Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Sparko]

You can add me to that list. I believe you believe you answer questions directly, but... not so much, IMOHBAO.

I don't know if he is being deliberately evasive or what. I will give him the benefit of the doubt but I find his "wiggling" to be very frustrating.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know if he is being deliberately evasive or what. I will give him the benefit of the doubt but I find his "wiggling" to be very frustrating.

As I have told him, I think he's just too "wordy" -- It's easy for your message to get lost in a wall of text. And, I think he tries too hard to pretend he's not biased.

[Roy]

Lot's of stuff here, too much to give the attention it might merit:

Actually, they are rarely 'word for word' identical - - to the point that copying is not probable.

You can place them side-by-side and see where they are too similar to be anything other than copied:


Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves,
Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves,
ye know that the summer is nigh; even so ye also,
ye know that the summer is nigh; even so ye also,
when ye see all these things,
when ye see these things coming to pass,
know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away,
know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away,
till all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
until all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.
But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Only the earliest extant copies of Mark omit the Resurrection - none of the other Gospels do. Was it actually omitted or simply not found in the copies? Dunno, but it poses no real issue...

If it was not just omitted but never part of the original text and added at a later date then that is a real issue, because it suggests the resurrection was a later addition to the Jesus story.

- the theory that the Resurrection accounts don't exist prior to the physical writing of Mark is absurd on its face - that would be utterly insufficient for the extra-Biblical sources to have picked it up - which they did.

Which extra-biblical sources are you referring to? I know of no non-biblical references to Jesus's resurrection that predate Mark.

It's also nonsensical - the keystone of the early apologetic suddenly appearing decades later should have destroyed the nascent movement - but Christianity grew significantly in the First Century AD - this theory does not fit known facts.

Who said it appeared suddenly? A more likely scenario is a shift from Paul and the apostles receiving visions to the apostles receiving physical visits.

Yes, they have differences - exactly what should be expected of authentic accounts. No two people see or interpret events the same way. Disregarding the audience variation (Gospel authors had target audiences) the accounts do not differ on the important points and are easily reconciled - they stand up perfectly well in a modern court room.

I think a modern courtroom would question such differences as Joseph's father having different names, or Judas dying in two different ways. That these can be reconciled makes no difference, since just about any difference could be reconciled using the techniques used by apologists. But this is a side issue to the resurrection, other than the post-resurrection differences, which even apologists have difficulty reconciling.

If you toss Biblical accounts based on omission and differing accounts, you must do the same for every other documentary piece of evidence - which eliminates mountains of evidence. The standard is improper and unwarranted.

I'm not tossing biblical accounts at all, let alone tossing them based on omissions/differences. Again, try reading what I wrote and not MM's garbled misunderstanding.

[stuff about Ares/Indra skipped as it's a side-line]

The gut Luke wrote to - obviously of some importance - you don't hand write two major books to some guy you met in passing - and quite possibly a Roman official (which would explain both the writing and the brief like nature of the books). I don't see a plausible objection here...

You said that Theophilus would have had access to the people and documents that would have verified Luke's account. If Theophilus was a Roman official he would not necessarily have access to people living in Jerusalem. This is the point - the people to whom the gospels were addressed could not necessarily verify them, due to the differences in time and location.

... but even granting one, so what? The documentation existed,...

What documentation existed? You''re begging the question here, not least because you immediately follow up by stating

... The only indication is Scriptural and occurs at the time of the Resurrection.

You say that there was no question about the events, but the simplest explanation for that is that there were no events to question until the expansion of the Jesus tale to include a physical resurrection - by which time most of those who could say otherwise would be deceased.

The earliest gospel, which was either used as a basis for the later ones or which has a common source, does not include the resurrection; a resurrection ending was added at a much later date. The main argument presented for the veracity of the resurrection accounts is that they would have been readily refuted, but not only does that avoid the problem of the accounts being written decades after the fact, but we know from modern examples of 9/11 truthers, YECs and the Bab's execution that there are plenty of people who for various reasons will continue to believe despite refutations.

[carpedm9587]

The evidence question is at least correctly identified here - you'd already hit this actually - it took three pages.

But you still haven't answered the OTHER question. Please start paying attention to the post you are responding to - not just in the reply box where you can't see the full quotation. I quoted the post I was responding to which was your non-response to someone else's question.

You're not the only one with limited time, you know. If it were a once in a while thing, no one would care, but this happens A LOT. You don't seem to really pay attention to what you're responding to - I made myself clear about what I took exception to but you acted as if I hadn't (still doing so, see above). When you do pay attention, we still get off into lala land because you can't keep track of the conversation - because you didn't note what was being responded to to begin with.

i get that you are at a disadvantage - there are more people disagreeing with you - but when you consistently fail to respond to the actual posts, it makes you look like you're deliberately dodging. Everyone else has to keep track of the conversation - you're not being asked to do what no one else has to do.

And I'm tired of having to track down stuff for you - this is the last time:

Er, never mind - Sparky already got it...

Teal, I post as I post. You seem to find the exchange frustrating. I suggest you simply stop engaging me in conversations. If you respond to one of my posts, I will likely respond back. You have to decide if the exchange is worth your while.

[carpedm9587]

Actions speak louder than words.

ETA: I am not accusing you of deliberately doing these things; you merely seem unable to address a question in a straightforward manner.

Then engage with someone else...

[carpedm9587]

You can add me to that list. I believe you believe you answer questions directly, but... not so much, IMOHBAO.

Consider yourself added...

[carpedm9587]

As I have told him, I think he's just too "wordy" -- It's easy for your message to get lost in a wall of text. And, I think he tries too hard to pretend he's not biased.

Wordy I plead guilty to (and have before). However, when did I say I wasn't biased?

[Roy]

I don't know if you are projecting or what, but seer isn't being evasive here.

I asked him three times what Luke said about James being an eyewitness, and all three times he avoided answering. On the third time he even deleted the question.

He's saying that your question regarding which James isn't relevant, because all of them were eyewitnesses.

It was his question regarding which James, not mine, and it was a transparent attempt to avoid having to defend his implied claim. It's relevant because Luke only says he met one of them, and that one may not have been an eyewitness.

He's certainly not as clear as he could be, and I think he should've answered your question anyway (not least because it's not at all difficult), but he doesn't merit the appellation "evasive" just because he's not as rigorous in his argumentation as you'd like.

Absurd. I ask seer which 'James' he's referring to, and he refuses to say . How can that possibly not be described as evasive?

It's interesting how carpe is being hounded to answer a question, and described as "unable to address a question in a straightforward manner", but seer is excused as being "not as clear as he could be" for blatant dodging.

[Roy]

...you're even refusing to say which James you meant.

It was most likely James, Jesus' brother. All three James in the New Testament were eyewitness to Christ's ministry. So it would not matter which one it was.

And you're still refusing to say which James you meant.

[seer]

I asked him three times what Luke said about James being an eyewitness, and all three times he avoided answering. On the third time he even deleted the question. It was his question regarding which James, not mine, and it was a transparent attempt to avoid having to defend his implied claim. It's relevant because Luke only says he met one of them, and that one may not have been an eyewitness. Absurd. I ask seer which 'James' he's referring to, and he refuses to say . How can that possibly not be described as evasive?

It's interesting how carpe is being hounded to answer a question, but seer is being given a free pass.

Roy, did I not reference the Galatians passage? And the fact that every James in the New Testament knew Christ. So it makes no difference. They were ALL eyewitnesses.

[One Bad Pig]

I asked him three times what Luke said about James being an eyewitness, and all three times he avoided answering. On the third time he even deleted the question. It was his question regarding which James, not mine, and it was a transparent attempt to avoid having to defend his implied claim. It's relevant because Luke only says he met one of them, and that one may not have been an eyewitness. Absurd.

What's absurd is you taking a question which was fairly obviously rhetorical and pretending that seer is asking because he doesn't know the answer.

I ask seer which 'James' he's referring to, and he refuses to say . How can that possibly not be described as evasive?

I repeat, he noted that it was immaterial to the question you decided he asked, since all three of them were eyewitnesses. He's not "refusing to say" - you quote him in post #384 as ostensibly not when he clearly has.

It's interesting how carpe is being hounded to answer a question, and described as "unable to address a question in a straightforward manner", but seer is excused as being "not as clear as he could be" for blatant dodging.

It's interesting how you imagine the two situations are at all analogous.

Carpe has answered the question now, by the way.

[seer]

And you're still refusing to say which James you meant.

It doesn't matter - all three were eyewitnesses, and I already suggested it was Jesus' brother. What did I say in post #290?

And what James is this Roy? We know that Paul met James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem Galatians 1:18-20. Unless you don't believe that Christ's brother was an eyewitness.

[Roy]

What's absurd is you taking a question which was fairly obviously rhetorical and pretending that seer is asking because he doesn't know the answer.

That would be absurd - but I'm not doing that.

It's interesting how you imagine the two situations are at all analogous.

Carpe has answered the question now, by the way.

I don't imagine they are analogous. Carpe is honest.

[Zymologist]

Apparently to you, Teall, and perhaps Sparko.



OK, "nefarious agenda" is probably stronger than it needed to be. Bottom line is there is a small subset of the posters here who tend to infer a negative intent/purpose/dynamic to many of my posts. If my post is not clear, they don't say, "that wasn't very clear to me, can you restate," I get "that was a kabuki dance." If I miss a post, I don't get, "did you see my post <here>?" with a link or a post number, I get accused of dodging/dancing/avoiding. Add to that the regular references to dishonesty, disingenuousness, outright lying, and so forth. At first I set out to defend myself, but it rapidly became clear that there is a subset of posters here who have already decided what kind of poster I am and they are not going to be dissuaded. So now I just work to focus on the discussion and let people make whatever comments they wish. I'm interested in the ideas and tearing them apart to see what makes them tick, and I am interested in knowing more about how members of "the right" think and what motivates them. Ater a reasonable effort to correct misperceptions about myself, eventually I just have to accept them as they are and move on. Ultimately, what defines me is me - not what someone else thinks of me.

As that old hippy said, "I don't let nobody rent space in my head."

I just wish I was as good at it as he was...

FWIW, I didn't find your response to my question satisfactory, but I often don't respond to answers to my questions on here because either I don't see the point (i.e., it doesn't seem likely to generate anything fruitful), or because I just get lazy and don't feel like typing up a response. Typically, when I ask a sincere question (I don't troll all the time, just most of the time), it's purely for my own informational sake and I have no intention of debating the answer.*

In fact, since it's on my mind now, I think you inadvertently reinforced one of my points:

OK, so it matters what "ideology" means to you. If the ideology is "love one another," "love conquers hate," then yes - there are a lot of people who have died for ideologies (i.e., buddhists who died to protest the treatment of buddhists in the vietnam era, and the young man who burned himself because he believed global warming is a human tragedy). People die for ideologies they believe in all the time.

If the "ideology" is "Jesus is the son of god," then there have been people dying for this ideology since the beginning of Christianity. The only ones that are in question are the original witnesses. So the question we have to ask ourselves is 1) did they actually die - and do we have an adequate historical record to support that claim, and 2) did they die for the general Christian message of a loving god and love conquering hate, or did they die for the specific message "Jesus was god," and do we have adequate historical information to support THAT claim.

As for "mentally sound," that is a subjective assessment. Life is programmed to survive, so a willingness (or desire) to die is an aberration. When that willingness is aligned with something we consider "noble," the person is usually considered sound of mind (i.e., a mother giving up her life for a child, the martyr giving up their life for a god). When it is not aligned with something we consider noble or true or important, we instantly question their soundness of mind (e.g., the person immolating themselves to highlight global warming).

We're on shaky ground either way....

Since part of my question was whether, even if we could find such an example, we would consider such a person sane, from what I can tell you kind of accidentally answered it in the negative.



*So I'm lazy and selfish.

[carpedm9587]

FWIW, I didn't find your response to my question satisfactory, but I often don't respond to answers to my questions on here because either I don't see the point (i.e., it doesn't seem likely to generate anything fruitful), or because I just get lazy and don't feel like typing up a response. Typically, when I ask a sincere question (I don't troll all the time, just most of the time), it's purely for my own informational sake and I have no intention of debating the answer.*

In fact, since it's on my mind now, I think you inadvertently reinforced one of my points:

Since part of my question was whether, even if we could find such an example, we would consider such a person sane, from what I can tell you kind of accidentally answered it in the negative.

I'm not sure where I implied that in my response. Some people will die for what they believe in passionately. That may be saving the life of their child, upholding a moral code, generally taking a position they believe will better humanity, or simply following an intensely charismatic leader. The early church had several of the latter (especially Saul of Tarsus).

So what is the difference between an acolyte "drinking the koolaid" at Jonestown, taking the phenobarbital and putting a plastic bag over their head as a member of Heaven's Gate, or willingly going to a martyr's death because of the influence of charismatic leaders (such as the ones in the early church)? On what basis do we call one group sane and the other insane? Each were making fantastical claims. Each believed they were taking an action that would secure their future.

Can we make that distinction because we agree with the beliefs of one of those groups and not the other two?

*So I'm lazy and selfish.

Happens to the best of us...