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 09-12-2019, 02:45 AM
 
3,510 posts, read 1,689,264 times
Reputation: 3574

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Just a few comments - yes, we have drifted off the topic of comparing Atheism and Christianity to trying to prove a god through the first-and -last resort apologetic; cosmic origins. Chich is actually irrelevant as that (even if validated) oly leads to Which god? Which of course leads to Bible veracity.

Which in itself leads to the Resurrection claim. If that isn't true, Christianity fails even if every other word of the Bible is factual. Which may be why the matter of the disciples stealing the body is a valid one. The Casual Visitor raised the matter of the Tomb Guard. I'd argue that nobody other than Matthew mentions this really important matter, and his account is fantastical and contradictory. In the other gospels the women arrive to find the tomb empty and the angel that explains where Jesus has gone is absent in John (until two show up later for no good reason).

Since it is less likely that John deleted the tale of the angel explaining that Jesus has risen than (Just as mark has no resurrection appearance at all) there was an angel added in the origonal of the synoptic gospel, which all three copied.

As ToN noted, Matthew's tomb guard wasn't posted until the next day, so if the disciples were going to get Jesus out they had all night to do it. Matthew pretty much tells us why he invented the story - because the Jews in his day claimed that the disciples stole the body. The disciples here are the disciples who put Jesus there. The excuse that the disciples were fearful and hiding doesn't apply to Arimathea and Nicodemus. In fact IF one takes the story as a generally true account, the whole crucifixion account only makes sense if it was a repeat of the Lazarus resurrection -stunt (1) intended to get Jesus down off the cross alive.

The counter to this must be "But the disciples would not die for a lie!" But who says that they did? Only early church martyrdom stories. And the dubious claim of Luke in Acts that Herod Agrippa had John (son of Zebedee) killed.

The conclusion is that, if the accounts are given credence, then a plot to rescue Jesus alive is what would stand up in court, not a resurection from the dead. And if it isn't a credible account, it doesn't matter.

(1) again, IF you take John's account as reliable, then the whole Lazarus - thing screams of a faked resurrection miracle. I was once pretty convinced of this, but now i rather suspect that the accounts are Not reliable.
Transponder, thank you for getting us back on track. I don't know what got into me.

I think what might help in this discussion is if a person uses a source, they analyze it and then share the analysis of it. That has often been brought up as a concern here in the R/S forum, that people don't agree on the source, or the analysis of the source is not accepted. Therefore, we must be using different criteria when choosing and using sources to defend positions.

Is the Christian bible a firsthand account source or secondhand account of information? Are parts of it one type of source and other parts the other? What type of source is it, such as, a diary entry, painting, etc.? What is the point-of-view? What are the facts? Do they support the conclusions? What is the purpose of the source? Does it help answer the question being asked?

"But the disciples would not die for a lie!" is a conclusion. Is it supported by facts?

Last edited by elyn02; 09-12-2019 at 03:10 AM.. Reason: Changed primary and secondary to firsthand account and secondhand account
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2019, 07:09 AM
 
Location: USA
3,799 posts, read 1,347,507 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post


That is one possibility from several, all more probable than a supernatural resurrection.
We have before us a story of an empty grave and a missing corpse. We are confronted with two possibilities. One is that the corpse returned to life and left the grave on it's own volition. The other is that a living agent was responsible for the missing corpse. The first possibility is ridiculous to the point of foolishness. Childish, in fact. The second possibility is obviously the overwhelmingly likely choice.

So the next question becomes, within the scope of the story at hand, was there a living agent with the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the corpse? And, based on the story at hand, the answer is an obvious YES!

A. MEANS. Joseph, the rich man, was clearly a man of means. Only a man of means could have hoped to have been granted an audience with, and a favor from, the Roman governor. Along with Joseph we have an early disciple named Nicodemus, the eleven remaining apostles, and some several dozens of other early followers of Jesus on hand to potentially be utilized in the undertaking. More then enough means to accomplish the feat. Once the body of Jesus had been procured from the Romans, it was then simply a matter of prepping the body for a journey, using the Joseph's "nigh at hand" personal tomb as the perfect place for the job, and then transporting the body elsewhere to effect it's actual final resting place. Then essentially closing the door (the great stone) behind them when they left. No great trick or slight of hand required. THE DISCIPLES HAD THE MEANS.

B. Motive.
Deut.21:
[22] And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
[23] His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


Crucifixion was the most disreputable and ignominious death possible for a Jew. Jesus was beaten and hung up to die. A degrading death for him, his family, and for his cause. This was precisely the intention the priests had in pressing the Roman governor for his crucifixion. It should have served to effectively put an end to Jesus' movement. On the other hand, the claim that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, if true, could only have been as a result of an act of God. It would hardly have been lost on the followers that the claim that Jesus had been resurrected would serve to completely reverse the intention of the Jewish authorities and undo all that they had attempted. Ultimately it worked far better than they could possibly have anticipated, historically.

Matthew 27:64 indicates the the Jewish authorities fully believed at the time that the disciples of Jesus, the obvious suspects, had a motive for doing this. They believed strongly enough in fact to go a graveyard on a high holy day to secure the tomb. And what they feared the disciples intended to do is exactly what occurred. THE DISCIPLES HAD THE MOTIVE.

C. OPPORTUNITY. The disciples not only had the opportunity to relocate the body, THE DISCIPLES HAD POSSESSION OF THE BODY, given to them by Pilate. They didn't have to "steal" the body. Joseph, a disciple of Jesus, had every legal right to do with the body as he saw fit. The disciples were in fact the last one's to have physical possession of the body. THE DISCIPLES HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.

Despite centuries of Christian assumptions and assertions concerning the hundreds of sightings of Jesus "in the flesh," after his execution, the indisputable fact is that there are NO RECORDS OF ANY SUCH SIGHTINGS WHICH ARE DERIVED FROM THE TIME THE EVENT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. The events surrounding the life and death of Jesus were unrecorded by ANYONE when they were supposed to have occurred. A quarter of a century or so after the Gospels indicate that Jesus was executed, a man who wasn't personally present himself for any of the events detailed in the Gospels, Paul, but who had become a committed Christian, wrote in a letter (1 Corinthians) that as many as 500 of Jesus' followers witnessed the risen Jesus on one particular occasion. But this is simply ONE ACCOUNT, NOT 500 ACCOUNTS. Written by a man who wasn't there!

Who claimed to have witnessed the "risen" Jesus? His disciples and ONLY his disciples. And where was the "risen" man now? He flew off up into the sky. Who claimed to have witnessed the "risen" man fly off into the sky? His disciples and ONLY his disciples. Who then was responsible for spreading the rumor that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? HIS DISCIPLES. Is it a realistic story? NO! It is a ridiculously unbelievable story. And it was largely rejected by the Jewish population of Jerusalem, the very people in the best position to have been aware of the actual facts.

As long as the disciples of Jesus are the clear and obvious suspects, with essentially NO OBSTRUCTIONS to prevent them from carrying out their plans, THEN THE DISCIPLES ARE THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THE EMPTY GRAVE AND MISSING CORPSE. The VERY LEAST LIKELY CLAIM, that the corpse came back to life, left the tomb on it's own, and then eventually flew away, HAS NO REASONABLE PLAUSIBILITY AT ALL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 08:15 AM
 
Location: USA
3,799 posts, read 1,347,507 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02 View Post
Transponder, thank you for getting us back on track. I don't know what got into me.

I think what might help in this discussion is if a person uses a source, they analyze it and then share the analysis of it. That has often been brought up as a concern here in the R/S forum, that people don't agree on the source, or the analysis of the source is not accepted. Therefore, we must be using different criteria when choosing and using sources to defend positions.

Is the Christian bible a firsthand account source or secondhand account of information? Are parts of it one type of source and other parts the other? What type of source is it, such as, a diary entry, painting, etc.? What is the point-of-view? What are the facts? Do they support the conclusions? What is the purpose of the source? Does it help answer the question being asked?

"But the disciples would not die for a lie!" is a conclusion. Is it supported by facts?
Chapter 12 of Acts indicates that Herod Agrippa executed James the brother of John and began a systematic persecution of the Christian church. Peter is jailed but escapes. After his escape Peter finds it prudent to "go into another place." (Acts12:17) Peter took a powder. None of the remaining nine apostles are mentioned after chapter 12 of Acts! Peter later returns to Jerusalem, but excluding Peter, the remaining nine original apostles are missing in action.

Gal.1
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


The various tales of the martyrdom of the apostles are derived from later Christian traditions. These tales are not supported by scripture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Germany
5,514 posts, read 1,056,616 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
A. MEANS. Joseph, the rich man, was clearly a man of means.
Arimathea is an invented name, with Joseph of Arimathea being an invented character. The author of Mark is playing his usual games with this 'disciple' from 'best disciple town'. He is not required for the story, the Jewish council would have buried Jesus because it was their law to bury ALL people that had been killed for crimes.

While the story may be based on the body disappearing for some reason, basing a theory on an invented person makes no sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post
Gal.1
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


The various tales of the martyrdom of the apostles are derived from later Christian traditions. These tales are not supported by scripture.
That passage is not attested until the third century AD, which is strange, as it refutes Marcionism. Yet Tertullian did not mention it. That is one of the reasons it may be a later interpolation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 12:13 PM
 
Location: USA
3,799 posts, read 1,347,507 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Arimathea is an invented name, with Joseph of Arimathea being an invented character. The author of Mark is playing his usual games with this 'disciple' from 'best disciple town'. He is not required for the story, the Jewish council would have buried Jesus because it was their law to bury ALL people that had been killed for crimes.

While the story may be based on the body disappearing for some reason, basing a theory on an invented person makes no sense to me.
You're suggesting that the entire claim of the empty tomb is a fiction. Which would explain why Paul fails to mention the empty tomb in any of his letters.

Paul wrote his letters circa the fifties CE. The four Gospels were written sometime after 70 CE. One conclusion is that the entire story of the empty tomb is a myth which arose sometime after Paul wrote his letters. The Gospels represent the nature of the myth of Jesus that was in common circulation in the last quarter of the first century.

But of course the empty tomb is mentioned in all four Gospels, and Christians will have their empty tomb. Constantine's mother was a Christian, and she wanted to see "the tomb." One of the things that the mother of Constantine did when she visited Jerusalem in the 4th century was to ask about the site of the tomb. And she was shown a tomb which was declared to be "the tomb." But family tombs cut into the living rock were common among wealthy Jews during the time of Jesus. Currently there are two main tombs in Jerusalem which vie for the title of THE tomb. One is the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, presided over by the Orthodox church. The second is the Garden Tomb, located outside of the walls of ancient Jerusalem, and which is presided over by a nondenominational Christian trust. Whether or not the body of Jesus was ever taken to either of these tombs is impossible to know. But devout Christian will have their tomb.

With or without the tomb, the answer to the question of the rise of the story of Jesus can be explained as rumors that were circulated by his early followers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
That passage is not attested until the third century AD, which is strange, as it refutes Marcionism. Yet Tertullian did not mention it. That is one of the reasons it may be a later interpolation.
No disagreement here. If any Christian wishes to dispute the authenticity of Gal.1: 17-19 they should proceed to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,962 posts, read 2,969,527 times
Reputation: 2976
This Joseph of Arimathea character just suddenly appears out of nowhere, takes the body of Jesus and then disappears again. Strange for a disciple of Jesus not to be mentioned anywhere else, especially since he was a respected member of the Sanhedrin.

Does sound rather invented!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 01:05 PM
 
370 posts, read 58,582 times
Reputation: 55
Just a reminder to all those who think "getting back on topic" means this thread is now a debate about Jesus' resurrection...


From post #1:

-----
Comparing Atheism and Christianity

This thread is intended for a debate/discussion between Tired of the Nonsense and Iwasmadenew, comparing how our worldviews answer some of "life's big questions."

Proposal for how to proceed:
1. We each briefly answer all three ‘big questions’ (summarized points explaining our reasoning).
2. Discuss/debate each question, one at a time, in more detail.
3. Additional questions/comments to each other.
4. Invite other people’s questions/comments.

-----
3 Big Questions:

1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?

2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?

3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?


---------
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,962 posts, read 2,969,527 times
Reputation: 2976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
-----
3 Big Questions:

1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?

2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?

3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?


---------
To me the big question is; what do the 3 big questions have to do with religion? I see astronomy, science and psychology written all over them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:50 PM
 
Location: USA
3,799 posts, read 1,347,507 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
Just a reminder to all those who think "getting back on topic" means this thread is now a debate about Jesus' resurrection...


From post #1:

-----
Comparing Atheism and Christianity

This thread is intended for a debate/discussion between Tired of the Nonsense and Iwasmadenew, comparing how our worldviews answer some of "life's big questions."

Proposal for how to proceed:
1. We each briefly answer all three ‘big questions’ (summarized points explaining our reasoning).
2. Discuss/debate each question, one at a time, in more detail.
3. Additional questions/comments to each other.
4. Invite other people’s questions/comments.

-----
3 Big Questions:

1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?

2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?

3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?


---------
Questions 1 through 3 have been thoroughly covered. Most especially question #1. We are now examining how Christian beliefs and claims hold up to detailed scrutiny. Feel free to join in. If you choose not to participate, we will reasonably conclude that you have no objections to the points that are being raised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2019, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Germany
5,514 posts, read 1,056,616 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
Just a reminder to all those who think "getting back on topic" means this thread is now a debate about Jesus' resurrection...


From post #1:

-----
Comparing Atheism and Christianity

This thread is intended for a debate/discussion between Tired of the Nonsense and Iwasmadenew, comparing how our worldviews answer some of "life's big questions."
So you are avoiding me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
Proposal for how to proceed:
1. We each briefly answer all three ‘big questions’ (summarized points explaining our reasoning).
2. Discuss/debate each question, one at a time, in more detail.
3. Additional questions/comments to each other.
4. Invite other people’s questions/comments.

-----
3 Big Questions:

1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?
We have done this. We are waiting for you to refute the argument from probability (point 6), where you argued your god is the least likely* explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?
Again, we are waiting for you to define life. Once you do this, you have answered your own question. No god is required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?
If yes, your god does not exist. We are still waiting for your answer. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?

* Least likely, is that correct English? My books say yes, but to me it reads strange.
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top