Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Consider yourself added...
    You are too kind, sir.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      It doesn't matter - all three were eyewitnesses, and I already suggested it was Jesus' brother. What did I say in post #290?
      I think there are actually four men named James in the NT - Luke 6:16 refers to "Judas the son of James" (not Judas Iscariot) and I don't think this James can be any of the other three.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I think there are actually four men named James in the NT - Luke 6:16 refers to "Judas the son of James" (not Judas Iscariot) and I don't think this James can be any of the other three.
        Right, given the Galatians reference, I believe it was Jesus' brother. Though the other three were contemporaries of Christ.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I think there are actually four men named James in the NT - Luke 6:16 refers to "Judas the son of James" (not Judas Iscariot) and I don't think this James can be any of the other three.
          I'd forgotten about that one. I'd assume that, unlike the others, this James was not necessarily an eyewitness (although, if he was alive at the time, given the general closeness of family at the time, it's not unlikely that he saw Jesus).
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            That would be absurd - but I'm not doing that.
            It's possible that you missed the sarcasm and truly thought that seer didn't know the answer. Your animus toward him may well be sufficiently strong to blind you to such things. I've known seer for going on 14 years now; it is exceedingly unlikely that he did not know the answer.
            I don't imagine they are analogous. Carpe is honest.
            Your libelous inference is duly noted.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              It's possible that you missed the sarcasm and truly thought that seer didn't know the answer. Your animus toward him may well be sufficiently strong to blind you to such things. I've known seer for going on 14 years now; it is exceedingly unlikely that he did not know the answer.
              I'm not only confident that he knew the answer, I'm confident that he refused to answer because he knew (as I did) that the answer undermined his implied argument.
              Your libelous inference is duly noted.
              Truth is always a defence to libel.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                That would be absurd - but I'm not doing that. I don't imagine they are analogous. Carpe is honest.
                It would be a welcome change if people did not jump to questioning other people's honesty when they post things that are not agreed with, not understood, not clear, etc.

                And that applies to all sides of the discussions...
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  I've known seer for going on 14 years now....
                  And still, after all this time - no RING... : (
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    I'm not only confident that he knew the answer, I'm confident that he refused to answer because he knew (as I did) that the answer undermined his implied argument.Truth is always a defence to libel.
                    Did I not say this back in post #209 Roy: 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.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      I'm not only confident that he knew the answer, I'm confident that he refused to answer because he knew (as I did) that the answer undermined his implied argument.
                      Then why did you imply he didn't know?

                      The evidence is circumstantial, but I don't see how that undermines anything unless you demand everything explicitly in writing. Paul certainly knew James was Jesus' brother. Luke, who wrote extensively about Peter and Paul and seems to have traveled extensively with the latter, mentions James as a leader immediately after the death of James bar Zebedee, and most likely just didn't bother spelling out what his addressee already knew. Jesus' brother was at least an occasional eyewitness; his relationship made that nearly inevitable.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        Lot's of stuff here, too much to give the attention it might merit: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."
                        Addressed originally - I did say 'rarelyu, not 'never' but there are far more differences than identical passages.

                        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. Which extra-biblical sources are you referring to? I know of no non-biblical references to Jesus's resurrection that predate Mark.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.
                        Non-issue as stated - the one omission isn't an issue when it doesn't occur elsewhere.

                        Your entire objection rests on the premise that the Resurrection is a late addition - if it were already a verbal account (which I would argue) then your entire argument falls apart.

                        It's a weak argument to begin with - late writing in a highly verbal society isn't a red flag. Even in modern times we have eye witness testimony that isn't taken donw until decades after the events (first examples that come immediately to mind are from the Post-bellum period)


                        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.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.
                        Then you really have no idea how evidentiary procedure or eye witness accounts actually work. Let's take Judas - you claim he died two different ways but did he really? Two separate sources report his death - from two separate POV's and, very importantly, from two different thematic writings. They are relating the story so that it will be best understood by their audience. Matt doesn't bother with details that any Jew would understand without being told. Luke is addressing Gentiles and provides a lot of the bits that no non-Jew would know. Further, one talks specifically about the death, the other about the aftermath (yeah, it's more poetic - verbal societies use that). Unburied until the corpse falls from the tree - the Jews would get that instantly since they DON'T bury such suicides. the fact that it wasn't a crucifixion would be the only clue they needed to figure out what Judas did.

                        In modern courtrooms its ALWAYS necessary to rectify eye witness accounts when there is more than one - no two people see or report the same way. This isn't merely psychological - two very different physical positions can result in very different accounts, but both be perfectly true. This is actually expected of genuine accounts - if Bob gives the same exact story as Mary when they were on opposite sides of the street, something's not right.



                        [stuff about Ares/Indra skipped as it's a side-line]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.What documentation existed? You''re begging the question here, not least because you immediately follow up by statingYou 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.
                        Was Pilate dead? What about the garrison? Non-issue - besides, by this point, Christianity and early Christians have begun to spread out of Jerusalem - and even if not, sending an emmisary or missive to get the account would have been easy enough - their trials took years, this is probably a contributing factor.


                        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.
                        The earliest gospels were verbal, not written. Non-issue. to prove issue you need to prove WHY it was omitted - and no one knows that. Accident? Deliberate? Later insertion? Copy destruction? It's just guessing - we know the account appears in writing later - we also know it is immediately accepted - that makes zero sense if it's a new development, but perfect sense if the Resurrection was already a known event.

                        See also Q theory.

                        At issue are those who KNEW whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Would someone who KNEW they hadn't seen the Risen Christ die for that lie?

                        For that matter, would someone that knew that spend the rest of their lives teaching it all over the world? The rise of Christianity simply doesn't fit the 'myth or vision' models.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          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.
                          See? Not so much fun when the other guys are frustrating you, is it?
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Then why did you imply he didn't know?
                            You're reading into my words something that I don't think is there, and wasn't intended.
                            The evidence is circumstantial, but I don't see how that undermines anything unless you demand everything explicitly in writing. Paul certainly knew James was Jesus' brother. Luke, who wrote extensively about Peter and Paul and seems to have traveled extensively with the latter, mentions James as a leader immediately after the death of James bar Zebedee, and most likely just didn't bother spelling out what his addressee already knew. Jesus' brother was at least an occasional eyewitness; his relationship made that nearly inevitable.
                            But was he an eyewitness to Jesus post-resurrection? There's nothing in Luke to suggest that, unless he was one of "the eleven and those with them" in Luke 24:33; and Acts implies that Mary and the brothers of Jesus weren't at the ascension. The only explicit mention of James meeting Jesus post-resurrection is from Paul, who doesn't say which James he's referring to.

                            If James b.o. Jesus did see Jesus post-resurrection, it's odd that Luke, who met him James personally, never mentions it.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Addressed originally - I did say 'rarelyu, not 'never' but there are far more differences than identical passages.
                              There are enough nearly-identical passages to show that the later gospels were not independent accounts, but were partly copied.
                              Non-issue as stated - the one omission isn't an issue when it doesn't occur elsewhere.
                              It is an issue when the omission is in the earliest copies, and the later copies have an ending similar enough to that of the later gospels to have been based on them.
                              Your entire objection rests on the premise that the Resurrection is a late addition - if it were already a verbal account (which I would argue) then your entire argument falls apart.
                              Not really - if it were already a verbal account then why wasn't it in Mark?
                              It's a weak argument to begin with - late writing in a highly verbal society isn't a red flag. Even in modern times we have eye witness testimony that isn't taken donw until decades after the events (first examples that come immediately to mind are from the Post-bellum period)
                              This isn't just eyewitness testimony taken down decades later, it's eyewitness testimony that has been changed by some-one else afterwards.
                              Then you really have no idea how evidentiary procedure or eye witness accounts actually work. Let's take Judas - you claim he died two different ways but did he really? Two separate sources report his death - from two separate POV's and, very importantly, from two different thematic writings. They are relating the story so that it will be best understood by their audience. Matt doesn't bother with details that any Jew would understand without being told. Luke is addressing Gentiles and provides a lot of the bits that no non-Jew would know. Further, one talks specifically about the death, the other about the aftermath (yeah, it's more poetic - verbal societies use that). Unburied until the corpse falls from the tree - the Jews would get that instantly since they DON'T bury such suicides. the fact that it wasn't a crucifixion would be the only clue they needed to figure out what Judas did.
                              Unfortunately for your apologetics, you have it exactly backwards - it is Luke, who you say is addressing gentiles, that omits the details you claim Jews would get instantly, and Matthew that explicitly specifies the suicide that any Jew would understand without being told. So your explanation wouldn't stand up in court.
                              In modern courtrooms its ALWAYS necessary to rectify eye witness accounts when there is more than one - no two people see or report the same way. This isn't merely psychological - two very different physical positions can result in very different accounts, but both be perfectly true. This is actually expected of genuine accounts - if Bob gives the same exact story as Mary when they were on opposite sides of the street, something's not right.
                              Exactly. When Matthew uses the exact same words as Mark, something is not right.
                              Was Pilate dead?
                              Yes.
                              What about the garrison?
                              What about them? Do you think either they or Pilate would have witnessed Jesus's post-resurrection appearances? No-one is seriously disputing that Jesus was crucified.
                              The earliest gospels were verbal, not written. Non-issue. to prove issue you need to prove WHY it was omitted - and no one knows that. Accident? Deliberate? Later insertion? Copy destruction? It's just guessing...
                              I don't need to prove why it was omitted, I just need to show there are flaws in your argument. The lack of a resurrection account in the earliest gospel is just such a flaw. If all you can do is guess at reasons to explain the flaw, then your argument for the resurrection effectively assumes the resurrection occurred - and it collapses.
                              ... - we know the account appears in writing later - we also know it is immediately accepted
                              We do? How?
                              ... - that makes zero sense if it's a new development, but perfect sense if the Resurrection was already a known event.
                              Which it was, since it was in the later gospels that were written before the addition.

                              Mark doesn't include the resurrection.
                              Matthew/Luke copy Mark, and add the post-resurrection appearances (inconsistently), possibly following Paul.
                              Some-one copies Luke's ending into Mark.
                              At issue are those who KNEW whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Would someone who KNEW they hadn't seen the Risen Christ die for that lie?
                              Probably not, but that's a very different argument - and one that has been covered by the rest of this thread.
                              For that matter, would someone that knew that spend the rest of their lives teaching it all over the world?
                              Very possibly. I shouldn't need to remind you of the many people today who spend their lives teaching something they know to be false.
                              Last edited by Roy; 04-26-2018, 07:40 AM.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                See? Not so much fun when the other guys are frustrating you, is it?
                                I'm not sure what gave you the idea I'm frustrated.

                                This is a passtime, Teal. If I was frustrated, I'd do something else on my breaks. You have expressed a good deal of frustration (head pounding emoji's, other comments), so I'm merely suggesting you should consider chatting with someone else. If you respond to one of my most or address me, I will most likely respond. Unless I am wrong, my style of response appears to frustrate you.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                20 responses
                                79 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X