What think ye of Christ?

MagicMarker

http://irishfaithcentre.ie/ressurrection.html





Anyone care to have a guess what this ''evidence'' is? Other than The Bible of course.

abouttobebanned

It'll be some crap like "the evidence of the resurrection is the love in our hearts.."

elmossman

I am slowly becoming an atheist.

oldrnwisr

MagicMarker wrote: »

http://irishfaithcentre.ie/ressurrection.html


Anyone care to have a guess what this ''evidence'' is? Other than The Bible of course.

I just think it's interesting that Gene Scott died in 2005. Maybe he's planning a resurrection of his own as the evidence. Anyway, the "proofs" that the video is based on are presented here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well if the speaker is just another William Craig Lane then the "evidence" for the ressurection will be similar to what he repeats in all his debates:

1) Something about the tomb being empty and there being no body.
2) Something which has always seemed to be a non sequitur to me to do with how women were the ones to discover part 1.
3) References to how vastly the lives of the apostles were changed by later sightings and meetings with the dead Nazarene.

Other than that I can not think of anything from Lane on the subject or any other evidence for it.

the_syco

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I just think it's interesting that Gene Scott died in 2005. Maybe he's planning a resurrection of his own as the evidence.

I wonder should I tell the "Z" boys and girls to watch out for this

what a load of nonsense


i saw one in rathmines a few weeks back, they had the usual nonsense plus some waffle about strange spirits in our world or something

Galvasean

These tend to be in train stations all over Dublin. I've never been shown any evidence for the resurrection that wasn't just referencing bits of the Bible, which isn't really evidence when you think about it.
The closest I've encountered to what I would call proper evidence would be the Shroud of Turin, but even then that is far goo open to interpretation to be considered solid.

Zillah

These have been doing the rounds for years. I remember seeing them on buses.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) Something which has always seemed to be a non sequitur to me to do with how women were the ones to discover part 1.

I believe the "reasoning" behind this is that at the time of christ, noone believed women about anything apparently.
So if the early Christian cult was faking and trying to con people they wouldn't rely on untrustworthy sources for their claims, or so the argument goes.

of course, the multiple issues with this are just plain ignored like they are with the other 2.

My favourite "evidence" is the idea that one of the apostles says that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. And this evidence is apparently rock solid.

nozzferrahhtoo

Indeed. It sounds a lot like the argument that used to tickle Hitchens pink so often that went something like "The reason I believe the claims is because they are so preposterous".

One argument is of course that if you wanted to sell a lie that you would be stupid to spread it through a source who no one believed. Such as women.

The other argument of course if that if you wanted to make the argument above you WOULD use that source because they you get to go "It must be true, otherwise I would not have been stupid enough to use THAT source".

One wonders how many iterations you can take that through before it becomes clear how ridiculous it is to the original arguer.

elWizard

I saw this poster in a prominent position in liffey valley a few weeks ago.
Was really struck then by the Paul quote "If Christ be not risen our faith is in vain".
It's a conditional statement with only two answers, and yet these people automatically assume answer A (there's a magical all-knowing all-seeing creator controlling every last molecule in the universe but with a particular interest in the sexual, dietary and miscellaneous habits of one species on this small planet) and never even consider answer B (Christ is NOT risen therefore our faith actually just maybe, might be in vain).

nozzferrahhtoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

Anyone care to have a guess what this ''evidence'' is? Other than The Bible of course.

Certainly the Philologos approcach to proving the resurrection is much similar to the WCL approach I mentioned above. I rather expect he will be into this thread soon enough saying it so here is what you can expect. It can be seen here though as you can see when I countered his claims he ran a country mile to get away from the thread.

His "Evidence" much like point 3 in my post above goes like this:

philologos wrote:

If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.

Which to me seems to boil down to saying "11 nutters did nutty things, so the nutty claim must be true".

Thankfully this is not a standard of evidence many people apply as there are nutty people doing nutty things while making nutty claims all the time in our world so if this was evidence for their claims we would need to start believing some really weird stuff. Especially given some nutty claims are supported by a LOT more than 11 nutty people so why he does not subscribe to those too is beyond me.

Perhaps you can ask him if/when he arrives in this thread. Maybe it is only a valid line of argument when the number is 11, not 1, 5, 13 or 100,000.

However I rather suspect that if you attend the convention mentioned in the OP poster that this is one of the lines of "argument" you will be very likely to hear.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which to me seems to boil down to saying "11 nutters did nutty things, so the nutty claim must be true".

Thankfully this is not a standard of evidence many people apply as there are nutty people doing nutty things while making nutty claims all the time in our world so if this was evidence for their claims we would need to start believing some really weird stuff. Especially given some nutty claims are supported by a LOT more than 11 nutty people so why he does not subscribe to those too is beyond me.

It's a lot nuttier than that, since we don't know with any substantial degree of confidence that any of those 11 nutters did what they were reported to have done.

The chain of inference seems to go something like this:

1. This book appears to include (a) a convincing explanation as to why people are horrible to each other; (b) a convincing description of where humanity came from and (c) a convincing life aim and (d) a convincing offer by which one can remain alive after death.
2. I am emotionally satisfied with these explanations and offers, therefore these claims as well as every other claim are all true.
3. This book claims that 11 men died "defending" an idea
4. Therefore, that idea is true

The logic is so awful and so unfounded on so many levels at the same time, it's embarrassing.

sephir0th

elmossman wrote: »

I am slowly becoming an atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrhRzxoFH-4

nozzferrahhtoo

True too! But when a claim is THAT bad I thought it at least nice to the claimant to at least grant the very base premise that 11 nutters really were as nutty as it was claimed they were.

Granting that premise, as you can see, adds nothing at all to his argument so I was happy to concede it to him in the interests of extending an olive branch and not totally making a fool of his line of argument. Though his subsequent retreat from the thread in question shows this olive branch was rejected.

Certainly however when you question that base premise too, the "argument" falls even further apart.

sbsquarepants

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I just think it's interesting that Gene Scott died in 2005. Maybe he's planning a resurrection of his own as the evidence. Anyway, the "proofs" that the video is based on are presented here.

Well then, if he's there that would constitute reasonable "evidence" to me. What's the betting he's not there though?:D


And none of that "he's there in spirit" loophole shíte, you hear me!!

oldrnwisr

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

True too! But when a claim is THAT bad I thought it at least nice to the claimant to at least grant the very base premise that 11 nutters really were as nutty as it was claimed they were.

Granting that premise, as you can see, adds nothing at all to his argument so I was happy to concede it to him in the interests of extending an olive branch and not totally making a fool of his line of argument. Though his subsequent retreat from the thread in question shows this olive branch was rejected.

Certainly however when you question that base premise too, the "argument" falls even further apart.

Yes, I seem to remember that the last time we went ten rounds about Jesus with phil he retreated from the thread, bringing the goalposts with him as he went.

Thread here:

Who do you think Jesus was?

Gregor Samsa

MagicMarker wrote: »

Anyone care to have a guess what this ''evidence'' is? Other than The Bible of course.

Well, no one's ever found Jesus' body, so he must be alive.

Q.E.D.

I said Q.E.D., so I'm not accepting any arguments against the flawless logic.

branie

The works of the historian Josephus mention Jesus

bnt

branie wrote: »

The works of the historian Josephus mention Jesus

Even if a "Jesus" existed, that doesn't mean all the stuff said about him is true. Besides: if he was around today, today's "Christians" would have him arrested and waterboarded as a socialist hippie. :rolleyes:

the_syco

branie wrote: »

The works of the historian Josephus mention Jesus

Two things: Firstly, there were hundreds of messiahs around that time, all claiming to be the son of god. Secondly, the bible was written 100 years later, so most if not all of the stuff was second hand info.

Mark Hamill

branie wrote: »

The works of the historian Josephus mention Jesus

And the works of Tom Cruise mention L. Ron Hubbard, so what?

wonderfulname

branie wrote: »

The works of the historian Josephus mention Jesus

We know "Jesus" existed in the same way we know there was a "Jack" on the Titanics maiden voyage, the fact that there are a few corresponding mundane details does not make the epic work some generations later a biographical one.

Hmm... now I'm begining to worry what the future will make of James Cameron...

robindch

branie wrote: »

The works of the historian Josephus mention Jesus

Most textual analysis believe that the comments on Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews were inserted by a much later author. They use words + grammar that appear nowhere else in Josephus' work and they suggest that for one short paragraph, Josephus temporarily changed his religious beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato

Zillah wrote: »

These have been doing the rounds for years. I remember seeing them on buses.

Very appropriate.
You wait ages for a god, then three show up at once...

Paparazzo

He seemed like a decent bloke. His da was a complete bollocks though

Sarky

He lost focus after his comeback special. Revelations was a concept album that should never have been made, pure drug-felled self-indulgent ****.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Revelations was a concept album that should never have been made, pure drug-felled self-indulgent ****.

Not to be confused with the awesome iron Maiden song.

Sarky

I heard them play it live a few years back. Intense spiritual experiences are so easy to have, I don't know why anyone attaches any weight to them...

oceanclub

MagicMarker wrote: »

http://irishfaithcentre.ie/ressurrection.html





Anyone care to have a guess what this ''evidence'' is? Other than The Bible of course.

And if there is evidence, then faith is not required.

P.

dj357

What I think of Christ is largely what Christopher Hitchens had to say about him. Most especially about Vicarious Redemption...

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

Not to be confused with the awesome iron Maiden song.

Which is good drug-fuelled self-indulgent ****?

qrrgprgua

abouttobebanned wrote: »

It'll be some crap like "the evidence of the resurrection is the love in our hearts.."

Christs resurrection is not "some crap"... All the Gospels are clear on it.

If you don't believe.. then don't.

qrrgprgua

Seems like the Atheist Forums aim is to debunk the Christian forum....?? Ye always seem hung up about believers.

dj357

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Seems like the Atheist Forums aim is to debunk the Christian forum....?? Ye always seem hung up about believers.

I care about the truth, and given that religion prefers dogma to truth, there will always be an element of bootscraping when wading through issues of any kind to remove unnecessary religious bulls**t.

Sarky

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Which is good drug-fuelled self-indulgent ****?

HELL YES!

Hotblack Desiato

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Christs resurrection is not "some crap"... All the Gospels are clear on it.

If you don't believe.. then don't.

If you do believe, don't expect everyone else to think of your 'holy book' assertions without proof as anything other than fairy stories, and adults who believe in fairy stories get no respect from me for doing so*, sorry.


* they may be worthy of respect in other ways, but religious belief is not worthy of respect in itself, whatever its adherents may demand.

Hotblack Desiato

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Seems like the Atheist Forums aim is to debunk the Christian forum....?? Ye always seem hung up about believers.

Seems to me, the more enthusiastic Christians are rather hung up about atheists.
I don't go to the Christian forum and poke them with a stick, I could, it might be fun for a while, but ultimately it would be pointless. You can lead a horse to water but you can't lead a believer to really think.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Christs resurrection is not "some crap"... All the Gospels are clear on it.

If you don't believe.. then don't.

Yeah, without getting this further dragged off-topic. The big problem for us logically thinking people, is that we kinda require some form of proof, and not the books written by biased members of an organization set up to keep the Roman Empire at ease.

Because let's face it, if they chose a different religion, let's say Islam, most Europeans now would be... yeah you guessed it, Muslim!

Politics and control is the reason your belief system is so big, that is all.

So on behalf of many Atheists and Agnostics, prove it. Prove it happened, and maybe then we'll believe it.

oldrnwisr

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Christs resurrection is not "some crap"... All the Gospels are clear on it.

If you don't believe.. then don't.

Oh, the Gospels, right. You mean the books penned by anonymous authors over a period of at least 30 years beginning 40 years after Jesus' death which can't even agree on the details of the resurrection story and is not even featured in Mark's gospel. Those books? Sorry I thought you had actual evidence.

legspin

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Seems like the Atheist Forums aim is to debunk the Christian forum....?? Ye always seem hung up about believers.

Keep your idiot, crackpot, bronze-age superstitions out of politics, health-care and education. Whatever hang-ups (real or imagined) we have about your particular brand of fúck-wittery will mainly disappear at that point

Muppet Man

qrrgprgua wrote: »

... Ye always seem hung up about believers...

Let me finish the sentence for you

"... of fairytales"

Muppet Man

Knasher

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, the Gospels, right. You mean the books penned by anonymous authors over a period of at least 30 years beginning 40 years after Jesus' death which can't even agree on the details of the resurrection story and is not even featured in Mark's gospel. Those books? Sorry I thought you had actual evidence.

Well more accurately the oldest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark don't include anything about Jesus' resurrection but later versions do. However the style of the extra text in the later versions is different from all the rest, leading to the consensus by biblical scholars that the later versions were edited to include the versus which mention the resurrection. Also, despite it being the second gospel in the bible, it is actually older than Matthew.

One hypothesis you might draw from that is that the story of Jesus was becoming more fanciful and incorporating parts from different religions in the area over time as it was passed from person to person. Another hypothesis might be that Mark's original author didn't find that a man, who was the subject of his book, coming back from the dead after 3 days(or as Matthew's authors described, the bodies of all the holy people were raised back to life) to be a particularly noteworthy event.

oldrnwisr

Knasher wrote: »

Well more accurately the oldest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark doesn't include anything about Jesus' resurrection but later versions do. However the style of the extra text in the later versions is different from all the rest, leading to the consensus by biblical scholars that the later versions were edited to include the versus which mention the resurrection. Also, despite it being the second gospel in the bible, it is actually older than Matthew.

Thanks Knasher, that's what I meant. As for Matthew, I would say that since it is later and longer than Mark and copies passages of text from Mark verbatim that Matthew is actually an embellished or "improved" copy of Mark's gospel as was the style at the time.

Knasher wrote: »

One hypothesis you might draw from that is that the story of Jesus was becoming more fanciful and incorporating parts from different religions in the area over time as it was passed from person to person. Another hypothesis might be that Mark's original author didn't find that a man, who was the subject of his book, coming back from the dead after 3 days(or as Matthew's authors described, the bodies of all the holy people were raised back to life) to be a particularly noteworthy event.

As far as the first hypothesis goes, as I said above, the fact that the gospels get longer as you move forward in time from Mark to Matthew to Luke combined with the borrowing by Matthew of sections of text from Mark, something Luke does also, it is reasonable to suggest that Matthew and Luke are in fact remakes, if you will, of Mark with embellishments to make the story more appealing. This can even be seen in the geographic distribution of the copies of Mark with and without the longer ending.
As for Mark's gospel itself, I would recommend this book as a good insight into the nature of the narrative in Mark's gospel:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

It would seem that there is a good case to be made that Mark's gospel is actually a work of fiction in the style of Homer's Odyssey (or in modern terms, Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson) with the author of Mark borrowing techniques and plotlines from Homer.

As far as the gospels in their entirety are concerned I would recommend this video series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E

shizz

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Christs resurrection is not "some crap"... All the Gospels are clear on it.

If you don't believe.. then don't.

"Clear"? haha yeah they're all exactly the same all right.

Helix

qrrgprgua wrote: »

All the Gospels are clear on it.

so clear that they all tell the story differently

tell us, which one is right?

endacl

What think ye of Chips?

Not the tv show. Like, chips? It being good Friday and all, I need jebus pints soakage. Would chips do the trick?

Don't want good Friday to be followed by crappy hangover Saturday, jebus or no jebus...

That's what I think of christ. So long and thanks for all the chips. Oh, and the pancakes. I believe he also had something to do with the pancakes.