Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-23-2018, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Germany
16,634 posts, read 4,918,942 times
Reputation: 2087

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
The attempt to argue that it wasn't necessary (Mark was earliest and didn't need to explain what later gospels needed to?) or 'different point of view' (Like never having heard of an appearance of Jesus on that day - no more than he's heard of a birth in Bethlehem) or the 'ending got lost' explanation (and apparently the nativity at the start, too - very careless they were with Mark) are really pointless once you realise that the resurrections conflict almost totally, because each was invented separately.
The story of the resurrection was reinvented, and not separately. The gospels are not independent of each other, they are rewrites of the earlier ones. But the fact the authors had no problem with reinventing the stories tells us they were writing theological fiction, and not recording history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2018, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Germany
16,634 posts, read 4,918,942 times
Reputation: 2087
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Then you don't want to seek the truth.
Rubbish. You have made the extraordinary claim, you provide the evidence.

That is why you reject the claims of miracles from other religions, not because you do not want to seek the truth, but because you do not believe the Muslim who suddenly had a passage of the Koran on his arm, or the Chinese about a god who could belch poisonous gas at his enemies.

Pretending atheists are doing something different to what you are doing is just dishonest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2018, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Germany
16,634 posts, read 4,918,942 times
Reputation: 2087
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
My point stands. Atheists won't even define what parameters are necessary for it to "stand up to examination". Atheists just want the freedom to say, nope not good enough without clearly explaining they auto reject it. Besides even if I provided evidence that shut down any possible way to cast doubt on it, atheists would simply fall back on the "correlation doesn't equal causation" response. If atheists approach their lives with that degree of skepticism, then you couldn't believe in anything as all evidence would become questionable. You would have to propose crazy possibilities like your parents might be aliens.
You are doing exactly the same for every other religion. You doubt the unlikely claims precisely because they are unlikely, yet when we do the same for your religion, it is because we hate your god.

Why do you reject other miraculous claims? That is why we reject yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 05:34 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
The story of the resurrection was reinvented, and not separately. The gospels are not independent of each other, they are rewrites of the earlier ones. But the fact the authors had no problem with reinventing the stories tells us they were writing theological fiction, and not recording history.
I agree with you that the Synoptic Gospels are 'rewrites' of a common originlal, but also with significant inventions. The two nativities are examples. I also argue that the resurrections are also inventions, not rewrites. The open tomb and angelic message is the last thing they all had in common. From then on it was invention.

When you compare with John, the differences are more evident, though the basic story is common to all four. And the open tomb is there, but not the angelic message. So far as John is concerned, it was never given. I don't want to speculate, but while John had Jesus appearing to Mary (as Matthew also has, but not Luke) and he has heard of angels appearing in the tomb, though they do nothing but ask the stupid question 'Why are you crying?', John contradicts Matthew and Luke as much as Mathew and Luke contradict each other.(1)

Mate, it is utterly clear to me that these accounts are invented and contradict utterly.

(1) I wish I'd bought a copy of a book I borrowed where some Bible apologist made the resurrection accounts work by taking the 'contradictory accounts of the same event are Different events' apologetic and ending up with a sort of Judean Farce with all the characters galloping back and forth (and this is set in the city, mind, not between Bethany - where they were all staying - and Gethsemane, where the tomb surely was) with angels popping out of nowhere, and One of them discreetly hiding so there wouldn't be Two of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 05:48 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Rubbish. You have made the extraordinary claim, you provide the evidence.

That is why you reject the claims of miracles from other religions, not because you do not want to seek the truth, but because you do not believe the Muslim who suddenly had a passage of the Koran on his arm, or the Chinese about a god who could belch poisonous gas at his enemies.

Pretending atheists are doing something different to what you are doing is just dishonest.
Yep. This is where Jeff and his Ilk end up every time. While they reject without even considering it the claims of other religions, they snarl at atheists for rejecting that one religion more, and with the backup of winning just about every debate.

Cue the accusations that we don't look at the evidence and when we say 'present it' they say there is no point as we wouldn't accept it. While this sort of dishonesty and hypocrisy can be frustrating to deal with, we should always think: 'This isn't about getting the believer to admit he's wrong' Because they never will, but about presenting the best care to those looking in. And in that respect, Jeff and BF help our ause, rather thn hinder it. The more they wriggle in order to save their own faces (it's all about themselves) the more harm the do to the cause of Christianity.

So either way, we win
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
People noticed, they just made up excuses, or hid the problems. People have argued over the Gnostic nature of John for centuries, so one of the popes forbade Catholics from discussing this sometime in the 1800's.

Here is an excuse from the original Eusebius (260/265 – 339/340AD).

12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit.


It has been excuses all the way.
Yes. You are a useful person to have around with your readings of the church fathers whom I pretty much ignore. My concern is with the gospels themselves, rather than what early churchmen thought about it. It's a weakness as I am often put on the spot by some claim of Clement or Jerome that they spoke to some follower of Jesus who swore it was all true, and I really need to research and find out out it's just a claim. But while I have got interested in Paul, I'm not interested in the views of the Church fathers. So it's useful to have someone who knows.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-24-2018 at 05:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 06:22 AM
 
5,938 posts, read 4,686,857 times
Reputation: 4630
Merriam-Webster defines a miracle to be:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MerriamWebster
an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
I hate to admit it, but we see a miracle around us every day. And to theists' joy, it supports their argument.

It must have taken some form of divine intervention to hoodwink billions of people into believing in various gods and this belief has certainly affected human affairs since civilization began.

I bet the purveyors of these various religions wake up daily thinking "it's a miracle these people believe in this nonsense!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,634 posts, read 4,918,942 times
Reputation: 2087
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I agree with you that the Synoptic Gospels are 'rewrites' of a common originlal, but also with significant inventions. The two nativities are examples. I also argue that the resurrections are also inventions, not rewrites.
My minor problem was you said the inventions were invented separately, but when 'Matthew' rewrote 'Mark', he already had a resurrection account. And both 'Mark' and 'Matthew' have the women as key players, something I find unlikely if they were independent inventions.

But maybe I simply misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
(1) I wish I'd bought a copy of a book I borrowed where some Bible apologist made the resurrection accounts work by taking the 'contradictory accounts of the same event are Different events' apologetic and ending up with a sort of Judean Farce with all the characters galloping back and forth (and this is set in the city, mind, not between Bethany - where they were all staying - and Gethsemane, where the tomb surely was) with angels popping out of nowhere, and One of them discreetly hiding so there wouldn't be Two of them.
I saw a video of something similar, but when I Google it, I just find an overdose of Christian web sites desperately arguing for the resurrection. Do you know the name of the author of the book?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,634 posts, read 4,918,942 times
Reputation: 2087
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Yes. You are a useful person to have around with your readings of the church fathers whom I pretty much ignore. My concern is with the gospels themselves, rather than what early churchmen thought about it. It's a weakness as I am often put on the spot by some claim of Clement or Jerome that they spoke to some follower of Jesus who swore it was all true, and I really need to research and find out out it's just a claim. But while I have got interested in Paul, I'm not interested in the views of the Church fathers. So it's useful to have someone who knows.
I do not blame you, much of the material can be tedious, and you need to go through it before you find some small gem hidden away that makes you think what have I just read. And the earliest church fathers tend to focus on the Old Testament rather than the New Testament.

As to people knowing the apostles, this requires a larger than normal number living to a long age, so is most likely just another Christian invention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 09:40 AM
 
10,077 posts, read 5,709,414 times
Reputation: 2892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Rubbish. You have made the extraordinary claim, you provide the evidence.
Extraordinary according to what standards? Why do atheists have the right to classify claims as "extraordinary"? It's simply a parachute tactic. The atheist can always just say hey that evidence wasn't extraordinary enough. Or they will make bold claims like the Bible is fiction using lack of evidence as evidence which is another fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post

That is why you reject the claims of miracles from other religions, not because you do not want to seek the truth, but because you do not believe the Muslim who suddenly had a passage of the Koran on his arm, or the Chinese about a god who could belch poisonous gas at his enemies.

Pretending atheists are doing something different to what you are doing is just dishonest.
I don't reject claims of miracles from other religions at all. I view it in terms of weight of evidence. The net sum of evidences vastly favors Christianity therefore it would take a greater amount of evidence to force me to question if I serve the true God. Furthermore, I think people believe in other religions for two main reasons. They are either born and raised in a culture that is heavily engrained into the religion like most Middle East countries. Or they have having real supernatural experiences with their beliefs. However, based on what I know of the spirit world, I believe those experiences are being fueled by the great deceiver who has you blinded as well. OTOH, even in those cultural theocracies, we see people coming to Christ. I rarely hear of a born again Christian becoming a Muslim or Buddhist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,469 posts, read 24,054,533 times
Reputation: 32779
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Extraordinary according to what standards? Why do atheists have the right to classify claims as "extraordinary"? It's simply a parachute tactic. The atheist can always just say hey that evidence wasn't extraordinary enough. Or they will make bold claims like the Bible is fiction using lack of evidence as evidence which is another fallacy.



I don't reject claims of miracles from other religions at all. I view it in terms of weight of evidence. The net sum of evidences vastly favors Christianity therefore it would take a greater amount of evidence to force me to question if I serve the true God. Furthermore, I think people believe in other religions for two main reasons. They are either born and raised in a culture that is heavily engrained into the religion like most Middle East countries. Or they have having real supernatural experiences with their beliefs. However, based on what I know of the spirit world, I believe those experiences are being fueled by the great deceiver who has you blinded as well. OTOH, even in those cultural theocracies, we see people coming to Christ. I rarely hear of a born again Christian becoming a Muslim or Buddhist.
1. Why do atheists have the right? It's called freedom of thought and freedom of speech. We understand that you don't believe in those two rights, but they are our rights.

2. That second paragraph -- Christian ego, which is sinful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top