-->
@Tradesecret
You're very fond of calling what is written in the bible a fact.
Is there a hole inside you?
Posts
Total:
105
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Unless someone states their god experience is drug induced don't assume it is.
Ive met a few who have told me such and this common comment because many did feel that way or do still today.
There are some states of consciousness that some will never experience ---ergo never understand--- that comes from ingestion of some substances.
Some people have done well at conveying the experience, ex Aldus Huxely "Doors of Perception"
Seeing, hearing reading cannot ever convey the wholistic set associated with those experiences.
Fullers approach is from a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptually spatially geometric, mathematical avenue
The digital age brought some of experienced visualizations to humanities desktop but not the actual feelings/experience.
So we have the two primary ways to approach God/Universe.Experience and mind/intellect.
Most who have not had those experiences, they will always fall short -- in two ways-- of experiencing God/Universe.
Most whose hole-is-filled is not filled by God/Universe rather it is false, feel good placebo effect sort of like any group hug or commonality of community to have a unanimous agreement on some issue and call it a religion.
Such religion is for a most part, a spiritually shallow well/hole but does allow for feeling of acceptance by community irrespective of how far from God/Universe
-->
@Tradesecret
I never said people coming back from the dead was irrelevant. These things have not despite your suggestion been easy to explain.
This is one of the key problems of the story that clearly cannot be justified by anyone. One must lie to themselves if they believe people can come back from the dead.
I said the totality is important - because one of these things by themselves is something people attack...
Of course, it's attacked. Duh. It completely dissolves any credibility of Christianity, which no Christian would ever admit.
The fact is Jesus' tomb was empty. And his body was never found...
In other words, the body was taken from the tomb. Or, it was never placed in the tomb. These two alternative explanations are far more credible and sane than believing a person rises from dead and walks out of the tomb.
Fact is the disciples were not educated persons so hardly likely to be able to conjure up a conspiracy...
And, you can prove that alleged fact? There are verses in the Bible that explain what you just claimed?
Even the usage of females as the first witnesses is significant evidence that Jesus' resurrection is not a conspiracy...
No, that's not evidence of anything of the sort.
Fact is over 500 people saw Jesus alive after his death.
You'll need to prove that alleged fact, as well. What verses?
Many of these people were prepared to die for what they believed they saw..
Again, you need to prove that.
What motivation is there in this? At the time the church did not have money - or power or respect in the community. The fact is - the church grew exponentially ...
There is your motivation, you just explained it, money, power and the growing of the church. That's huge motivation to concoct such a far-fetched story.
They don't believe Jesus rose from the dead - but they acknowledge something significant happened - which they have not been able to explain - which clearly puts your suggestion that things are easily explained as implausible.
Whether the story can be explained or not, there are many alternative explanations which are far more credible than a person rising from the dead. Sane people understand this.
Yes, people coming back from the dead is crazy. why? Because from our point of view it is impossible. This is why the story is amazing - and why it has plausibility.
No, it's no plausible at all, it's completely crazy as you admit.
The facts - from an objective point of view - clearly show Jesus rose from the dead.
No, the facts don't show Jesus rose from the dead, not even remotely. The facts show a number of alternative explanations that don't require one to lie to themselves about something that you admit is crazy. This would show you (and many Christians) have no interest whatsoever to understand the truth.
The stumbling block most people have is - they don't believe in God. Hence, take God out of the picture and it must be a lie or a myth.
Wrong again, the fact is that you want to believe the story and it doesn't matter in the least that you admit it's crazy. So, you have no choice in the matter but to lie to yourself and accept that a person rose from the dead. You now admit further that it requires the belief in God in order to accept the story, so you have to lie to yourself and then lie to yourself again in order to support the other lie.
There can be no other explanation
There are plenty of explanations, but you don't want to hear them because you know any alternative explanation to someone rising from the dead (which you admit is crazy) would invalidate your religion.
-->
@Tradesecret
The empty tomb.
An empty tomb is only evidence of an empty tomb not evidence that a dead man lived again.
The eyewitnesses.
Yes by all accounts they witnessed an empty tomb. An empty tomb is only evidence of an empty tomb not evidence that a dead man lived again.
grow up
-->
@Goldtop
Fact is over 500 people saw Jesus alive after his death.You'll need to prove that alleged fact, as well. What verses?
1 Cor 15:6.
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
-->
@keithprosser
Thanks Keith. I read Corinthians and had forgotten about that tidbit.
-->
@Goldtop
I am a little surprised you seem to be accepting a mention in the bible as definitive however.
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think it's definitive in that its a valid reference to a claim. I do question the validity of the verse in that who observed and calculated those five hundred, how did that stream of data get organized back then such that it made it's way into Scriptures?
-->
@Goldtop
Paul isn't clear on it.. I imagine that Jesus supposdly appeared at some kind of gathering rather than making 500 individual appearnces. But we do know it was over 500 people because it says so in the bible.
-->
@keithprosser
There were 600 people in my front yard watching a Tyrannosaurus Rex walk down my street. I've got more witnesses than Jesus had and that's a fact.1 Cor 15:6.6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
-->
@Tradesecret
one thing is sure - the church had grown to such an extent - in such a short time even prior to Constantine - that if it was not the work of a divine hand which grew it, then what other possible - and indeed plausible explanation could there be other than the fact that Jesus died and rose from the grave.
First of all, we must set aside the pietistic belief that Christianity’s early growth happened entirely because of miracles — the signs and wonders wrought by a special out-pouring of the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the providence and grace of God is always an essential factor. Yet a full look at the evidence reveals that much more was at play.
Ignoring the other contributing factors has the unfortunate consequence of breeding complacency: if modern Christians think that the early Church’s growth was “merely” miraculous, then there’s little to learn and nothing to do. We are left with prayer and hope, but no concrete action.
Stark combines historical research with insights from the social-scientific study of religious movements and conversion. Among various points and case studies, he advances four main reasons for Christianity’s growth.
-->
@Tradesecret
It grew into hundreds if not thousands of christianity's, that's why Constantine ordered them to sort themselves out.one thing is sure - the church had grown to such an extent - in such a short time even prior to Constantine
-->
@Paul
You mean aside from my peritoneal, pleural, and pericardial cavities?
I don't like the 'God-shaped hole' imagery. It's a low, self-flattering vulgarism. Marlowe captured it much more beautifully:
Faust. Where are you damn’d?
Meph. In hell.
Faust. How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Meph. Why, this is hell, nor am I out of it. Think’st thou that I, who saw the face of God and tasted the eternal joys of heaven, am not tormented with ten thousand hells in being deprived of everlasting bliss? O Faustus! leave these frivolous demands, which strike a terror to my fainting soul.
Faust. What, is great Mephistophilis so passionate for being depriv’d of the joys of Heaven? Learn thou of Faustus manly fortitude, and scorn those joys thou never shalt possess.
The truth is that atheists don't always feel some pang for God, some innate yearning specifically for a deity. If they did, revelation wouldn't even be necessary. The fallen state is what we are accustomed to, it is what our world is built around, and it's often very, very easy to take glimpses of the divine and chalk them up to some material origin, or to apply yearnings for something outside the physical realm to secular aims. Faustus cannot grasp the concept of the hell that Mephistopheles experiences because he has no concept of the divine with which to compare his day to day experience. It is the knowledge of what was lost, and of its irrecoverability, which creates Mephistopheles's hell by shifting the perspective of the damned to encompass that loss on a cosmic scale. Faustus mistakes his own ignorance, his lack of perspective, for strength and mocks Mephistopheles for his clearsightedness. It is in this exact same vein that many irreligious mock the religious, and in the end it is due more than anything to perspective. People who reject God are tangled knots, like all people, and their reasons for resistance can't be pared down to some trite aphorism. They aren't necessarily especially stupid or evil or bad, and they aren't bumbling about subconsciously looking for a God-shaped fix, which is part of why I detest religious debates. They can breed this kind of perception of the irreligious by the religious, and that's where an especially insidious type of pride can take root. It's especially bad online, where charity is often rendered muted or downright impotent due to the means of communication which we have access to.
-->
@Goldtop
I think a major factor is simply that Christinity encouraged missionary work to actively recruit members. That was probably innovation and it remains true today that Christianity is the only religion that hasotas a core function.
-->
@Paul
This "hole" is metaphorical which means the person feels "empty" emotianally, or spiritually so to speak.
If you don't feel you have a hole to fill is because you're fine... emotionaly again, of course. But if you want to go through that sensation of "having a hole to fill" I suggest you to take up some appaling actions, like taking drugs or get into burglary. Nevertheless, I recommend otherwise, which is not to be so curious.
So according to christians those who need to fill this hole need Jesus. I remember Jesus saying that the people who need more the kingdom of God are the ones in need, say prostitues, poor people, sick people and sinners in general. I think it goes that way, correct me if I'm wrong.
There are other ways to fill that hole, though, one of them is the psychiatry.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
How can there be a fallen state when A&E are fictional characters invented by ignorant, primitive superstitious savages?The fallen state is what we are accustomed to,
-->
@keithprosser
Yes.You're very fond of calling what is written in the bible a fact.
I notice other people are very fond of citing science textbooks as facts too.
Yet none of them have actually ever done any of the real science.
-->
@Goldtop
--> @Tradesecret
I never said people coming back from the dead was irrelevant. These things have not despite your suggestion been easy to explain.This is one of the key problems of the story that clearly cannot be justified by anyone. One must lie to themselves if they believe people can come back from the dead.
No. Not at all. If people are coming back from the dead, then one must ask the question, why? It is stupid just to say - no it cant happen - and then shut your mind to it. Science is about answering questions - not shutting the topic down. You are shutting the topic down - you are not a scientist.
I said the totality is important - because one of these things by themselves is something people attack...Of course, it's attacked. Duh. It completely dissolves any credibility of Christianity, which no Christian would ever admit.
I am surprised by your total lack of understanding of the logic here. You normally come across as someone with a brain. Anyone can claim a missing body might mean they have been resurrected. Yet, this is not the argument here. Eyewitnesses and an astonishing impact are significant. People who dismiss either of these things as a totality are prejudiced - not scientists. Scientists look at the entire context - not just a claim that a body has been raised.
The fact is Jesus' tomb was empty. And his body was never found...In other words, the body was taken from the tomb. Or, it was never placed in the tomb. These two alternative explanations are far more credible and sane than believing a person rises from dead and walks out of the tomb.
Yes, oh most brilliant mind among us. These are possible explanations. But are they plausible? Yet no body was found and sane people did see him walking around. The Romans were meticulous about what they did with bodies - they were experts at killing them - and they did not just let them be taken by anyone. You need to explain not just the missing body, but why so many people saw him. Remember that Paul was writing to skeptics in Corinth. He was giving these skeptics names and people to go and talk to. Paul was not just saying, "believe me", he was saying "go and check it out. Go and talk to these living people who saw Jesus". Paul was writing a real letter to real people at the time. This is significant and skeptics need to be able to address it properly in the context and in relation to the missing body. Remember the Jews and the Romans could have dismissed it all at the time by producing a body - they did not.
Fact is the disciples were not educated persons so hardly likely to be able to conjure up a conspiracy...And, you can prove that alleged fact? There are verses in the Bible that explain what you just claimed?
The Disciples are well recognised by historians and by the Jews themselves as uneducated people - fishermen and others. And what would be the point of such a conspiracy? The Jews at the time were not looking for a messiah who would die and rise again.
Even the usage of females as the first witnesses is significant evidence that Jesus' resurrection is not a conspiracy...No, that's not evidence of anything of the sort.
Whatever. If the disciples were smart enough to attempt a conspiracy - females are the last people on the planet they would use. They had no credibility. No one worth their smarts would listen to a female making such a claim. They would be laughed out of court. This is why their usage makes them credible - you would not use a female as a witness unless it was the truth. If it was a lie or a conspiracy, you would find someone to make it credible.
Fact is over 500 people saw Jesus alive after his death.You'll need to prove that alleged fact, as well. What verses?
Corinthians - Keith was good enough to find the verses for me.
Many of these people were prepared to die for what they believed they saw..Again, you need to prove that.
-->
@Goldtop
History has clearly demonstrated that almost all of the apostles and many martyrs - such as Stephen went to the deaths because they were convinced Jesus died and rose again from the dead. If they were all part of the conspiracy this just seems too implausible to believe. They never had any real motivation to do this.
What motivation is there in this? At the time the church did not have money - or power or respect in the community. The fact is - the church grew exponentially ...There is your motivation, you just explained it, money, power and the growing of the church. That's huge motivation to concoct such a far-fetched story.
You are clearly grasping at straws. The early church were hunted, had no money and were killed for their abhorrent beliefs. there was no money or power in the early church. It was a cult at best -
They don't believe Jesus rose from the dead - but they acknowledge something significant happened - which they have not been able to explain - which clearly puts your suggestion that things are easily explained as implausible.Whether the story can be explained or not, there are many alternative explanations which are far more credible than a person rising from the dead. Sane people understand this.
This is my point. No one has produced a credible alternative explanation. Sane people look at the facts before them and try and explain them. they don't always comes to the correct conclusion. What does it mean when a man comes back from the dead? Why don't you try and answer that question?
Yes, people coming back from the dead is crazy. why? Because from our point of view it is impossible. This is why the story is amazing - and why it has plausibility.No, it's no plausible at all, it's completely crazy as you admit.
I only admit that it is highly unusual - and I suppose impossible from a human point of view. Yet, these three points together demonstrate something very significant happened and you don't have an alternative position for me even to consider.
The facts - from an objective point of view - clearly show Jesus rose from the dead.No, the facts don't show Jesus rose from the dead, not even remotely. The facts show a number of alternative explanations that don't require one to lie to themselves about something that you admit is crazy. This would show you (and many Christians) have no interest whatsoever to understand the truth.
Well yes they do. the facts shows a missing body. the facts show that some people said they saw this body raised and walking around. This implies that the dead body is no longer dead but is in fact raised from the dead. This testimony of these people was instrumental in the exponential growth of the church. the church did grow exponentially. the alternative explanations you rely upon are quite shallow because you don't take into consideration the eye-witness testimony of people prepared to die for their testimony. Nor does it take into account the growth of the church. Your alternative explanations need to account for both of these things as well - or they are simply shallow and useless explanations.
The stumbling block most people have is - they don't believe in God. Hence, take God out of the picture and it must be a lie or a myth.Wrong again, the fact is that you want to believe the story and it doesn't matter in the least that you admit it's crazy. So, you have no choice in the matter but to lie to yourself and accept that a person rose from the dead. You now admit further that it requires the belief in God in order to accept the story, so you have to lie to yourself and then lie to yourself again in order to support the other lie.
It is not wrong. If you don't believe in God, you are hardly going to believe in miracles. Or indeed anything that falls outside of your own experience. Again, that is not science - that is simply prejudice and foolishness. Of course I believe in God - I don't hide from that - I am quite assured in my belief of God. Yet, for what purpose would the resurrection of Jesus be necessary without the existence of God? You are so caught up in your own thinking you are getting lost in the trees.
There can be no other explanationThere are plenty of explanations, but you don't want to hear them because you know any alternative explanation to someone rising from the dead (which you admit is crazy) would invalidate your religion.
Well perhaps if you offered one that actually was able to address all of this in totality it might help. So far you have simply avoided it.
-->
@Tradesecret
But, people aren't coming back from the dead. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that simple fact. I am not shutting anything down, I am simply talking about reality, you aren't.No. Not at all. If people are coming back from the dead, then one must ask the question, why? It is stupid just to say - no it cant happen - and then shut your mind to it. Science is about answering questions - not shutting the topic down. You are shutting the topic down - you are not a scientist.
You should probably steer clear of bringing up logic and science as your posts demonstrate you have no concept of them let alone how they work.I am surprised by your total lack of understanding of the logic here. You normally come across as someone with a brain. Anyone can claim a missing body might mean they have been resurrected. Yet, this is not the argument here. Eyewitnesses and an astonishing impact are significant. People who dismiss either of these things as a totality are prejudiced - not scientists. Scientists look at the entire context - not just a claim that a body has been raised.
Scientists aren't interested in testimonials as they know they are merely assertions, nor are they interested in context as that is irrelevant, scientists look at the evidence and the facts, which clearly point directly to the fact people don't come back from the dead.
People with brains who use them understand this.
Of course, that's plausible, its one of the only sane explanations. Coming back from the dead is not a sane explanation.These are possible explanations. But are they plausible?
Yet no body was found and sane people did see him walking around.
The body wasn't found because that was the intent, hide the body and create a story of coming back from the dead.
People claimed to see him walking around, testimonials are useless without evidence. Anyone who claims they saw him were either mistaken, delusional or lying.
This testimony of these people was instrumental in the exponential growth of the church
Exactly, thank you from making my point about motivation to lie about the body coming back from the dead. It looks like you answered your own question.
you don't take into consideration the eye-witness testimony of people prepared to die for their testimony.
Based on that 'logic', I should take Islam seriously because Muslims flew airliners into buildings.
That's why testimonials are useless without evidence.
Nor does it take into account the growth of the church.
Yet, you just admitted that above in bold. You sank your own argument.
If you don't believe in God, you are hardly going to believe in miracles.
You're right, I don't believe in magic, most sane people don't.
Yet, for what purpose would the resurrection of Jesus be necessary without the existence of God?
The purpose of starting a cult, of course.
Well perhaps if you offered one that actually was able to address all of this in totality it might help. So far you have simply avoided it.
The only person avoiding is you, avoiding facts, evidence and reality. You don't want to hear any alternative explanations as they all would dissolve your religion in a heartbeat.
-->
@Tradesecret
he was saying "go and check it out. Go and talk to these living people who saw Jesus
Yes, don't bother actually finding Jesus, just go out and talk with those who allegedly saw him. Yeah, that makes sense.
This is significant and skeptics need to be able to address it properly in the context and in relation to the missing body. Remember the Jews and the Romans could have dismissed it all at the time by producing a body - they did not.
Hence, the Apostles stole the body and either buried it or destroyed it. Simple logic, dude.
And what would be the point of such a conspiracy?
To start a cult. Simple logic, dude.
If the disciples were smart enough to attempt a conspiracy
Smart people wouldn't steal the body and make up a story that it came back to life on it's own. That's what dummies would do.
you would not use a female as a witness unless it was the truth. If it was a lie or a conspiracy, you would find someone to make it credible.
That's merely a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in fact.
What does it mean when a man comes back from the dead? Why don't you try and answer that question?
People don't come back from the dead, that IS the answer, dude.
-->
@Goldtop
No. Not at all. If people are coming back from the dead, then one must ask the question, why? It is stupid just to say - no it cant happen - and then shut your mind to it. Science is about answering questions - not shutting the topic down. You are shutting the topic down - you are not a scientist.But, people aren't coming back from the dead. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that simple fact. I am not shutting anything down, I am simply talking about reality, you aren't.
Yes, Goldtop that was my point. I am pleased you understand it. Now and I will take this real slow for you. Given that people don't come back from the dead as a matter of normal course, when a person DOES come back, then it would be quite normal for a scientist to ask the question " ok, what is going on here". Just think back a few years. Once upon a time, people believed swans were white. No swan could be any other colour - proved and reproved. Then one day a scientist was walking down the Swan River and lo and behold the IMPOSSIBLE happened. She saw what looked liked a black swan. confronted with something that was impossible - the scientist immediately declared - "it is not a swan". It cant happen. Therefore it did not happen. I fully accept that dead people don't rise from the dead. So when it does happen, I don't do what the scientist with the black swan did and what you apparently do - I ask the question "what is going on here"? Is something going on - and I look at the so called evidence and I ask questions. This I am quite afraid is something that clearly you are not up to. You just block it up. and then you deny you are blocking it up.
I am surprised by your total lack of understanding of the logic here. You normally come across as someone with a brain. Anyone can claim a missing body might mean they have been resurrected. Yet, this is not the argument here. Eyewitnesses and an astonishing impact are significant. People who dismiss either of these things as a totality are prejudiced - not scientists. Scientists look at the entire context - not just a claim that a body has been raised.You should probably steer clear of bringing up logic and science as your posts demonstrate you have no concept of them let alone how they work.Scientists aren't interested in testimonials as they know they are merely assertions, nor are they interested in context as that is irrelevant, scientists look at the evidence and the facts, which clearly point directly to the fact people don't come back from the dead.People with brains who use them understand this.
I am not going to let you just make such absurd statements without a response. I am being VERY logical here. And I am using scientific methodology despite your claim to have it mutually exclusive to yourself. I am simply asking a very valid question - what in the world is an alleged black bird doing pretending to be a swan? How can this be? What makes this situation so absurd? I am not going to start with the presumption of impossibility - although I not going to rule that out either. but there are questions which need to be answered - and not simply "ruled out" which you
-->
@Goldtop
clearly are doing without any kind of thinking.
These are possible explanations. But are they plausible?Of course, that's plausible, its one of the only sane explanations. Coming back from the dead is not a sane explanation.
the explanation of the disciples stealing the body is implausible. the Roman soldiers were guarding the gravesite. They were at pain of death if they let anyone steal the body. romans were trained to kill. Nor is the notion that he did not die in the first place. quite implausible. the evidence all points VERY strongly to him being killed on the cross. As I have said before Romans were very good at their job of killing people. They would have known if he was faking it which is why they pierced him in the side - where blood and water came out signalling he was well and truly dead. the wrong grave site - seriously? it was a rich man's tomb - noted and not many around. The soldiers knew exactly where he was. It is totally implausible for the alternatives. conspiracy between the disciples, the romans and the jews? Again is this a serious angle? The roman soldiers had their lives at stake. the jewish persons did not want a walking saviour. So how about you tell us about some so called plausible - and I mean plausible as opposed to what you think is possible? Perhaps the grave had a secret door? Again, seriously.
Yet no body was found and sane people did see him walking around.The body wasn't found because that was the intent, hide the body and create a story of coming back from the dead.People claimed to see him walking around, testimonials are useless without evidence. Anyone who claims they saw him were either mistaken, delusional or lying.
Your assumptions are all based upon "there are no black swans". That is so unscientific it is embarrassing for you. The body should have been in the tomb. Roman soldiers were guarding it. A royal seal was placed on the grave - death to any who opened it without authority. the jews and the romans had every motive to make sure the body was found once it went missing. what you seem to miss is that there were no Jewish legends of messiahs rising from the dead. You need to answer this because it is pretty significant. Uneducated jews starting a conspiracy about a dead messiah rising - it makes no sense - and has no plausibility. Psychologists have discussed whether it was delusional - the conclusions are - NO WAY - because there were too many people who were confident they saw the risen Jesus. They typically say it is more plausible that a dead person could come back from the dead than so many people had this same delusion.
This testimony of these people was instrumental in the exponential growth of the churchExactly, thank you from making my point about motivation to lie about the body coming back from the dead. It looks like you answered your own question.
Nice diversion - but hardly worthy of much comment. people don't die for a lie. They may well die for something they believed to be true - but for a lie. Hence - if they knew it was a conspiracy - they would not put themselves to death.
you don't take into consideration the eye-witness testimony of people prepared to die for their testimony.Based on that 'logic', I should take Islam seriously because Muslims flew airliners into buildings.That's why testimonials are useless without evidence.
and it why I put my original comments in the way I did because I am not talking about someone's belief - I am talking about people who would have known it was a lie or not. Quite different as you are quite aware. muslims might believe something they have been told. so too Christians for that matter. But these people - we are talking about are the very people who are either part of the conspiracy or part of something else quite magnificent. That is significant.
Nor does it take into account the growth of the church.Yet, you just admitted that above in bold. You sank your own argument.
how pray tell?
If you don't believe in God, you are hardly going to believe in miracles.You're right, I don't believe in magic, most sane people don't.
I refuse to take God out of the picture. these things could not have happened without God. It is your premise which has problems, not mine. A black swan is impossible. Yet when it happens, the true and consistent scientist does not say impossible - but ok what is different in this scenario. This is what you avoid because you do not believe in black swans.
Yet, for what purpose would the resurrection of Jesus be necessary without the existence of God?The purpose of starting a cult, of course.LOL - now that is a convenient - "shut my eyes" response.Well perhaps if you offered one that actually was able to address all of this in totality it might help. So far you have simply avoided it.The only person avoiding is you, avoiding facts, evidence and reality. You don't want to hear any alternative explanations as they all would dissolve your religion in a heartbeat.sorry - gold top. You are avoiding facts and not only that - you are avoiding my challenge. At least for the sake of my argument, humour me, if you are able, a man comes back from the dead, what does that mean? Does it mean anything? If so, why? and if not how come? when the impossible occurs - the scientific mind does not go blank - he rises to the occasion, what will you do?
-->
@Goldtop
he was saying "go and check it out. Go and talk to these living people who saw JesusYes, don't bother actually finding Jesus, just go out and talk with those who allegedly saw him. Yeah, that makes sense.
It makes total sense if you take the view that Jesus had ascended to heaven at this point. Duh! Yet others who were questioning his resurrection would also be able to talk to people who had seen him and cross examine them. Jesus at this time was not still on earth. Yes, that is convenient - but true according to the bible.
This is significant and skeptics need to be able to address it properly in the context and in relation to the missing body. Remember the Jews and the Romans could have dismissed it all at the time by producing a body - they did not.Hence, the Apostles stole the body and either buried it or destroyed it. Simple logic, dude.
Perhaps in your world this is simple logic but quite improbable or likely? the disciples would not be able to steal his body because the Romans would kill them. You need to address this properly. you don't. the roman governor had put his seal on the tomb. This is a big deal. It is stupid to say "the apostles stole the body" without any regard to the context. simple? Ok. I agree you are simple.
And what would be the point of such a conspiracy?To start a cult. Simple logic, dude.
and what would the point of this cult be smartie? no power, no money, no sex, and a quick death. now that makes sense.
If the disciples were smart enough to attempt a conspiracySmart people wouldn't steal the body and make up a story that it came back to life on it's own. That's what dummies would do.
no that is what you my simple friend would do. The body was not stolen. you have nothing to go on this except there "are no black swans". That is the extent of your argument. pretty lame, isn't?
you would not use a female as a witness unless it was the truth. If it was a lie or a conspiracy, you would find someone to make it credible.That's merely a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in fact.
Why? Read your greek literature - and read your Hebrew literature. It has plenty of basis - females had no recognition until millenia later - and your bigoted notion otherwise is something that you assert not me. Hence it is on you to prove otherwise.
What does it mean when a man comes back from the dead? Why don't you try and answer that question?People don't come back from the dead, that IS the answer, dude.
Oh yes, that is right. no black swans. Or perhaps in the form of Galileo - the earth is the centre of the universe.
the explanation of the disciples stealing the body is implausible. the Roman soldiers were guarding the gravesite. They were at pain of death if they let anyone steal the body. romans were trained to kill.
Unfortunately, if you're going to bring in the Romans as part of your argument, you'll be sinking yourself as there is not only no information from Roman records of a Jesus being crucified let alone any records of what happened afterwards. The account is from Matthew because the idea of the stolen body being the plausible explanation was already being investigated, hence Matthew tried to refute it in the NT by making up a story about the Jewish elders.
Nor is the notion that he did not die in the first place. quite implausible. the evidence all points VERY strongly to him being killed on the cross.
That only makes the story of the resurrection less plausible.
So how about you tell us about some so called plausible - and I mean plausible as opposed to what you think is possible? Perhaps the grave had a secret door? Again, seriously.
It's funny how you're actually telling me to be serious about a dead person coming back to life while on the other hand telling me the sane explanation isn't plausible. The body was stolen, this is a simple, sane explanation. People coming back from the dead is not a sane explanation.
Your assumptions are all based upon "there are no black swans".
Sorry, this isn't even remotely the same thing, do you actually know the story of the black swans? Doesn't seem like it. Better go read up on it.
That is so unscientific it is embarrassing for you.
Uh no, actually if you're going to invoke science, then it is entirely embarrassing for YOU to opine that people come back from the dead. That is what is unscientific, dude.
what you seem to miss is that there were no Jewish legends of messiahs rising from the dead
And what you're missing is the fact people don't come back from the dead. It is something you wholeheartedly accept as fact, yet you call me unscientific. The hypocrisy is hilarious.
there were too many people who were confident they saw the risen Jesus
That makes you even more unscientific in that you're now taking the word of others over facts.
it is more plausible that a dead person could come back from the dead
And there we have it, anti-science, irrational, illogical and completely unreasonable for that to possibly occur.
people don't die for a lie
Yes, they do.
I refuse to take God out of the picture
Then, you are refusing to accept any plausible explanations that don't require magic.
This is what you avoid because you do not believe in black swans.
The black swan story does not apply here. Do you need me to explain that to you or can you figure it out yourself, I would hate to embarrass you further if you want me to explain it?
It makes total sense if you take the view that Jesus had ascended to heaven at this point.
That would invoke magic on your part. Have we therefore stopped talking sanity and science and have moved on to wishful thinking?
true according to the bible
But, not true according to science, which you were earlier invoking. So, which is it, science or magic that you want to invoke?
the disciples would not be able to steal his body because the Romans would kill them. You need to address this properly.
That was already addressed, there are no records of any Roman involvement so you can't invoke them as having any involvement.
It is stupid to say "the apostles stole the body" without any regard to the context.
No, it's stupid to say people come back from the dead without any regard to facts.
The body was not stolen.
Now, you're making the negative claim to the more plausible explanation. Prove the body wasn't stolen, you can't.
Oh yes, that is right. no black swans.
You should really read the story of the black swans because you clearly have no idea what the point of the story is.
. Given that people don't come back from the dead as a matter of normal course, when a person DOES come back,
Lol, that is hilarious. You make a critical error here, no one has come back from the dead, hence your point is irrelevant. This is something totally difference from swans with difference colors, because swans actually exist. People coming back from the dead do not exist.
If you can't get this simple fact through your head, then you will never offer any rational or sane explanation and will always believe people can come back from the dead. Perhaps, you've been watching too much tv.
You are doing no such thing and in fact doing the very opposite of what is logical and what is scientific. There is zero scientific evidence of people coming back from the dead and there is 100% evidence of people dying and staying dead.I am being VERY logical here. And I am using scientific methodology
-->
@Goldtop
. Given that people don't come back from the dead as a matter of normal course, when a person DOES come back,Lol, that is hilarious. You make a critical error here, no one has come back from the dead, hence your point is irrelevant. This is something totally difference from swans with difference colors, because swans actually exist. People coming back from the dead do not exist.If you can't get this simple fact through your head, then you will never offer any rational or sane explanation and will always believe people can come back from the dead. Perhaps, you've been watching too much tv.
I have made no error here. It is you who is unable to criticise properly. You keep going back to the black swan error. The fact is some people do claim that at least one person has come back from the dead. To simply close your mind to this claim is prejudice, it is not scientific. You state dead people do not come back from the dead, and yet some people make a different claim. Now one possibility is that they are insane or making it up or delusional. Another possibility is that they correct. A scientist doe is not start with "it is impossible, next please". A scientist may well start - and I would be surprised if they did not, with plenty of skepticism. After all, dead people don't normally come back from the dead. So if a dead person did come back from the dead, it would certainly be something investigating. But you, no - you shut your eyes and simply repeat your mantra "all swans are white, all swans are white, all swans are white". Hence the question is not about continuing your prejudice but about examining the evidence and seeing where it leads.
-->
@Goldtop
I am being VERY logical here. And I am using scientific methodologyYou are doing no such thing and in fact doing the very opposite of what is logical and what is scientific. There is zero scientific evidence of people coming back from the dead and there is 100% evidence of people dying and staying dead.
Well I disagree with you. As any scientist with integrity would do. Scientists don't start with prejudice. They start with a desire to seek truth even if it disagrees with everything they know. It seems to me that you lack fundamental skills in logic and reasoning and in scientific methodology.
-->
@Tradesecret
Hence the question is not about continuing your prejudice but about examining the evidence and seeing where it leads.
The white swan example is well known because it is unusual. Science is all about generalising from a limited number of examples. It has to be.
Science is only useful because it can tell you about new instances. Geologists assume a new lump of granite will be much like every lump of granite they have seen in the past. We assume every electron is identical, but we haven't examined them all! We can't wait to test every piece of granite and every electron before applying what we have learned about granite or electrons.
The white swan example is famous because it's one time such generalisation let us down.
Of course one shouldn't generalise too hastily, but millions of dead people have been examined and none of them have come back to life. It's totally scientific to assume that death is irreversable. it could be wrong, but it's not unscientific; not after checking so many examples.
Science isn't about certainty.