provide some of this heaps of evidence.... most of what I have seen, is just making up a different story and denying the actual historical evidence, because of a priori bias against any type of miracle.  It's not considered good historical scholarship at all.

If I wished to deny evolution, can I just deny the evidence, and say that it is more likely that they are mistaken or made things up, simply because of a priori bias?

There is no historical or scientific evidence to support any miraculous claims, so there is no reason to believe that miracles happen. Evolution, on the other hand, is backed by evidence from biology, geology, and various other modes of science. One might deny that evidence, but for miracles there is no evidence to deny.


Also, he's right. Science tells us that it's remarkably easy to convince most humans to believe at least a few things without sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs. Taking things for granted is part of how our brains work, and it's probably the primary reason religion still has such a social foothold in otherwise scientifically progressive societies.

[GrandizerII]

It's a much more likely explanation than that they actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, appear to them as some form of spiritual being, and then ascend to heaven. It's also backed up by heaps of evidence from modern days that people are all too willing to believe things without evidence.

Can you please provide some of this heaps of evidence.... most of what I have seen, is just making up a different story and denying the actual historical evidence, because of a priori bias against any type of miracle.  It's not considered good historical scholarship at all.

Aside from multiple studies in cognitive psychology revealing all sorts of biases that trip people into having false memories, imperfect attention, and misguided heuristics, all you have to do is watch on TV or YouTube multiple people who are convinced that this person or that person alive now on this planet is the bloody reincarnation of Jesus or Krishna or whoever.

[Drich]

One of the 12, simon/peter.  

Is that it?

Initially Peter taught as Paul did, but later on got caught up in pandering to the Jewish believers. Peter and Paul had quite a falling out over this 'doctrinal issue' for a time and eventually Peter came back around.

Are you sure?

at a glance, this website outlines the whole issue. (I've never referenced it before and have not had a chance to double check alll the details, but everything looks right from what I have studied in the past.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/gal2-11.html

[Drich]

One of the 12, simon/peter. Initially Peter taught as Paul did, but later on got caught up in pandering to the Jewish believers. Peter and Paul had quite a falling out over this 'doctrinal issue' for a time and eventually Peter came back around.

Peter had supposedly spent years paling around with Jesus.  Paul never met Jesus.  But Paul shows up and flimflams Peter about Jesus.  So Peter was an imbecile.

Ah, no. Peter was an apostle geared toward converting OT Jews to Christianity.

Paul was Tasked by Christ personally to Preach to Everyone else.

Peter also wanted to reach out to the gentiles as he saw need and saw evidence that the Holy Spirit can be given to both, he just caved under pressure by the jews to convert to judaism first.

Paul just stuck to the original message peter himself taught.

[Hmmm?]

Ah, no. Peter was an apostle geared toward converting OT Jews to Christianity.

Are you sure? (Acts 15:7)