I know, right?
I blame the “Bavarian” 1/4 for it.
Fortunately, the Scots’ blood more than picks up the slack for the foreskin lack. 
Meh.
The 1/4’s females are fuckin’ hot, at least. 
Except, if he doesnt exist, then you don’t really get an answer, do you. And if you spend your entire life believing in him, and he doesnt exist, then you’ve lived your life deluded.
Only because you fail to see the hypocrisy in your arguments.
While you are just content to read about it.
He was stuck in a cave, and he was judged to have resurrected because the rock had moved and shit, right? I can see plenty of ways the apostles could have been mistaken (denial leading them to jump to conclusions being one). But whatever: it is a written report of a miracle and I don’t believe in miracles that easily. It is a disservice to miracles to believe in them that easily.
I’m half hungarian mate so don’t sweat it. Don’t know the language or nuffin though, only been there once. Let’s not talk about the war eh…
EDIT: re: Scotland, well I’m a southerner and proud of it but Scotland is so far north it’s just a completely different case. It’s so far north it’s south.
North of england, well… good luck to them, I say.
S’all good.
What’s the Brit part?
English, Scots, lil’ Erin, Welsh, Pikey?
Gotta love our lineage.
A couple of islands where a mixed marriage is Catholic+Protestant.
EDIT: Word.
Indeed, also Thomas just believed it after touching his wounds. What a great detective he was.
Unless his wounds were always wide open and his guts trailed on the ground as he walked…
Actually now I think of it I guess my Brit heritage is, by birth, about as far north as you can get without being scottish! My father’s family was based around farmland in the ‘Lake District’. Beautiful but bleak area which sadly I have not seen enough of (we were cut out of the will and lost the inheretance of a farm because of my dad and his mum’s failure to keep in touch after moving south to Southall).
“lil’ Erin”? Havent heard that. I must admit I do have quite a thing for Wales and the west/southwest of england, though. Bristol is my favourite city in this country, cornwall is sooo beautiful it hurts and I lived out in Lampeter in Wales for a year studying philosophy (lush but dammm does it have to rain a lot to look like that!).
So you lived in the states all your life or what man? I tell you man, I post on the uk’s NeoEmpire forum for fighting games but damn, your country is huuuuge (and your forums faaaaast!)
Oh god tell me about it. When I was growing up, Gerry Adams still had that helium voice on the news, and they were always banging on about it. When I was a child, I had the vague idea that ‘Catholics’ were the God-folk and ‘Protestants’ were atheists.
And while we’re lurching back on topic…
Zombie Jesus. The big question I want to know about the resurrection is: did he get the standard Undead defense-bonus afterwards (+2)? Because if we’re talking +4 or even +5 then y’know that’s compelling evidence for his historicicity.
EDIT: guess I could have pmd that shit about my life but fuck it, bring some britness to this place!
Lil’ Erin is my smarmy way of referring to our wonderful red and black brothers on the other isle - not of man.
This is still going :lol:
I’m entertained that my completely illogical response was responded to.
Elvis is more of a believable badass anyway. Guy took care of business and was real about it. The great battle between him and the mummy in east Texas will forever be retold as the crowning point of his divinity over evil. The strong spirit of Kemosabe… the unbeatable team-up with JFK…
Epic.
That shit happened for real, yo. It’s on film and anyone can view it at any time.
All praise be to Larry though. The “King” just can’t compare.
Word.
Larry would never die on the crapper, let alone lose to a turd.
And we’re talking about God reborn, here.
He’s got standards.
Aw Net what kind of conclusion is this? Are you now trying to propose that Jesus possibly survived the Crucifixion? How well do you know about a Roman Execution, no one survives it. If Jesus did indeed faked the Crucifixion (magic trick), wouldn’t it be more logical for him to not have the holes in his hands, because as written, Thomas put his fingers on it. Thomas was just as Skeptic about it before he managed to see and touch the wounds of Jesus. Because there is no way to resuscitate after being crucified, that’s just wrong to think it’s possible. Richard Carrier did an article back at 1998 about Jesus surviving the crucifixion and than gave all the possible reasons as to how, he later throws that article out because it was ridiculous. You are just drawing ignorant assumptions now as to how the resurrection can be false, reason is because you just refuse to believe it. I suggest you re-think your argument concerning Thomas, try to apply some sort of logic and research about the nature of the Roman Crucifixion.
In Elton’s world, up is down, down is up, throwing is cheap, and Sirlin has no yomi. What an interesting place to visit.
edit: To add to Cisco’s point, the Bible says that the Disciples were holed up inside a locked up house and Jesus appeared in the middle of the room. As in, He basically apparated in. Thomas saw the holes in Jesus’s hands and side, and he also saw Jesus no clip into a locked house. From their perspective, imagine you’ve spent the last few years of your life as the disciple of someone who claims to be the Son of God. The whole time you’re with Him, He makes allusions to His death and His eventual resurrection. Then He dies. A few days pass, and you call the gang together like “Hey guys, I hear Jesus’ body isn’t where it was supposed to be.” Your friends are like, “He’s alive, we’ve seen Him.” You reply, “I’m not falling for that crap. Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and the hole in His side, and then touch them, I won’t have any of you crazies in my house.”
Then Jesus transposes Himself through the wall of your house.
If that whole ordeal didn’t make Thomas less skeptical, then by golly, what would?
If he doesn’t exist and nothing happens… there’s your answer.
Hypocrisy where? The only reason why having the debate on God should come to end is because look at your arguments. Your argument against his existence is because of the Bible having no super powers? 
You just can’t see that it is actually you guys that are being academically baseless. Everything that has been input from you against the resurrection has no academic support and also sounds idiotic.
You’ve never debated at all.
Why would a conclusion like that be built just by a missing body and a moved rock? You have the verse that quotes Thomas, “unless i see the nail marks and put my fingers in his hands, i will not believe”. So they just assumed Jesus lived and developed that kind of sincerity? Do you know the lack of common sense you’ve just gave here? After this answer from you, i don’t think i am interested to see your other assumptions.
Not to mention the disciples carried on Jesus’s work for some time after His ascension. The apostle John was supposedly saved from being boiled alive in a pot of boiling oil. He was being placed in the oil because of his message. Then he goes to the isle of Patmos and continues teaching about Jesus and writes the book of Revelations. As far as those things are concerned, I ask you this, would you ever consider being boiled alive in oil for something you know is a lie?Once you miraculously survive being boiled alive, would you go into exile and continue doing the thing that almost got you boiled in the first place? Only if John spoke truth does his entire life make any logical sense whatsoever.
Most of the apostles were martyred in very awful ways. If they were in fact, acting on a hoax, it’s convenient that they were willing to forfeit their lives for the sake of something they knew was orchestrated. Also, non-Biblical records exist of these characters, so the idea that these apostles are fictional doesn’t stack up either.
This is actually what i have been trying to say, you sumed it up good. None of their ideas used against this stack up, it’s like they are belittling the reality of a roman crucifixion.
You know perfectly well what I mean (I hope). There’s no “you” around, post mortem, to receive that answer.
Here:
You continually ridicule me for demanding supernatural evidence for the supernatural, and say that is not how God works.
Yet you also keep insisting that the resurrection was real and is central to the faith of his followers.
Well, I’m only demanding the same standards of evidence as they did. I want to SEE a miracle, and then I’ll believe.
The difference between us is that you are happy to READ of a miracle, and accept it as fact.
But there is no way you should be ridiculing me for expecting more because that’s exactly what the founders of your religion required (as the story goes, at least).
In a way, Thomas’ attitude here is identical to mine.
He’s saying “I won’t accept a miracle just on word-of-mouth, or written report, or even a moved rock and empty tomb. I demand to see direct evidence!”
So anyway, I think I’ve boiled down the difference in our opinion here, I really think this is it. To you, the Bible is an unquestionable source of a unique type of knowledge (there are other books that claim this type of knowledge, and other people that believe in them equally passionately, but to YOU it is the Bible).
To me, the Bible is an interesting document, part myth, part historical record, but I’d classify it as a regular document and therefore will not accept extraordinary claims of it.
PS There is a video out there somewhere of a philosopher giving a similar argument to me. I think he asks questions like “why arent the churches of the one-true faith literally indestrucible?” And I honestly believe you are mistaken not to entertain these ideas further, instead of just labelling it all “super powers”. Earthquakes have been responsible for many a loss of faith you know.
Can you imagine that, if an earthquake struck your town, destroying everything in its way, including churches? Many, many people dead. And you ask “God, why did this happen? Why did we deserve this?” And you receive no answer.
Aaaaanyway… just stuff to think about mate.
Ya i understand what you mean because when we die, we no longer, feel, see, breathe, think, etc etc…
Your concept of God is a bit wrong, the demanding of supernatural evidence shows your perception. Therefore you need to see magical powers that are unexplainable for you to actually come to a solid conclusion that he exists. What about those TV shows of a bunch of nuts in a church walking on fire coals or playing with cobras their necks, or some pastor places a Bible to some dudes forehead and that dude starts getting some seizure… should anyone take them to be super natural miracles? No. Even us Christians wouldn’t believe that because we know God won’t literately do that. If you think about God doing supernatural displays as evidence then you mite as well believe those TV shows, i guess… because you perceive God to be supposedly like that.
Jesus only showed that to his followers, he didn’t show himself to everybody, even those who sentenced/rebuked him… It was necessary for him to appear to them because he elected them to carry his teachings and extend his words they needed to see the prophecies of the OT fulfilled in him. If you read the bible, the disciples developed doubts to what they believed in when Jesus got arrested, nearly all of them where depressed and in doubt of everything, until the resurrection was shown to them. Jesus resurrected because a God has power over death, and since his chosen elect - the ones he chose to build the church - where in doubt gave the necessity to appear to all of them, and that is what made their faith invincible afterwards. That is the reason why he appeared to only them.
I’m not contradicting myself , you’re just confused from your perception of God.
I told you to read the temptations of Jesus in the desert, so you can get a good perception of God’s attitude or principles. One temptation was him going up the peak of the temple and then jumping down and having angels catch him, in front of all the people there. Wouldn’t doing this instantly prove to the people who he was so why didn’t he do it? Why did he choose to go the long/harder way instead of the instant way? Google a study on that.
Oh no i’m not. How many supernatural miracles have been “reported” on tv, newspapers, etc? You think every Christian would believe those things are true? We don’t believe them… The resurrection is believed to true due to the example Captn Spanky just gave in his post, the logic fits. There was an impact from that resurrection, and it’s faulty to suggest that the apostles made a mistake in identifying something like that. It’s like you think it went: "Jesus disappeared one night, and they just heard he got crucified by the romans, and then 3 days later he comes to them and says “Hi, i’m alive again”, then all of them gobble it up. The Bible shows that the disciples where scarred shit at first, and he allowed them to examine his wounds to have them confirm that what they where seeing was the true.
I’m not expecting any more from you, what i am trying to tell you is that you really need to do your research first before you give your input. It’s like you never actually had a real Christian/Atheist debate, because if you had experience in this type of stuff, the whole “super power” evidence you look for would not be mentioned because of the familiarity of God’s own principles. The resurrection is also replied to with baseless assumptions, it’s more like excuse making. You can’t just give out guesses, because what happens if your guesses are academically wrong.
No one accepts miracles on word of mouth. Thomas even made it clear that he would not be content by seeing but by physically examining also: “unless i see the nail marks, and unless i put my fingers through it… place my hand at his side (where Jesus got speared)… i will not believe.”
He wanted solid evidence, he needed to see and above all physically examine the evidence to assure there are no mistake, no trickery; that there are real nail holes in his hands and feet and that he was really stabbed by spear. No one would just believe gossip like that from words.
That Philosopher is a phony and joke, chances are he probably isn’t even taken seriously by academicians.
The “Oh, if God exists, why do bad things happen?”, i saw this coming from you. You see this question comes from atheist who share the same kind of perception of God, or God’s character. You can google for some points of view concerning this, because i don’t feel like writing something about this.
You do know the Lord’s prayer (The prayer yaught by Jesus) right? Copy Paste the Lord’s prayer here, and read the lines carefully because there is a clue in helping you understand the answer as to why God “allows” bad things like that to happen.
First of all, “the Church,” in its most Biblical sense, refers to Christians in fellowship, as opposed to a building. Going from that standpoint, I’d say the church is in fact, indestructible. I mean sure, you can make an attempt to kill off Christianity, but I’d say Obi Wan Kenobi said it best. “Strike me down and I shall become far more powerful than you can ever imagine.” In that train of thought, the Church has been around for 2000 years. They’ve faced countless forms of persecution and oppression, yet their numbers keep growing. Now, I do think a day will come where the numbers do stop growing, but Biblically speaking, the book of Revelations says that there will be a point in time that God will show Himself and non-believers will see Him, yet they will remain unconvinced. That’s the point of no return though. Even then, the Church will remain indestructible until that point, and later on.
Many people do ask “God, why did this happen?” and they stay strong in their faith too. The whole God/suffering debate carries on because many people aren’t satisfied with the perspectives on suffering that the Bible gives. To assume that God gives no answer is a lacking view of God. Too many times do Christians read the story of Job and think that after they suffer God is going to confront them one on one and explain Himself like He did with Job. The difference between Job’s time and ours? The Bible. While God is fully capable of explaining Himself through a direct confrontation, a la Job, He doesn’t. Does this mean that there is no God? Not at all, it just means His method of communication has changed. If God is in fact just and righteous, then there is nothing morally detestable about the suffering caused by events that occur from His choice to allow suffering. I’ll place the emphasis on “just,” because it’s incredibly easy to think of someone as a good person, yet they’re killed anyway. Is this fair? Consider this, from what the Bible says, this is completely fair. None of us can compare to God, and we’re born with inherent evil. Any suffering that we experience is completely justified, because if we are all evil, then we deserve punishment for it. You may think that living to be 99 years old and then passing away is the way to go out, but as far as suffering and death are concerned, we get the same end result here on earth. We are going to die. Period. Even if I’m Christian, I am going to die. Christ doesn’t make me bulletproof. What He does give me, though, is the knowledge that once I die, things will start looking up for me.
The fundamental difference on death and suffering is a matter of world views. The Christian will say that God is great because He has conquered death, whereas the atheist will say “where is your God,” because there is death. While physical death here on earth because of some freak accident sounds unfair, to the Christian, things can only get better. Besides, God is not a sadist. He doesn’t take delight when the wicked perish. Suffering is part of what makes people reliant on God though, and that’s part of the reason why it exists. There’s no better way to show your love for someone than to remain faithful to them even when things don’t work out your way.
I’m just curious where our notion of fair or unfair deaths come from.
You’re missing the point and taking too much for granted. The dubious account itself should be questioned before the details of the physical evidence are considered. Since there is no physical evidence it isn’t hard dispelling the mere stories and gossip primitive people were propagating back then. You mention Richard Carrier, I suggest you read** this article if you haven’t already**. It goes over the problems of the historical account of a hagiography. It does a good job refuting the “eye-witnesses died for their beliefs” argument and puts the nail in the coffin of this tired debate.
If you don’t want to use simple logic and common-sense to refute such an absurd cult belief, then read his article and understand the historic uncertainty involved in it. Good day sir.
daniel predicted 5 eras after king Nebuchadnezzar
he dreamed the dream that nebuchadnezzar couldnt and said daniels dream was a statue with a head of gold, chestplate of silver, skirt of bronze, legs of iron and feet of clay/iron
of course nubuchadezzar’s kingdom was the gold head. the writing on the wall during belshazzars time was
mene tekel peres
mene - god has numbered your kingdom and finished it
tekel - you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting
peres - your kingdom has been divided and givin to the medes and persians.
the silver breastplate can represent the medes and persians 539-331 BC
daniel 2 :39
next a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth.
arian historical library book 17
“i am persuaded that there was no nation city or people where his name did not reach, there seems to me to have been some divine hand presiding over both his birth and actions”
this is of course alexander the great
history of rome book 3
"on june 22 168 bc at the battle of pydna, perished the empire of alexander the great 144 years after his death
(Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), the king of Macedonia that conquered the Persian empire and annexed it to Macedonia, is considered one of the greatest military geniuses of all times. He is the first king to be called “the Great.” )
bronze skirt done moving onto legplates of iron
roman empire
168 BC - 476 AD
(the bronze represented the bronze armor of the greeks and the iron the roman armor style)
The feet
daniel 2 :41
“just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom”
divisions of the western roman empire
alamanni
lombards
anglo saxons
franks
ostrogoths
heruli
suevi
vandals
visigoths
burgandians
the power of rome or the steel legs split into 10 sub kingdoms or the ten toes of baked clay and iron (some weak some strong)
isn’t this quite an accurate dream?
Please google “book of daniel vaticinia ex eventu.”
There’s a lot to read there that I’m not familiar with, so I won’t say anything. Look and judge for yourself.