Jesus was FAR different than most people think! (miracle, religions, science)

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

There may be some truth in that. You ask for proof, I show you proof, and yet you still hope, proof be damned.

If Jesus had been dead for 3 days, his body would have decayed.

If he really came back to life, he would have a lot more than some sword holes and cross nails to show he had been dead. He would have a stinking, decayed and bloated body to show for it.

I'll give you my proof; if he hadnot risen, then belief in him would have died right then.

Belief in him has multiplied without numerical count, and still reins as the majority.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I'll give you my proof; if he hadnot risen, then belief in him would have died right then.

Belief in him has multiplied without numerical count, and still reins as the majority.

Likewise:
If Joseph Smith had not been given gold tablets containing the book of Mormon by an angel, then the Mormon faith would have died right then.

If Buddah had not received enlightenment under the Bodhi tree and subsequently produced fire and water from his body simultaneously, Buddhism would have dies right then.

If Mohammed had not received the koran from the angel Gabriel , and then later miraculously split the moon, Islam would have died right then.

You do believe all these other miracles, and the veracity of the religions founded on them, based on the continued existence and growth of these religious traditions, right?

-NoCapo

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

Likewise:
If Joseph Smith had not been given gold tablets containing the book of Mormon by an angel, then the Mormon faith would have died right then.

If Buddah had not received enlightenment under the Bodhi tree and subsequently produced fire and water from his body simultaneously, Buddhism would have dies right then.

If Mohammed had not received the koran from the angel Gabriel , and then later miraculously split the moon, Islam would have died right then.

You do believe all these other miracles, and the veracity of the religions founded on them, based on the continued existence and growth of these religious traditions, right?

-NoCapo

These pale in significance to Jesus history, or are you sugessting that they overshadow him? None can even compare to Jesus reality, your arguement must surpass the man, and none of your ilk has ever been able to do that.

Come back to the table when you have something that can put out his light.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I'll give you my proof; if he hadnot risen, then belief in him would have died right then.

Belief in him has multiplied without numerical count, and still reins as the majority.

What if he never really died though? Just passed out and came through a few days later.

Like this guy:

News from The Associated Press

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

These pale in significance to Jesus history, or are you sugessting that they overshadow him? None can even compare to Jesus reality, your arguement must surpass the man, and none of your ilk has ever been able to do that.

Come back to the table when you have something that can put out his light.

My point was if you are going to argue that the miraculous origens of Christianity are true simply because people still believe in Christianity, then you should apply that criterion across the board. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty, essentially trying to justify a position with unfounded bloviation.

Unless of course you were being insincere with your claim that the existence of Christianity is definitive proof of the miraculous claims about its founder...

AS an aside, I am not sure what you mean by ilk. I do have specific views and I make no bones about them, but this is not about what I believe, or really even what you believe. This is about your attempt to justify your belief with an illogical non sequitur. You don't even really believe the argument you made, since you clearly don't want to apply it to any other traditions. I don't care what you believe, but I think it is important to distinguish what you know or can rationally conclude from what you take on faith. It isn't an atheist thing, I had to go through the same process for myself as a believer. If you can't separate the two, you are just deluding yourself.

-NoCapo

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

What if he never really died though? Just passed out and came through a few days later.

Like this guy:

News from The Associated Press

What if is what you need, history does not need what if. History is what happened, your defense is what if somethingelse happened; because there is somethingelse in your consciousness other than what really occured. And I contend that Jesus has placed that somethingelse within your consciousness, effectively blinding you.

I often wonder why he has not blinded me to his reality. Its a confusing thing, very hard to deal with.

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

My point was if you are going to argue that the miraculous origens of Christianity are true simply because people still believe in Christianity, then you should apply that criterion across the board. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty, essentially trying to justify a position with unfounded bloviation.

Unless of course you were being insincere with your claim that the existence of Christianity is definitive proof of the miraculous claims about its founder...

AS an aside, I am not sure what you mean by ilk. I do have specific views and I make no bones about them, but this is not about what I believe, or really even what you believe. This is about your attempt to justify your belief with an illogical non sequitur. You don't even really believe the argument you made, since you clearly don't want to apply it to any other traditions. I don't care what you believe, but I think it is important to distinguish what you know or can rationally conclude from what you take on faith. It isn't an atheist thing, I had to go through the same process for myself as a believer. If you can't separate the two, you are just deluding yourself.

-NoCapo

Show me anywhere in archives that I have claimed christianity is proof of anything I believe in that supports my belief; you don't know me and this is proof of it. I am in no manner connected with christianity, you must come after me devoid of that. You contend with me, not a christian.

Disconnect your christian prejudice, and know your true target. You must discredit me, not christians.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

Show me anywhere in archives that I have claimed christianity is proof of anything I believe in that supports my belief; you don't know me and this is proof of it. I am in no manner connected with christianity, you must come after me devoid of that. You contend with me, not a christian.

Disconnect your christian prejudice, and know your true target. You must discredit me, not christians.

I do understand that you do not claim to be a Christian, however most of what you appear to believe fits neatly under a non-trinitarian universalist interpretation of Christianity (Not a very large theological variety, but it goes back a long way) . Claim it or not, you have a lot in common with them.

Regardless, I am not accusing you a being a Christian. I am responding to this:

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I'll give you my proof; if he hadnot risen, then belief in him would have died right then.

Belief in him has multiplied without numerical count, and still reins as the majority.

Here you are claiming, as proof of the resurrection of Jesus, the fact that "belief in him..." has not died. Not to nitpick, but since the vast majority of those who believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus are identified as Christian ( indeed, most self-identify as such), I used the term Christianity as a shorthand for this particular belief. Thus, you are using the existence of Christianity ( or "belief in him", if you prefer) as proof of the resurrection.

My point, which you seem to be trying to dodge yet again, is that if the existence of "belief in him" is proof of the miraculous resurrection of Jesus, then the existence of Islam is proof that Mohammed split the moon,the existence of the LDS church proves that Joseph Smith received the book of Mormon from an angel on gold tablets, and Buddhism proves that the Buddah, after receiving enlightenment, made fire and water issue forth from his body as a sign.

Unless you accept all of these as equally true, you are not being intellectually honest with your proof. You either did not say what you intended to communicate, or your belief in the resurrection is not based on proof or logic. That is ok, by the way, it just helps to be honest with yourself about which things you are accepting on faith and which things have logical or evidential support.

-NoCapo

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

I do understand that you do not claim to be a Christian, however most of what you appear to believe fits neatly under a non-trinitarian universalist interpretation of Christianity (Not a very large theological variety, but it goes back a long way) . Claim it or not, you have a lot in common with them.

Regardless, I am not accusing you a being a Christian. I am responding to this:



Here you are claiming, as proof of the resurrection of Jesus, the fact that "belief in him..." has not died. Not to nitpick, but since the vast majority of those who believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus are identified as Christian ( indeed, most self-identify as such), I used the term Christianity as a shorthand for this particular belief. Thus, you are using the existence of Christianity ( or "belief in him", if you prefer) as proof of the resurrection.

My point, which you seem to be trying to dodge yet again, is that if the existence of "belief in him" is proof of the miraculous resurrection of Jesus, then the existence of Islam is proof that Mohammed split the moon,the existence of the LDS church proves that Joseph Smith received the book of Mormon from an angel on gold tablets, and Buddhism proves that the Buddah, after receiving enlightenment, made fire and water issue forth from his body as a sign.

Unless you accept all of these as equally true, you are not being intellectually honest with your proof. You either did not say what you intended to communicate, or your belief in the resurrection is not based on proof or logic. That is ok, by the way, it just helps to be honest with yourself about which things you are accepting on faith and which things have logical or evidential support.

-NoCapo

Then disprove that we have the bones of the high priest who slapped Jesus, and the bones of the black man who carried his cross. Disprove that.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

Then disprove that we have the bones of the high priest who slapped Jesus, and the bones of the black man who carried his cross. Disprove that.

Why? The discussion at hand was the logic of your proof. I don't particularly care what you believe, as I stated before. I am not interested in trying to destroy your faith, I just don't understand why you are trying so hard to avoid acknowledging that you are taking things on faith, to the point of using illogical "proofs" and then dancing around the issue. Is it such a bad thing to simply take the resurrection on faith? You believe it, because you believe it. That is the conclusion I had to come to when I was struggling with reconciling the sovereignty of God and free will.

-NoCapo