Plagiarism in the NT

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is recommending assault and battery. Would you slap your wife for saying something stupid? When is it ever accepible to slap a stranger because they said something stupid? Why would you suggest that others do so?

No one actually ever means it. It's a colloquialism, "they should get slapped." That's why I said it's the internet. People talk about how Trump should get smacked, talk about how they would punch someone. It's pretty clear they don't actually mean that it should really happen. Especially when talking about people who supposedly lived 2000 years ago.

Maybe I am being a little over sensitive ever since an AF member wished someone would kill people like me. I think if you look at his prior two posts you'll understand why I took it seriously.

[SteelCurtain]

Dude it's the fucking internet. Saying someone needs a slap for doing something stupid is not 'inciting violence.' I know the persecuted Christian gambit is like a muscle you have to exercise else it will atrophy, but this one is a little dumb.

Maybe you should go protest at the local city hall when the Church of Satan has the audacity to want an equal display next to the Ten Commandments on the lawn at the courthouse.

Hell, might knock some sense into him!

Reported for inciting violence.

[Silver]

Hell, might knock some sense into him!

Reported for inciting violence.

*Knocks some sense into you*

[SteelCurtain]

Maybe I am being a little over sensitive ever since an AF member wished someone would kill people like me.

If someone said that, I would have voted to action against that person. Wishing someone would kill you is a bit different than saying someone is acting dumb and should be slapped.

---

I think if you look at his prior two posts you'll understand why I took it seriously.

Hmm...

I mean, literally, you don't even need to go to one of the really popular, very well-spoken atheist youtube channels to hear them refute the Aquinas' asinine arguments. How fucking lazy and addled can one be?

So, not sure if I'm missing a contextual clue, but this 'die for a lie' thing, does it imply that these people KNOW it's a lie and just keep on going anyway? Because I doubt anyone who died in a crusade or suicide bombing lacked at least a partial faith-based motivation, if not some other fear-motivated irrational decision-making that led them to that, or if they had some kind of incentive (having their destitute family be provided for in exchange, for example). But if a person's convictions are such that they believe something no matter how implausible, then for fuck's sake, OF COURSE they can be motivated to martyr themselves for it. If a better life beyond this one is what they genuinely believe awaits, and the price is giving this life to serve the needs of its creator, well, that sure as hell seems adequate. The only truly amazing part of it is that no matter what level of social status or education, someone can still fall prey to this lunacy.

[Amarok]

So no Neo's crying death threats .

---

Yes, that is the context of the argument.  Not whether someone believed it was true, but knowing if it is or not and maintaining what you know is false under pressure to say otherwise.  So it only applies to those who say they saw the risen Christ.

Nope even under pressure to say otherwise.  Even if they were claimed eyewitness . If they believed it would make a better world or They believed it could possibly be true or desired it to be true . So no road once again you show why no takes seriously .

[Minimalist]

He's always whining about something.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think if you look at his prior two posts you'll understand why I took it seriously.

Hmm...

One or two insults, I would consider to be basic AF rowdy banter and teasing, but these two sounded unhinged:

Oh, go jump up your own ass, you judgmental piece of fucking shit. Who the goddamn fuck are you, threatening me with eternal hellfire, you bastard? You think you're better than me, motherfucker? Shut the fuck up about being respectful, cocksucker, you're such a dipshit hypocrite you don't even fucking understand what you just did, punk.

Do some fucking research, assjacker, five goddamn minutes on youtube will slap the bitch out of your ignorance, or are you also a lazy prick who can't be bothered? I'm done with you. You're not worth the shitstains left on your drawers.

Like I said maybe this is the direction AF is going. The quality of debate has really gone down over the last year.

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, that is the context of the argument.  Not whether someone believed it was true, but knowing if it is or not and maintaining what you know is false under pressure to say otherwise.  So it only applies to those who say they saw the risen Christ.

That's a bit of a stretch. The writers of the gospels could easily have believed they were reporting the facts and just been wrong. The authors weren't the witnesses, and they don't seem to have gotten their information directly from supposed witnesses either. They wrote down the stories they were told, that they already believed. No one had to lie, events being exaggerated after the fact is selected for in retellings because it makes them more memorable.

I don't think people who think they've seen Elvis posthumously are lying (with probably some exceptions). That in no way implies that Elvis has been resurrected, does it? Isn't it more likely that they just saw someone who resembles Elvis? Imagine what it must have been like in the first century when no one even had a photo of Jesus to compare to, and a lot of people had only seen him from a distance?

Or what if Jesus just survived the crucifixion? He was taken down awfully fast, victims were usually left up until they were so rotten they fell off, and he gave up the ghost within hours when most victims would last days. Last ditch rescue attempt to get their messiah off the cross alive by drugging him into unconsciousness? He would certainly have left an empty tomb and had wounds to show after that, and a reason to hightail it off before the Romans caught on that their guy had gotten away.

The authors could have been completely sincere and just wrong about some of the facts, even things central to the religion. Have you seen what we can still get wrong in the age of information and fact-checking? People seriously believe Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint and that she maintains a death squad to knock off anyone who might be politically dangerous to her. There's just no reason to think people were more immune to being taken in by fake news 2,000 years ago than they are now.

What makes you think that the authors where not eye witnesses to the events?   Now I admit, the bible does contain accounts, from before the others where around or which they could not have witnessed.  (which would not make them eyewitnesses to those).  But where not really talking about those.   What information do you base this on, that the authors where not eyewitnesses, or those in close contact with them. 

In your Elvis analogy, I don't find it analogous.  Are these accounts, that 1)  Seen and confirmed that Elvis was dead?   2) Close friends and family having spent enough time with him after his resurrection in close proximity to him to know that it was in fact Elvis?  3) as per the topic that you replied to facing heavy consequences for lying for any of these things. 

As to the crucifixion we have the following:

Death was often hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."[53]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

And there are some who argue, that they where left up to rot, that the Christian account is not accurate but Josephus in the Jewish Wars Book 4 Ch. 5 makes a point, that the Jewish custom was to honor the dead, and bury them before sunset.

And the thing about "fake news", is you need some reason to declare it fake (or at least questionable).

[Minimalist]

What makes you think that the authors where not eye witnesses to the events?

You know, I don't have any use at all for the schmucks who wrote your precious fucking gospels but I will give them credit for one thing over you.  They do not CLAIM to be eye-witnesses.  This is a lie that xristard slimeballs started but there is no evidence to suport it.  How does it feel to be less honest and less credible than some unknown clown who  lived 1,600-1,700 years ago?

[RoadRunner79]

If there is someone who wants to talk about this intelligently, Let me know.

Here is an article to start discussion.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/4-r...-accounts/

Edit to fix typo