Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Willum]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Why does no one seem to understand, that if 90% of your arguments are because of faulty translations, that the subject matter is bunk.

And WHY, do modern folks, with no understanding of Hebrew, Greek or Latin, seem to think that their versions of those languages are better than people who spoke them?

Believe it or not, you can't translate word for word, and people who do know this, know that you need to use different words to get the proper meaning across.

Brilliant to save the religion, terrible in the face of religion.

[polonius]

Luke 24: 13 Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, ….

Luke 24: So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem….

Luke 24:35 Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way…

Luke 24:36 While they were still speaking about this….

Luke 24: 38 Then he said to them, …

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds…

Luke 24: Then he led them [out] as far as Bethany,
(NB Bethany is 1.5 miles east of Jerusalem on slope of the Mount of Olives.)

Luke 23: 51 As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven.

NOTES:
1. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Simple Definition of THEN
“ at that time : at the time mentioned�

2. Note especially that the word "then" does not mean 40 days later

3. And regarding the report is some other Gospels that Jesus and the Apostles traveled 3.5 days to Galilee:

Luke 24:39 And [behold] I am sending the promise of my Father* upon you; but stay in the city (NB Jerusalem) until you are clothed with power from on high.�

In my version, verse 50 doesn't include the word "then". It said "when".

As Goose brilliantly suggested, look at the Greek translation. There is no tote, which is "then" in English. It starts off with Ἐξήγαγε, which means lead away.

http://biblehub.com/goc/luke/24.htm

RESPONSE:


Of course, the Greek translation being used was not identified.

"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament."

(Re: Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.
(Re https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence


Lets use common sense. "When" or "then" matched up with the sequence of events given in Luke 24 is the next thing happening. In this case the Ascension. Not the 40 day wait.

But I realize some fundamentalists try to avoid the obvious contradiction between the same day events in Jerusalem and the 40 day later events involving the 7 day round trip to Galilee.. But by all means, pick the story you like best!

[Claire Evans]

CE,

Sorry for the very late response. Been very busy. Hope all is well.

I'm good, thanks and you?

Since you have conceded that those emotions existed while you still believed, then there were barriers.

There were no doubts for many years beforehand. I can’t make this any more clear.

Then how did the doubts creep in while you were a believer? Having no doubt that God exists because you were taught that, is very different to really having no doubt in Jesus separate from what they are taught. In other words, not doubting a Lord they know exists. With the latter, no one can doubt the existence of God.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

But this is pure guesswork on your part. You have no reason (other than a preconceived answer) to suppose this.

Once again, you MUST discount what I am telling you. You believe me when my words suit you, but when they don’t, suddenly my honesty is suspect.

There is only one person in this conversation with a bias for a preconceived idea.

You.

If you didn't want scientific proof, then why was just not believing in the Holy Spirit not good enough for you then? You wanted, from what I gather, proof that is tangible.

It is not a question of wanting. It is a question of believability. It is a question of conflicting information.

It isn’t like one day I learned one bit of information and whammo! No more belief.

You wanted things to be believable so it could conveniently make you not doubt.

No. You simply aren’t getting it, perhaps intentionally. So I am beginning to wonder why I bother.

I am simply commenting and observing that any such divine revelation, message or inspiration would have prevented me from leaving the faith once my doubts arose. Period.

Yet if you require this, then everyone has a right to demand this. You must admit ego is involved if you think you are entitled to a divine revelation. Ego is the biggest barrier between God and a person.

What can of conflicting information are you talking about? Since when do contradictions negate everything in the Bible? Surely, learning about other pagan flood stories does negate the story of Noah being true.

No, but massive amounts of scientific data can do that job nicely.

I meant Jesus, not Noah.

However, is there anything that can prove that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist?

Wrong question. The correct question is: is there any proof that the holy spirit exists?

Is there anything that can prove that Mohammad didn’t fly to heaven on a winged horse?

It depends on how one seeks for proof. If one is looking for tangible proof, then one mustn't waste their time.

I can’t (no one can, I would argue) just believe something when I really don’t. That would just be pretending, and wouldn’t fool god, would it?

Absolutely, but do you really want to consider that you may be wrong?

I have already considered it. That decision has long since been made. Can you consider that you may be wrong?

Since this discussion is separate from the debate, I will say resolutely that I am not. Can your mind still be changed now?

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic

You do recognize that the RCC is made up of people, who claim to be Roman Catholic, lol. Right?

The RCC, as in the Vatican, are made up of Satan worshipers that go out to deceive innocent Catholics. When I say the US is invading Syria, I don't mean all Americas are invading Syria.

To believe in Jesus, that sin is bad, the devil is bad and that Christ was the son of god. That was the message I rec’d from the RCC.

Did they succeed or fail?

Didn't the RCC succeed in making you feel fearful and guilty? Those emotions that Jesus said we shouldn't have?

All religion does this, imo.

But I noticed you dodged my point. If the RCC was some subversive satanic organization, why would the message I receive be the same one you did in your faith?

Not very satanic in practice, is it?

True Satanists don't come with pitchforks metaphorically. They can appear as philanthropists, charity workers, etc. Satan appears in the name of love. How else do you fool the world? If the Vatican didn't preach the gospel of Christ, then how much power would they have other the world?

However, the RCC manages to sneak in little Satanic references mostly unnoticed.

Things that it teaches and things they really believe can be two different things

Well then, you have a dilemma then. If it isn’t teaching satanic messages – messages contrary to the teachings of Jesus, then why bother at all?

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

No, he is making the point that anything can be misinterpreted. The Quran. The bible.

Do you doubt that people do horrible things in the name of Christianity?

No, he is saying that Islam makes disciples of Muslims like ISIS who kill.

No. You are wrong. Your interpretation is only correct if you ignore the words “it is also possible�.

Why is he even saying possible?

Did Jesus have disciples who coerced others to convert by threatening with death?

Yes, people have done horrible things in Christianity but is it what Jesus espoused?

Not the point. He is saying that Matthew’s Gospel could be interpreted a different way. Doesn’t mean that he agrees with it. That is you reading into this quote something that is not there.

How could it possibly be interpreted that way? Surely no Muslim believes that followers of Jesus, like the apostles, threatened non believers with death? It isn't even in the Bible so how Muslims misinterpret it?

Now let's say, hypothetically, that is St Peter's cross. Why are people praying to him and not Jesus?

Holy Toledo. Catholics believe that it is ok to pray to saints. It doesn’t mean they don’t pray to Jesus.

I thought it when people go to church, they sign themselves with the cross honouring Jesus? They don't believe it's Peter! In the Bible, there is absolutely no way it condones praying to anyone but Jesus.

Your opinion is noted. Are those saints and other good “souls� not in heaven? Is Christ not the vine, and we not the branches? Aren’t we all connected through god and especially in heaven?

That doesn't mean they are mediums. That is not in the Bible.

Each faith has its own interpretation of how this fictitious afterlife works. IMO, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism nor Satanism gets it more right than any other.

Since Christianity and Satanism are diametrically opposed, one has to be more right/wrong than the other.

Do you believe in angels? Nothing about this is satanic. You can argue that it is not “true� Christianity if you want (a charge that Catholics can level at you as well) but neither is satanic.

Silly.

You mean, you don't believe it is Satanic.

Just as you don’t believe Catholicism is a legitimate form of Christianity, I suppose.

I do not know what is so hard to understand about the meaning of an inverted cross.

I do not know what is so hard to understand about the historical design of the Pastoral Cross.

Satanists do not despise Peter.

Neither do Catholics. Good thing we cleared that up.

Everything that is good is inverted. Therefore upside crosses. It is not Peter that is the threat. They don't have Satanic ceremonies denigrating Peter.

And there is the bent cross.

Correction, it is the pastoral staff (signifies the shepherd of the universal church).

So what if it is a staff? That is what they say it means.

Typical conspiratorial response. “I don’t believe you�.

It's not a conspiracy when it is backed up by evidence.

Are they going to tell you it's Satanic?

Are you going to admit that your version of Christianity is bigoted, biased and conspiratorial. Careful! If you say it is not, I now get to say I don’t believe you. Lol.

You can disregard the evidence. I can't make you accept it.

It is a blasphemous depiction of Jesus' crucifixion. In fact, it was considered so blasphemous that is was banned by the Church in 1921. Pope Francis brought it back.

Link: http: http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.c ... _5011.html (if you really are interested in knowing the ACTUAL origin of the various crosses)

It actually does not help your case to cite a Catholic source.

As it does not help your case to source conspiratorial websites.

Unless they provide hard evidence to back up their "conspiracies".

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status

See what you did there? You ignored what I said in favor (once again) of your bias. I never said she was elevated to god status.

Then there is a lot you don't know about Catholicism.

Says the non-Catholic to the Catholic, lol. Funny.

Says the non Catholic to a self-confessed indoctrinated Catholic.

Glad you played this card. Let’s make this more accurate now shall we?

I am an ex-Catholic who has absolutely no, zero, nada motivation to defend Catholicism. I already believe it is a bunch of mystical nonsense. More so than many other faiths. And for more clarification, I was indoctrinated, but have long since shed the blinders of such a nonsensical mystical upbringing. That allows me to now look back at my past faith and religiosity with an unbiased eye. If I thought for one second you could or have presented proof that the RCC was a bunch of pagan devil worshippers, I would gather such evidence and present it to my family and show them how they have all been deceived.

But you haven’t. Because you can’t. Darn. I wish you could, lol.

You are defending Catholicism. That's what you have been doing this whole time. You may disregard the teachings as false but there is no way you would consider it being Satanic. I think that would be too much for you to bear.

As an ex-Catholic, you would never admit there is Satanism in the church because as I say, once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Sigh. Wrong yet again. I would love to find such evidence. Once again, you claim to know me, better than me. Your powers of omniscience are truly staggering.

I don't need to know you. I just need to see someone is denial in the face of hard evidence.

Even most ex Catholics will never find fault with the RCC.

Then explain my previous (many many many) posts finding fault with the Catholicism and the RCC?

I said most.

No, I'm not. Isis is a moon goddess.

I’m done debunking your crazy claims, CE. It is getting way too tedious. It must be very comforting to know more about Catholics then Catholics. More about the personal beliefs of atheists then they do. And, more about god, Christ and religion than everyone who disagrees with you.

Truly, you are favored by god.

I'm afraid that is a cop out for someone who has been refuted and won't admit it.

It can only be a cop out if my stance was shown to be untrue. It hasn’t. In fact, you have claimed to know more about me then me, and more about Catholics then Catholics so many times, the phrase ad nauseum is almost cliché at this point.

Have you ever been an atheist? Have you ever been a Catholic? Have you studied Catholicism in any way shape or form?

Hardly a cop out. Your humility on this subject is non-existent.

Please explain to me why Mary is associated with the moon like Isis is?

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

A lot of things wrong here. I dismissed the idea of a personal god after much reflection, education and logical thought. It most certainly was not a simple hand-waving dismissal. There was nothing easy about it.

And sometimes what seems wrong or illogical is indeed wrong and/or illogical.

So you assumed that logic somehow negates the supernatural? They are separate things. If the disciples had only logic to depend on, they would not have been followers of Jesus.

Do you believe all the claims of supernatural events from other religions?

I think it is possible.

Then how could you possibly know from which god these supernatural events can be correctly attributed? Also, consider I have never experienced such an event, so, I have only 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge to believe such things ever happened.

Didn't mean all belief claims are possibly true. I believe Mohammed could have been in contact with supernatural demons, or extraterrestrials, that could be the basis of the Koran. The devil could have posed as Allah. Allah could have been with aliens with supernatural abilities. Don't believe the claims that he is the one true God.


"In an interview, Prince Badr revealed that Saudi Arabia is making rapid progress on a moonship. “We hired the very best Arabian engineers,� he said with a broad smile. “Many of them had been working for American spacecraft builders, and they knew many American secrets.�

When asked why Saudi Arabia needed a space program, he said, “We are indebted to the American Department of Homeland Security for discovering that when Mohammed undertook his famous Night Journey as described in Surah 17:1*, that “greatest and most distant mosque� which he visited to meet with Allah and receive his instruction was actually on the Moon. However, the Americans are planning to return to the Moon, this time to invade Allah’s own mosque.�

So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened.

http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2014/07/is ... om-easton/

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate.

It does when you deny a measure of happiness for others for that which you want for yourself.

Sometimes what makes a person happy doesn't mean it is necessarily good for them.

And the circular logic is complete. Who decides this CE? You? It is the height of arrogance to deny someone happiness for which you want for yourself. Especially when you can be no more certain of your faith and its accuracy than any other religious person.

It all depends on the viewpoint but my viewpoint does not decide whether homosexuals get married or not. Therefore I'm not denying anyone happiness.

Good to know that you disagree wit the bible on some things, lol.

I don't agree with homosexual marriage in a church. A court, yes, but not a church.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me?

No, he wouldn’t, because he knows all and knows that I was a believer, without doubts at one time. Despite the fact the CE doesn’t believe me, lol.

Or maybe you were indoctrinated.

If you are the same religion now as when your parents raised you, then you were indoctrinated too, lol.

That's not necessarily so. Some may be blessed to know the true God. They just happened to have the right belief.

But then it would still be true (that you were indoctrinated), regardless of it being the “right� faith or not.

You were indoctrinated, just like every other Catholic, by your own admission.

If you assert it is a flaw for Catholics, it is then a flaw for you.

At seven I always knew God existed. I felt a presence which had nothing to do with indoctrination. I just feel blessed that I happened to be born into a religion that enabled me to know God.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

Because I had the foundations; the roots planted deeply.

In other words, YOU were indoctrinated?

I knew you were going to say that. What I meant was that I also knew God existed from very young.

As did I.

You mean you believed God existed. If you really knew, you wouldn't have abandoned your faith.

I just felt a presence. I have a measure of ESP and therefore am far more susceptible to supernatural presences.

And thus ended this line of discussion, lol.

Sure.

[Clownboat]

Okay so you agree that contradictions in accounts are not indicative of non-historicity.

Contradictions 'can' indicate that at least two conflicting accounts cannot both be true. Contradictions however 'do not necessarily' mean an event is non history.
The actual argument is that resurrections are not something you can show are even possible. To expect the impossible is illogical IMO.

I have nothing to say here because you are knocking down a strawman.

It is not a straw man that you are comparing magical claims to things we know happen in reality. I understand why you do not want to address or acknowledge this.

I don’t need to defend an argument I’ve not made. I’m not comparing the claims themselves.

I'm not saying you are comparing claims themselves. You are however comparing a bodily resurrection (something that cannot be shown to even be possible) to something we know has happened many times in history.

You might as well be arguing that Smurfs are real because Pygmy's are real and feel like you are making a valid analogy.

What I’m doing is comparing the evidence. There’s a difference. And I hope you can finally understand that.

Help me understand that there is evidence for bodily resurrections.
I assume you are not interested in hearing evidence for Smurfs are you? Would you not first want to know that Smurfs are even a possibility?

Liquefied, decomposing internal organs cannot reanimate. Therefore resurrections on bodies that have been decomposing for 3 days are not possible.

That’s an argument for why you believe resurrections are not probable. That doesn’t itself establish a resurrection as illogical. The fact is, logically speaking, there is nothing illogical about a resurrection. It’s not like a resurrection is contradiction in terms. You can't logically argue a resurrection is impossible because your knowledge is finite. At most you can argue a resurrection is very unlikely.

How impressed are you when I use your own logic to claim that you cannot know that Smurfs are not real because your knowledge is finite?
Either way, unless you can show that my premise above is false, it seems to remain that resurrections are not possible. You'll need to do better than "you don't have infinite knowledge though".

Your analogy fails because you are comparing what is possible to what is not possible.

You misunderstand the argument.

Your analogy fails either way. It is also illogical because such thinking would lead us to conclude that Smurfs are possible because Pygmy's are real.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said you agree that contradictions are not necessarily indicative of non-historicity.

Derp. Read your own words you yourself typed. See the bold? If a story has two conflicting accounts, then we know for a fact that at least one of the stories cannot be history. However, having contradictions does NOT NECESSARILY indicate that both cannot be history. We are sure that at least one is false though.

Story A) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing a red shirt when he went up a hill for lunch.
Story B) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing an orange shirt when he went up a hill for lunch.
Jack going up the hill is not necessarily non history due to these contradictions.

Story A) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing a red shirt and he went up a hill for lunch.
Story B) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing a red shirt, but went to the mall for lunch.
These types of contradictions mean that at least one of these stories is non history.
I'm not sure if I can, or should have to explain this much clearer.

Yet here you seem to be arguing that contradictions are evidence that an event is unlikely to have occurred.

What part of 'unlikely' but 'not necessarily not history' are you having issues with?

Either contradictions between accounts are evidence of non-historicity or they are not. You can’t argue for both so which is it?

Two contradictory accounts of the same event is in fact evidence that at least one of the claims is not history. However, a story with some contradictions in it does not necessarily mean that the event is not history though. Do you understand the difference? If not, please read about Jack again above.

You don't think people reject the resurrection claims solely due to the contradictions in the account do you?

Others in this thread have argued this way.

At this time I assume you might just be mistaking their argument like you have done with mine.

What I am arguing is that the presence of contradictions among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non-historicity.

To the bold. Why do you keep bringing this up? No one here ever said anything contrary to this that I'm aware of.

Er, you just did above.

Readers, please determine for yourself if you think Goose is being truthful to claim that I say contradictions mean an event is non-history.

[Goose]

You say this:

It is not a straw man that you are comparing magical claims to things we know happen in reality.

Then you contradict yourself right after when you say this:

I'm not saying you are comparing claims themselves. You are however comparing a bodily resurrection (something that cannot be shown to even be possible) to something we know has happened many times in history.

Help me understand that there is evidence for bodily resurrections.

I presented my evidence way back on page 4 of this thread. No one seriously engaged and challenged it. Maybe you will?

I assume you are not interested in hearing evidence for Smurfs are you? Would you not first want to know that Smurfs are even a possibility?

Feel free to present your evidence. I don’t mind.

How impressed are you when I use your own logic to claim that you cannot know that Smurfs are not real because your knowledge is finite?

You are correct. I do not have knowledge that Smurfs are not real. Neither do you.

Either way, unless you can show that my premise above is false, it seems to remain that resurrections are not possible. You'll need to do better than "you don't have infinite knowledge though".

You need to do better than argue in a circle if you wish to show a resurrection is impossible or illogical.

Your analogy fails either way. It is also illogical because such thinking would lead us to conclude that Smurfs are possible because Pygmy's are real.

Here you demonstrate how you misunderstand the argument and misrepresent it. I’m not arguing the resurrection happened because the assassination happened. What I am arguing is that contradictions do not suggest non-historicity. How many more times must I explain this?

Story A) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing a red shirt when he went up a hill for lunch.
Story B) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing an orange shirt when he went up a hill for lunch.
Jack going up the hill is not necessarily non history due to these contradictions.

Right. We expect some discrepancies in the secondary details.

Story A) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing a red shirt and he went up a hill for lunch.
Story B) Oct 26th, Jack was wearing a red shirt, but went to the mall for lunch.
These types of contradictions mean that at least one of these stories is non history.

Whoo. Talk about a classic non-sequitur. The mall may be atop of a hill. If that’s the case both accounts are correct, just reported differently.

So let’s apply your methodology to Caesar’s assassination as a historical case example.

Here is the short list of the inconsistencies between the accounts of Caesar’s assassination given by Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius:

• 1. Which senators were involved.
  2. How many senators were involved (Nicolas says 80!).
  3. What Caesar said when Tillius Cimber came at him.
  4. Where on Caesar’s body the first blow landed.
  5. Whether Caesar spoke at the first blow or not.
  6. Who made the first blow.
  7. Whether Caesar stood to defend himself.
  8. Caesar’s last words.
  9. The number of stab wounds, 23 or 35.
  10. Which wound actually killed him.
  11. Where Caesar finally died.
  12. What Caesar said to Brutus.
  13. Whether Caesar was stabbed in the groin or thigh by Brutus.
  14. What happened to Caesar’s body immediately after his death.

Tell me which accounts are non-history.

[polonius]

Goose posted:

Here is the short list of the inconsistencies between the accounts of Caesar’s assassination given by Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius:

1. Which senators were involved.
2. How many senators were involved (Nicolas says 80!).
3. What Caesar said when Tillius Cimber came at him.
4. Where on Caesar’s body the first blow landed.
5. Whether Caesar spoke at the first blow or not.
6. Who made the first blow.
7. Whether Caesar stood to defend himself.
8. Caesar’s last words.
9. The number of stab wounds, 23 or 35.
10. Which wound actually killed him.
11. Where Caesar finally died.
12. What Caesar said to Brutus.
13. Whether Caesar was stabbed in the groin or thigh by Brutus.
14. What happened to Caesar’s body immediately after his death.
Tell me which accounts are non-history.

RESPONSE: For those who are reality oriented, the historical issue would be was Caesar assassinated or not?

And regarding the Resurrection and Ascension, was Jesus resurrected and did he ascend to heaven or not.

[KenRU]

Then how did the doubts creep in while you were a believer? Having no doubt that God exists because you were taught that, is very different to really having no doubt in Jesus separate from what they are taught. In other words, not doubting a Lord they know exists. With the latter, no one can doubt the existence of God.

As stated in previous posts, doubts crept in the more I became educated and the better a critical thinker I became.

The point, once again, is that miracles (of all kinds) are a very effective means of retaining believers. God knew this and did it all the time in the OT.

Yet if you require this, then everyone has a right to demand this. You must admit ego is involved if you think you are entitled to a divine revelation. Ego is the biggest barrier between God and a person.

I required, expected and asked for nothing. I am making an observation now, on my experience then. Why is this hard for you to grasp?

I gave god no ultimatum.

However, is there anything that can prove that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist?

Wrong question. The correct question is: is there any proof that the holy spirit exists?

Is there anything that can prove that Mohammad didn’t fly to heaven on a winged horse?

It depends on how one seeks for proof. If one is looking for tangible proof, then one mustn't waste their time.

What non-tangible proof would you seek that the story of Mohammad is true?

The Quran is “supposedly� a flawless work of art that modern man is “supposedly� unable to duplicate.

Is that sufficient proof to you that Islam is true?

Since this discussion is separate from the debate, I will say resolutely that I am not. Can your mind still be changed now?

My mind is always open to new evidence (or at least I try to be). This allows me to make the best decisions possible. Holding on to a belief of any sort despite evidence showing me how wrong I am would be foolish.

Can you say the same?

True Satanists don't come with pitchforks metaphorically. They can appear as philanthropists, charity workers, etc. Satan appears in the name of love. How else do you fool the world? If the Vatican didn't preach the gospel of Christ, then how much power would they have other the world?

However, the RCC manages to sneak in little Satanic references mostly unnoticed.

I’m hoping you reread your own paragraph above and notice how ineffective you have painted these satanic RCC leaders.

Something so incompetent is hardly worth any amount of concern. The “Satanic� RCC drives people into the arms of Jesus and God.

Oh the horror! Lol.

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

No, he is making the point that anything can be misinterpreted. The Quran. The bible.

Do you doubt that people do horrible things in the name of Christianity?

No, he is saying that Islam makes disciples of Muslims like ISIS who kill.

No. You are wrong. Your interpretation is only correct if you ignore the words “it is also possible�.

Why is he even saying possible?

He is being civil and kind, allowing that another interpretation is possible. Possible does not imply consent or agreement.

Did Jesus have disciples who coerced others to convert by threatening with death?

Yes, people have done horrible things in Christianity but is it what Jesus espoused?

Not the point. He is saying that Matthew’s Gospel could be interpreted a different way. Doesn’t mean that he agrees with it. That is you reading into this quote something that is not there.

How could it possibly be interpreted that way? Surely no Muslim believes that followers of Jesus, like the apostles, threatened non believers with death? It isn't even in the Bible so how Muslims misinterpret it?

Holy Toledo, you have this so bass-ackwards.

He is likening ISIS to things like the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials – all Christian based atrocities. Their inspiration is indeed found within the bible.

Acknowledging that passages in the bible can be interpreted to be violent, doesn’t mean you agree that the interpretation is valid.

Stop having your answers before you know the questions. It causes you all kinds of problems.

I find it leaves a sour taste in my mouth that I am defending Catholicism. But I don’t like it when blame is wrongly assigned, to anyone.

That doesn't mean they are mediums. That is not in the Bible.

The blame it on wishful thinking. Satanism makes no sense.

I found it comforting to know I could pray to saints when I was a kid. God and Jesus were pretty busy dudes, so I was told.

Each faith has its own interpretation of how this fictitious afterlife works. IMO, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism nor Satanism gets it more right than any other.

Since Christianity and Satanism are diametrically opposed, one has to be more right/wrong than the other.

You presume there is an afterlife. I don’t, so they are all equally wrong, from my perspective.

Do you believe in angels? Nothing about this is satanic. You can argue that it is not “true� Christianity if you want (a charge that Catholics can level at you as well) but neither is satanic.

Silly.

You mean, you don't believe it is Satanic.

Just as you don’t believe Catholicism is a legitimate form of Christianity, I suppose.

Well, me, and the dictionaries, the federal government, the encyclopedias, state governments, other denominations, and other religions.

You have … what? Conspiracy websites?

And there is the bent cross.

Correction, it is the pastoral staff (signifies the shepherd of the universal church).

So what if it is a staff? That is what they say it means.

Typical conspiratorial response. “I don’t believe you�.

It's not a conspiracy when it is backed up by evidence.

No, you are backing it up with specific confirmation-bias evidence.

Find a non-conspiratorial website that agrees with you. Then we can talk.

Are they going to tell you it's Satanic?

Are you going to admit that your version of Christianity is bigoted, biased and conspiratorial. Careful! If you say it is not, I now get to say I don’t believe you. Lol.

You can disregard the evidence. I can't make you accept it.

I don’t accept evidence that is biased, correct. The logic you used can be equally applied to your argument, and if it disqualifies the RCC position, then it should (if you are consistent) disqualify your own.

That should tell you something about your position.

It is a blasphemous depiction of Jesus' crucifixion. In fact, it was considered so blasphemous that is was banned by the Church in 1921. Pope Francis brought it back.

Link: http: http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.c ... _5011.html (if you really are interested in knowing the ACTUAL origin of the various crosses)

It actually does not help your case to cite a Catholic source.

As it does not help your case to source conspiratorial websites.

Unless they provide hard evidence to back up their "conspiracies".

Correct. Let me know when that happens.

You are defending Catholicism. That's what you have been doing this whole time. You may disregard the teachings as false but there is no way you would consider it being Satanic. I think that would be too much for you to bear.

Lol, once again, you presume to know me better than me. When will you realize that this is a reply made in desperation? In order for your reasoning to be sound, I MUST be in denial, or lying.

You are wrong, it would not be too much for me to bear. I have no interest whatsoever in validating Catholicism. In fact, my wife and I (a Jew) had a secular wedding.

I did not receive the Sacrament of marriage, which is a big deal to Catholics, such is my lack of consideration for RCC beliefs.

As I stated above, I am correcting errors. You are making a lot of them, after all.

As an ex-Catholic, you would never admit there is Satanism in the church because as I say, once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Sigh. Wrong yet again. I would love to find such evidence. Once again, you claim to know me, better than me. Your powers of omniscience are truly staggering.

I don't need to know you. I just need to see someone is denial in the face of hard evidence.

Produce hard evidence, then. Please don’t use biased sources.

Even most ex Catholics will never find fault with the RCC.

Then explain my previous (many many many) posts finding fault with the Catholicism and the RCC?

I said most.

Then, perhaps this is a compliment? I am not like most ex-Catholics? Lol.

Regardless, you still have to account for why I am persistent in telling you that you are wrong.

Please explain to me why Mary is associated with the moon like Isis is?

Because many religions, especially Christianity, borrow from older religions. Similarities are not only common, they should be expected.

I don't agree with homosexual marriage in a church. A court, yes, but not a church.

I am happy to hear this.

At seven I always knew God existed. I felt a presence which had nothing to do with indoctrination. I just feel blessed that I happened to be born into a religion that enabled me to know God.

People of all faiths can claim this to be true. And each one would be indoctrinated. Including the Catholics.

If you find this a flaw for them, it is a flaw for you. You can’t escape your own logic.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

Because I had the foundations; the roots planted deeply.

In other words, YOU were indoctrinated?

I knew you were going to say that. What I meant was that I also knew God existed from very young.

As did I.

You mean you believed God existed.

No, knew. I had no doubts … then. You are worng.

If you really knew, you wouldn't have abandoned your faith.

I know you must cling to this thought, in order for your world to make sense. But I am telling you that you are wrong. I did know (then) that there was a god. I had no doubts.

Believe me or not. Your call.

-all the best,

[Goose]

Goose posted:

Here is the short list of the inconsistencies between the accounts of Caesar’s assassination given by Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius:

1. Which senators were involved.
2. How many senators were involved (Nicolas says 80!).
3. What Caesar said when Tillius Cimber came at him.
4. Where on Caesar’s body the first blow landed.
5. Whether Caesar spoke at the first blow or not.
6. Who made the first blow.
7. Whether Caesar stood to defend himself.
8. Caesar’s last words.
9. The number of stab wounds, 23 or 35.
10. Which wound actually killed him.
11. Where Caesar finally died.
12. What Caesar said to Brutus.
13. Whether Caesar was stabbed in the groin or thigh by Brutus.
14. What happened to Caesar’s body immediately after his death.
Tell me which accounts are non-history.

RESPONSE: For those who are reality oriented, the historical issue would be was Caesar assassinated or not?

Okay, so despite all the contradictions was he assassinated?

[polonius]

Goose posted:

Here is the short list of the inconsistencies between the accounts of Caesar’s assassination given by Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius:

1. Which senators were involved.
2. How many senators were involved (Nicolas says 80!).
3. What Caesar said when Tillius Cimber came at him.
4. Where on Caesar’s body the first blow landed.
5. Whether Caesar spoke at the first blow or not.
6. Who made the first blow.
7. Whether Caesar stood to defend himself.
8. Caesar’s last words.
9. The number of stab wounds, 23 or 35.
10. Which wound actually killed him.
11. Where Caesar finally died.
12. What Caesar said to Brutus.
13. Whether Caesar was stabbed in the groin or thigh by Brutus.
14. What happened to Caesar’s body immediately after his death.
Tell me which accounts are non-history.

RESPONSE: For those who are reality oriented, the historical issue would be was Caesar assassinated or not?

Okay, so despite all the contradictions was he assassinated?

RESPONSE: Yep! That is the clear from the majority of historical evidence. Do you have any credible historical evidence to the contrary?

[JLB32168]

Yep! That is the clear from the majority of historical evidence. Do you have any credible historical evidence to the contrary?

In other words, contradictions aren't what moves you to reject the Resurrection. It's just a smoke screen. What really moves you to reject the Resurrection is the rejection of the supernatural.

I'm glad we got to establish this.