georgieporgy wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Ever hear of Lazarus? Of course. One of the most important "miracles" in the new testament, and yet it is only mentioned in John's Gospel. Why is that I wonder? Wouldn't you think that the others may have mentioned in passing that this guy was dead for four days and was brought back to life? Where was he after he died? was he in hell or heaven? He is one of the only ones who ever came back, so he knew all the answers we are all searching for and he gave us no indication. Or maybe, its just a story that never really occurred.
Safehands wrote: » Ever hear of Lazarus?
Safehands wrote: » Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since. Ever hear of Lazarus?
Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since.
Ken bryan wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Are you serious Ken? You are asking me for evidence to show that it is more plausible that he didn't actually die than he died and came back from the dead? yes I am . As his side was pierced by a roman soldier . To make absolutely sure he was dead. So show me the evidence how it,s plausible . That at the time of Crusification that some could of survived .With those injuries. It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since.
Safehands wrote: » Are you serious Ken? You are asking me for evidence to show that it is more plausible that he didn't actually die than he died and came back from the dead? yes I am . As his side was pierced by a roman soldier . To make absolutely sure he was dead. So show me the evidence how it,s plausible . That at the time of Crusification that some could of survived .With those injuries.
Safehands wrote: » Are you serious Ken? You are asking me for evidence to show that it is more plausible that he didn't actually die than he died and came back from the dead? And there are actual medical or other records of people coming back from the dead?
Ken bryan wrote: » I suspect that it is more likely that he was not actually dead when he was taken down off the cross. His followers took him and treated him his wounds and as soon as he was well enough they moved him. Let assume you are Right . Give evidence to should how you point may be plausible. Ps they pierced his side to make sure he was dead . Yet you assume / suspect different
Ken bryan wrote: » As there is no recorded event of anyone ever recovering from such a loss of blood. At the time of the crucification
Ken bryan wrote: » On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that?
Safehands wrote: » On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that?
Ken bryan wrote: » On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that? Eucharistic miracles are Miracles of Jesus . Miracle of Buenos Aires is one of many . I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that? Yes I can that . But for me . It like this . The Spirit is the Father . The Son Is the Mortal human God. ie Jesus Now the Sprit is immortal and has more power . Thus can control the mortal one . This is how Jesus rose himself from the dead . When He died . He received the immortal power of heaven . Thus could rise himself from death . More importantly it signifies his power over Satan . As Satan could no longer inflict mortal suffering upon Christ. Christ suffering on the cross was a sign of love , But his resurrection was sign of Victory . As Satan could not keep him dead .
tommy2bad wrote: » simplistic? So you don't read the bible literally, good start.
tommy2bad wrote: » If they are not true then they are lies so not that positive. I think you are confusing facts with truths.
tommy2bad wrote: » influence of other religions? like maybe Judaism or Zoroastrianism or other middle eastern religions or Confucius or one of the Hindu religions? I dunno, I think it's more likely that our common humanity inspires most religions, the rest is that wisdom expressed through the cultural influences of the region.
Safehands wrote: » Fair question, but too simplistic. I don't think we need to believe every word to be influenced by it. To 'leave it' would be to ignore a lot of positives, even if they are not all completely true. A lot of the stories are common to loads of religions, not just Christianity. It seems quite obvious that there was influences from other religions.
tommy2bad wrote: » I can understand that. What confuses me is that you then try to understand this story from modern viewpoint, i.e. you accept the bits that you think could happen and dismiss the bits that you think couldn't happen. Which is fair enough if you left it at that, but you go on to surmise that something else happened, something for which their is no written record or reference to. It's speculation at best. Wouldn't it make more sense to view the story from the point of view it was written from? then take or leave it.
antiskeptic wrote: » Picking and choosing on the basis of personal incredulity doesn't strike me as an appropriate approach.
antiskeptic wrote: » Have you any difficulty with the notion of the whole show coming about out of nothing.
Safehands wrote: » Its quite easy really. For example, I have no problem believing that Jesus Christ lived around 2000 years ago. No problem believing that he preached and showed us a good way to live life. On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself. Can you understand that?
antiskeptic wrote: » It's curious that you chose to accept some aspects of the gospel accounts as true but chose to doubt other aspects. How is it that you decide which is true and false given that there isn't any way to establish the likelihood of any of it being either true or false?
Safehands wrote: » Evidence is not a word I would bandy about when talking about matters which involve faith.
Think about it though. Which is more likely, that he died and was taken down and buried and then he suddenly came back to life, or that he didn't actually die and that his friends looked after him and moved him after three days when he was able to be moved? If they had done that they certainly would keep it quiet. To admit such a conspiracy would have meant certain death for themselves. Plus, the resurrection story is very powerful. It would certainly suit their cause. People in those days were very superstitious, uneducated and gullible. They would most certainly believe that a resurrection had taken place. After all the body was gone, and he did show up sometime later with scars in his hands. Even without his friends saying anything people would draw their own conclusions, that he had died and had come back to life. It gives his teachings more weight.
georgieporgy wrote: » If you spend a little more time on boards.ie you will soon realise that it's the people in our day that are superstitious, uneducated and gullible.
Safehands wrote: » Evidence is not a word I would bandy about when talking about matters which involve faith. Think about it though. Which is more likely, that he died and was taken down and buried and then he suddenly came back to life, or that he didn't actually die and that his friends looked after him and moved him after three days when he was able to be moved? If they had done that they certainly would keep it quiet. To admit such a conspiracy would have meant certain death for themselves. Plus, the resurrection story is very powerful. It would certainly suit their cause. People in those days were very superstitious, uneducated and gullible. They would most certainly believe that a resurrection had taken place. After all the body was gone, and he did show up sometime later with scars in his hands. Even without his friends saying anything people would draw their own conclusions, that he had died and had come back to life. It gives his teachings more weight.
tommy2bad wrote: » The problem with that idea is that it has no supporting evidence, it's an argument from silence. Yes it possible but why would they claim that he rose from the dead? Wouldn't this just annoy the people who wanted him gone in the first place. Having people go round saying that you resurrected is a bad idea when your on the lamb. In fact it ended badly for the ones telling this version of events anyway. Why not just keep preaching the message and claiming an injustice had been done to Jesus.? A posthumous pardon campaign would have bee more likely if he had died and stayed dead. Keeping stum would be the best option if the death had been faked! Unless the whole risen from the dead thing was a borrowed motif that was never meant to be taken literally but that is not what they claimed or stood by even to the point of their own deaths.
Safehands wrote: » If Jesus was God, then there could be no doubt about it, he would have known what was coming down the line for him and he would have been able to live with the pain far easier. Nobody can be sure. We speculate, based on the stories in the bible, about what he felt, what he knew at what age or what he meant in some of his speeches. If he was a man, with special powers or gifts, then he most certainly would have suffered on the cross. But isn't it very believable and much more possible, as speculated in an article I saw recently, to think that he did not actually die on the cross. It has been suggested that he was taken down after three hours or so by his supporters. Isn't it possible that they took him away and treated him. In that scenario, he would not have died and risen from the dead, but he would still have been Jesus Christ. His teachings would still be totally valid. It would remove a lot of speculation about whether he was actually God or not, he was still a very remarkable man. Did he ever claim to be God in an unambiguous way?
georgieporgy wrote: » Are you suggesting then that he didn't die and rise from the dead, even though he knew he would actually die and rise again from the dead?
Safehands wrote: » He knew who he was if you read the account of the wedding feast at Cana. He told his mother that his time had not yet come. She knew too. He knew he had these powers. We are told that he also knew that he was going to rise in three days. There is no doubt about it, if you read the accounts and believe them, he knew he was different.
Safehands wrote: » He knew who he was if you read the account of the wedding feast at Cana. He told his mother that his time had not yet come. She knew too. He knew he had these powers. We are told that he also knew that he was going to rise in three days. There is no doubt about it, if you read the accounts and believe them, he knew he was different. I suspect that it is more likely that he was not actually dead when he was taken down off the cross. His followers took him and treated him his wounds and as soon as he was well enough they moved him.
tommy2bad wrote: » Why? It's possible that Jesus became aware of his divine nature in stages, in fact it fits the gospels better than the idea that He knew from the moment of his birth. And yes it's just as possible that he was a deluded madman, that fits the accounts too. Theirs the whole resurrection thing but we can assume that was a mass delusion by grieving followers who couldn't accept that their messiah was just a fool who died for nothing leaving them with egg on their faces.
