My little sample would have had to been written in what AD year to fit that criteria? you dont have to be familiar you can just google history and make the correlations yourself with the scripture and see that this example stretches at least as far as the end of the roman empire 476 AD and begins with king nebuchadnezzar.
“vaticinia ex eventu” i cant see works in this case. thats why i gave this particular example because i felt it had weight.
(im not religious btw)
Just a question…
Since when is Elton John’s word the final say-so? 
Jesus wasn’t gay. C’mon now, man…i’m a christian, but I think even non-christians should understand the absurdity of that statement.
No, because they are not convincingly supernatural.
I’ve been talking about physically indestructible things, not some acts of willpower. Let’s see someone walk across lava.
Even though He did when he was Jesus, but again you make an exception for that.
So the chosen elect, they were just men, right? People, like you and me.
So when I expect the same kind of evidence as them (supernatural revelation) then that is perfectly reasonable, as I am a man just as they are. This is the hypocrisy you are displaying: you’re expecting me to accept less evidence than was demanded by the chosen elect.
If Jesus wants followers he should put more effort into his PR.
Because he wants more people to go to Hell, presumably.
lol at your hypocrisy. “Miracles are stupid…l except the ones in the Bible!”
So you’ve accepted that I’m destined to end up in Hell? Thanks man. :badboy:
Actually, this isnt so far from the truth. This is not my speciality. I prefer to debate non-religious ideas of God, those that stem from ‘natural theology’ (for instance, the modern ID vs Evolution debate). I used to shy away from debating Christians because, well, it is really shocking to me that you believe what you do. It just doesnt make any sense to me to say “I believe in God because this book says so”. That’s what your argument comes down to.
lol hypocrisy.
lol hypocrisy.
I expect the EXACT SAME as Thomas, yet you label me an imbecile.
He was a professional philosopher. It is a perfectly reasonable argument, and you use the same one regarding the resurrection.
God watches while innocent children suffer rape, illness, torture and death.
Fuck him.
Anally.
No reacharound.
Speaking of religion. . in my philosophy of punishment course earlier this morning the professor started discussion on determinism and free will which started to contradict Christian values of righteous path and the existence of god. It was hilarious to witness the level of discomfort and disdain that my classmates had for what they were hearing.
It was. FUCKING. HILARIOUS.
just recognize dualism and that the devil should be feared more than he is and stuff works out
blindness and pretending that good is the only force in the world is foolish
people will believe more when good defeats evil in the world; when it’s obvious everyone will believe
just admit dualism and it makes more sense
Edit: Read my next post.
just admit you’re the devil and your post makes no sense
just admit it.
just.
Lol.
Word.
Same thing happened when I took Ethics 104.
Hysterical shit.
maybe you don’t have any sense to make net
There’s a book that addresses many of the points that Richard Carrier threw out.
I’d understand if you all hate me for countering your free article by telling you to read a book that will most likely cost you money, but John Stott does a far better job than I could at addressing these claims. Sorry that I don’t have much more to say. I will be honest though, if you paste a 30 minute lecture like Carrier’s there’s not much more I can do than present you with a book, as it may take time to present an argument sufficient to counter Carrier’s article.
In short; I laugh at the concept of a theistic god, and I believe that religion has no place in society.
I thought anti-religion/religion threads werent allowed?
Yea even I’m surprised that its still open, must be down to Elton John being so FABULOUS!
O_o;
I found the book here.
I skipped to the part where he defends the resurrection. He uses 4 arguments to support it.
The body was gone. Only “probable” explanation is that he physically resurrected.
The grave clothes were undisturbed. Only “probable” explanation is he physically resurrected.
Jesus was seen later.* Only “probable” explanation is he physically resurrected.*
Apostles were changed. Only “probable” explanation is he physically resurrected.
He provides a couple counter examples yet dismisses them as being improbable or unsupported by “evidence”. Which is a really lazy way to argue.
I’m very confident in Richard Carrier’s case. He addresses most of these issues and the bigger issue of the historical validity of the hagiographic writing, which John seems to take for granted and doesn’t analyze historically at all.
In the end the whole thing seems to rest on the legitimacy of the texts (which are historically questionable) and how generous one is willing to be in interpreting “probable” explanations to vague evidence that suggests Jesus died, his body disappeared for a bit, and was seen later.
I think it’s also ironic that people eliminate “improbable” explanations (such as, his body being stolen by thieves or apostles) in order to reach the most improbable and unlikely explanation of all: that he resurrected. It SHOULD be the most improbable and unreasonable explanation, that’s what would make it so significant and miraculous…Kierkegaard was right.
I respect Richard Carrier, but He had another diverse article against the resurrection. Richard abandoned his old theory because it just didn’t stack up.
That link has also been answered: http://www.tektonics.org/uz/vector01.html
Now onto to Thomas… If you read that chapter, Thomas was indeed that skeptical from the claims of his friends. He didn’t demand for just simple visual proof but an actual physical examination of it. Just to assure that he was not being mistaken for what he was seeing. Jesus also allowed his disciples to examine him - touch him - just for them to see that all his wounds were real and that he was physically standing there.
genshir0_ is that you?
@Netology: The irony really only exists when you take into consideration of what you’re expecting and what I’m expecting. I guess what it’s really impossible for us to argue either way comes down to what I see when I see Christ and the resurrection story, and what you see when you see it. A.W. Tozer described the Christian faith as a matter of receptivity to the God of Christianity, and I don’t mean to offend when I say this, but I think our receptivity differs. Carrier’s argument is well reasoned, but I don’t buy all the claims he makes about history. Call me ignorant, but he basically argues that the validity of the Gospels is under question because they were written too long after the death of Jesus. Ok, I get that people may have problems with that. Then he goes on to say that his records of history are infallible, making the entire Bible fall apart at its seams. I just don’t like his reasoning.
@MaidenMasha: I’m surprised myself that the thread is still open, but I will say that I think part of the reason why it’s still open is that Cisco and Starvin Marvin did a pretty decent job by responding with civility and Netology was wise enough to post a rational statement as opposed to flaming Christians and letting the foundations of GD crumble as everyone converged on top of this thread.
This was supposed to be about the historical Jesus but the more vocal ones here wasn’t interested with that and wanted to go into the God debate. I get turned off when some one gives a “why do bad things happen if God exist” argument, it just shows their ignorance towards God and what actual Power is. I prefer going with sources in debates because this allows the debate to be educational and not just tossing of points of view.
I think it’s funny that this all stemmed from Elton John. We did work our way back to the historical Jesus, we just went over some other topics to get there.
wow this thread really blew up lol. um who cares who jesus had sex with or didnt have sex with. its the message thats important. peace.