[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

@Psychobilly freakout
Is it not a fact that Jesus was crucified?
This is a question of epistemology.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

@Psychobilly freakout
Is it not a fact that Jesus was crucified?
This is a question of epistemology.

Outside of the bible, there is more evidence that Joseph Smith met the Angel Moroni than there is evidence of the crucifixion. And the evidence for Moroni is contemporary from people who were there, not people writing many decades later from heresay.

So, are you a Mormon?

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Yes, I'm just waiting on his reply.

Remove my entry from your table. Thank you.

 

[Baldseagull]

The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead and to stay dead. They were there at the crucifixion and watched Roman soldiers pierce his side to check he was dead. They were expert executioners and broke the legs of people so they couldn’t push their bodies up the cross to breathe. After they killed Jesus they put him in a tomb, sealed it and the Jewish leaders requested that Roman soldiers were posted to guard the tomb, because they didn’t want the disciples to steal the body and claim Jesus had rose from the dead. They were the only ones that would have anything to gain by faking his resurrection, so it seems unbelievable that all but one of the disciples (John) died a martyrs death for something that they knew was a lie, unless of course they were completely convinced it was true.

They did not break the legs of Jesus though, according to the Bible, and only John says he was stuck with a spear I believe. I think surviving crucifixion for 6 hours is a lot more credible than dying and resurrecting 3 days later.
Maybe his disciples were convinced, I am certainly not though.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

@Psychobilly freakout
Is it not a fact that Jesus was crucified?
This is a question of epistemology.

You know what.....

It is not a fact, end of.

More than likely, yes.
The trouble is you have no proof, like a lot of your psychobabble other than what has been written, re written etc, etc, etc.

 

[Stato]

Is it not a fact that Jesus was crucified?

It seems that you may be experiencing those phone problems that prevent you from answering questions, but not from asking them.

Technology, eh?

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Who do you think spread the gospel in the beginning?

Liars with an agenda..

Give this a read, I am sure you will dismiss it like everything else though.

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence

Similarities to Other Stories Unavoidable Contradictions The Logical Explanation Similarities to Other Stories The similarities between the stories and characte

danielmiessler.com

 

[birthofanorange]

I have enjoyed reading this thread (surprisingly) and it's been quite a revelation. Not in the sense of 'finding god/jesus/flying spaghetti thing', but more in the sense of how faith (or belief) - which I have no problem with, if that's your thing - is peddled as fact.
Quite astonishing, really, and it would certainly affect those who are perhaps vulnerable or susceptible to such things.
All a bit dodgy, imho.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead and to stay dead.

It’s all a bit of a mystery.

The Sanhedrin (who unanimously voted for Jesus to be put to death Mark 14:55), were responsible for providing tombs for criminals who were crucified. Paul confirms this in Acts 13:29. Joseph of Arimathea (the nice guy who provided a grave for Jesus) was a member of the Sanhedrin who voted for him to die (so not such a nice guy).

It’s not clear if Jesus is put in a common grave for criminals or Joseph’s family grave. So the grave is owned by the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to death, and is guarded by the Romans who crucified him.

Then the body disappeared. Where is Miss Marple when you need her?

Bear in mind that what is reported in Matthew is the story that the Jesus sect wants to propagate. Matthew 28:11-15 tells of a conversation between the soldiers and the priests. If this is an accurate representation of the conversation, then (a) the writer of Matthew was not party to the conversation, and (b) it would not have been in the interest of either the soldiers or the priests to make the conversation public. So is this conversation true? And what really happened?

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course I would like it if you all started believing in Jesus and decided to follow him, but even if you don't, even if you reject Jesus, I'll accept that as long as you do so based on the established facts, ie. the facts that most scholars agree on.

Most scholars: Please list all the scholars who have tried to work out whether or not the disciples believed that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.

To establish where we are, I'd like to ask everyone if I may the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Jesus was a real person?
(I think we are pretty much agreed on that)

2. Do you agree that he was crucified?
(I think we are all pretty much agreed on that, too)

I think he probably existed and was probably crucified, but even that isn't a fact. It was 2,000 years ago, and wouldn't be much of a surprise even if that wasn't true. People lie all the time and even recent records can be unreliable, let alone ones that have been passed down through folklore.

3. Do you agree that his disciples believe that he rose from the dead?

I think it's unlikely they all believed that. I've mentioned Thomas quite a few times (you haven't responded), as I don't think he believed it. I imagine others went along with the idea, without really believing it.

'The sincere belief of the Twelve that Jesus appeared to them alive after his death is widely accepted as historical bedrock by almost all scholars and is a key fact in what Gary Habermas calls a “minimal facts argument” for the resurrection of Jesus.

That's just the preaching of someone who wants to promote Christianity. I'll wait until you list all the scholars, and then investigate.

 

[Triggaaar]

But you're not copying my style. That's not my style. You might think it is, but if you look closely you'll see that it isn't.
I distinguish between what I say as evidence based fact and what I say as my interpretation of conclusions drawn from said facts.

No you don't. You state about Jesus being the son of god, or there being a god in the first place, as if it's evidence based fact. It isn't.

 

[Triggaaar]

@Psychobilly freakout
Is it not a fact that Jesus was crucified?

No it's not.

 

[Triggaaar]

It’s not clear if Jesus is put in a common grave for criminals or Joseph’s family grave. So the grave is owned by the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to death, and is guarded by the Romans who crucified him.

Didn't his bird Mary go to see him in his tomb, and then claim he wasn't there? Quite lax guarding by the Romans.

And didn't Mary see some old fool or something, and then later say it was Jesus she saw?

Bear in mind that what is reported in Matthew is the story that the Jesus sect wants to propagate. Matthew 28:11-15 tells of a conversation between the soldiers and the priests. If this is an accurate representation of the conversation, then (a) the writer of Matthew was not party to the conversation, and (b) it would not have been in the interest of either the soldiers or the priests to make the conversation public. So is this conversation true? And what really happened?

No it's not true. Matthew made it up.

 

[Eeyore]

It’s all a bit of a mystery.

The Sanhedrin (who unanimously voted for Jesus to be put to death Mark 14:55), were responsible for providing tombs for criminals who were crucified. Paul confirms this in Acts 13:29. Joseph of Arimathea (the nice guy who provided a grave for Jesus) was a member of the Sanhedrin who voted for him to die (so not such a nice guy).

It’s not clear if Jesus is put in a common grave for criminals or Joseph’s family grave. So the grave is owned by the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to death, and is guarded by the Romans who crucified him.

Then the body disappeared. Where is Miss Marple when you need her?

Bear in mind that what is reported in Matthew is the story that the Jesus sect wants to propagate. Matthew 28:11-15 tells of a conversation between the soldiers and the priests. If this is an accurate representation of the conversation, then (a) the writer of Matthew was not party to the conversation, and (b) it would not have been in the interest of either the soldiers or the priests to make the conversation public. So is this conversation true? And what really happened?

Wasn't Acts written by Luke ? It's been a long time since bible studies.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Wasn't Acts written by Luke ? It's been a long time since bible studies.

You’re right. Paul said it, Luke reported what he said.

 

[Triggaaar]

they didn’t want the disciples to steal the body and claim Jesus had rose from the dead. They were the only ones that would have anything to gain by faking his resurrection

You've said it yourself - they had something to gain by faking his resurrection.

If Jesus had risen from the dead, why didn't everyone see him? Like all the Romans and Jewish leaders etc? Why would he just make a brief appearance and then disappear? Why didn't he just carry on spreading the word as he had before?

 

[BadFish]

Liars with an agenda..

Give this a read, I am sure you will dismiss it like everything else though.

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence

Similarities to Other Stories Unavoidable Contradictions The Logical Explanation Similarities to Other Stories The similarities between the stories and characte

danielmiessler.com

His chosen biblical expert made the journey from full on Christian to atheist because of the fact that he is a huge biblical expert.

I think there is a reason that our friend cannot move past this one part of the bible. He is intent of 'proving' his facts on this part because he thinks it will sway us.

 

[Triggaaar]

His chosen biblical expert made the journey from full on Christian to atheist because of the fact that he is a huge biblical expert.

Well he is a very well respected expert, and has reaseached thoroughly. Except on a couple of small bits, where he believes god doesn't exist and Jesus didn't rise from the dead - on those itsy bitsy issues, he seems to have forgotten to apply the logic and reasoning that he's well respected for.

I think there is a reason that our friend cannot move past this one part of the bible. He is intent of 'proving' his facts on this part because he thinks it will sway us.

Maybe when they get vulnerable people in the cult, and deprive them of sleep, this is something that helps sway them?

On the 'scholars think the disciples believe' bit:
I wonder what (the majority of) scholars from countries of other faiths think of this so called 'evidence'? It's being passed off by kuzushi as fact (it isn't) because a bunch of Christians support it. It's nonsense.

 

[BadFish]

Well he is a very well respected expert, and has reaseached thoroughly. Except on a couple of small bits, where he believes god doesn't exist and Jesus didn't rise from the dead - on those itsy bitsy issues, he seems to have forgotten to apply the logic and reasoning that he's well respected for.


Maybe when they get vulnerable people in the cult, and deprive them of sleep, this is something that helps sway them?

On the 'scholars think the disciples believe' bit:
I wonder what (the majority of) scholars from countries of other faiths think of this so called 'evidence'? It's being passed off by kuzushi as fact (it isn't) because a bunch of Christians support it. It's nonsense.

I was finding Kuzushi's contributions intere

Well he is a very well respected expert, and has reaseached thoroughly. Except on a couple of small bits, where he believes god doesn't exist and Jesus didn't rise from the dead - on those itsy bitsy issues, he seems to have forgotten to apply the logic and reasoning that he's well respected for.


Maybe when they get vulnerable people in the cult, and deprive them of sleep, this is something that helps sway them?

On the 'scholars think the disciples believe' bit:
I wonder what (the majority of) scholars from countries of other faiths think of this so called 'evidence'? It's being passed off by kuzushi as fact (it isn't) because a bunch of Christians support it. It's nonsense.

It feels like it may be part of cult training.

What I have found on the last few pages has been pointed out by Stator. Kuzushi is incredibly dishonest in this discussion, through various strategies and his reasons may be assumed.

Yours and GB posts has made we wonder if he is carrying out his training right now.

 

[Skuller]

Religions are untestable hypotheses. Ask a believer what the “test case” is for their religion; what it is that would prove them wrong, and they can’t do it. Because they are untestable hypotheses they are to me, a scientist, irrelevant. Trying to argue for or against religions based on scientific analyses of the claims and based on whether a certain tract is or isn’t true are like trying to count angels on pinheads: utterly pointless. So nobody can claim that god exists or doesn’t exist because there is no test case.

What I do know is that faith exists and I respect that far more than pointless arguments about claims about historical accuracies. Faith is what keeps a Ukrainian mother able to manage the death of a teenage son. Faith is what has produced the incredible art that litters European galleries, and has produced the fine architecture of European cities. Faith keeps a Palestinian activist fighting for their homeland.

I despise the pseudo-science trying to support or knock-down that faith, which has provided succour to the working classes through history. Leave people alone to believe what they want. I wish I was able to have faith like that.