Atheism truth, is nonexistent

[Tart]

Can we all just agree, right off the bat, that there is no amount of burden of proof atheism can bare to establish that it is accurate and correct? That atheism has no valid right to claim any truth claims about God, whether He does or does not exist, they simply cant make any determining claims of truth in the regard of Gods existence... And all the truth claims, and positive evidence rest on the side of Christianity (between atheism is Christianity that is)...

Can we just agree, there is no truth claims atheism can make?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by Tart]

Like for example I completely agree with Simon Greenland, expert in evidence, when he was quoted saying
"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."

Tart, why is it you quote Greenleaf yet again? This isn't the first time, and again, this isn't the first time that I've had to point out that this statement is ultimately empty, since neither you nor Greenleaf are actually telling us what these evidences supposedly are!
You're quoting Greenleaf as an argument from authority, but not establishing his authority, which in turn rests on what he claims to be evidence. So present to us what Greenleaf claimed to be evidence, or is that one quote all you have from Greenleaf?

Because The case marco is making is saying, "if they [God] did exist it is reasonable to expect very clear evidence for them."... He is not speicific about this.. Evidence for him alone? Evidence for everyone?

You'll have to talk to him about it, since he's speaking as an atheist, and not speaking for atheism (from what I see). Look at the title of this thread. It has the word atheism, but not atheist. So do you want to talk about atheism, or talk to specific atheists?

I assumed this would be meant for everyone

Atheists...heck humanity in general, is not a hive mind. Why do you treat atheists as one?

[FarWanderer]

simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Such an answer is only "simple" if you already believe the rest of Christianity and are just looking for a Jesus-shaped puzzle piece to complete the picture. It is not so hard to construct a fairly internally consistent work of fiction to guide you into such a frame of mind. Simply construct a narrative that requires a miracle and thereby "prove" it. A ready example is that of Matthew and the guards at the tomb.

---

In the genre of detective-mystery fiction, a common pattern is a so-called "locked room mystery". It is an event occurring inside a thoroughly locked room, where it would have been 'impossible' for anyone to have caused it. When I first read Matthew, the parallel was immediately apparent to me, that the guards to the tomb were a 'lock' to make the tomb 'impossible' to access (by natural means). In other words, the guards fit the profile of a narrative device better than they do a historical account.

Just follow the motives. The Pharisees and Priests have no real incentive to place guards at the tomb, because a body disappearing while unguarded is no miracle. However, the writer of Matthew does have an incentive to write guards into the story- to ensure that the only explanation for the vanishing corpse is a supernatural one.

But forcing these guards into the story has consequences. You yourself say:

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later?

Indeed, then why would anyone see a reason to place guards at the tomb? Well, I already provided the explanation of it being the writer who placed those guards there after the fact. Sooooooo........ now because writer Matthew has to have his guards, we have quite the awkward situation where apparently the Pharisees and Priests take Jesus's prediction of resurrection even more seriously than his own disciples do. :lol::lol:

And the problems don't stop there- the Pharisees' and Priests' reaction to the guards' report also makes no sense. Spreading lies about the disciples stealing the corpse should be obviously rather fruitless, being as they know Jesus can appear in public whenever he wants to. That is, unless they think they can stop him- but they make no such attempts to do so either, in spite of knowing where Jesus is supposed to be next.

The only way it fits is if the bad guys somehow predicted that Jesus would follow the inexplicable course of action that he supposedly did- of rising from the dead only to live as a rumor. In other words, it's more like the rather scripted behavior of villains filling a role in a cartoon than it is of real people in a real situation.

---

So, do you have a better explanation for the guards at the tomb than "It's made-up Christian propaganda"?

[Goat]

Claim God has never demonstrated his nature, in the context of the conversation, is saying God has never revealed himself. period.... That is what we are talking about.


What evidence or reasoning does anyone have to establish God has never revealed himself to anyone?

Let's look at the claim 'God has demonstrated his nature'. and 'God has revealed himself'.

Both those claims are done through testimony, either through the writing down of a book or verbally. NOw, there are people who believe that. But, let's propose an alternate hypothesis.

Those people who though God has revealed himself to them are mistaken. They are misinterpreting their experiences , emotions, etc etc, to be god, when their experience is either a natural phenomenon that isn't god, or is something that was en experience only within the brain that they misinterpreted due to social condition and personal desire.

People being fooled by their senses can be demonstrated all the time, for example with optical illusions. States that can mimic people thinking that 'god is revealed to them can be induced with magnetic pulses, and also drugs, showing it can be condition in the brain.

Can you falsify the thesis that people are just plain fooling themselves? How woudl you do it, and what evidence do you have?

Great question... So first of all, we should only believe in things that is supported by the evidence, or more accurately, we should only believe in things that are objectively true...

So if we accept the claim that people are hallucinating God, that should be an objective true statement. If it isnt true, then saying "its possible" is meaningless, just throwing mud in the water.

Now, on the basis of Christianity, this claim, that people hallucinated God, is not even a coherent explanation of the evidence... In Christianities case, perhaps the only way you could make this claim is claiming Paul hallucinated Jesus's resurrection, which many people have done so in the past. They say, Paul didnt have food or water (which is a distortion of the evidence in Acts 9, and id be happy to show why), therefor he hallucinated Jesus's Resurrection on the road to Damascus. Which they say is supported by the evidence because none of the other people with Paul could see this vision Paul had....

That is the only claimed hallucination I have seen against Christianity. But this doesnt make sense... Not only Paul saw Jesus's risen body, but a big list of people witnessed such things. And even more importantly, we have their reasoning God raised Christ from the dead. We have a coherent explanation for Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc, in the Epistles of the reasoning why they believed what they believe, and why they claimed Jesus was raised... It isnt just some random hallucination of some nonsensical delusion, it is explained by the witnesses and the prophets... And the explanation makes sense... The Resurrection of Christ was a piece of the puzzle that fell into place. A cornerstone of Christianity, that completed the picture by falling in place...

I dont even know how to make sense out of the idea people hallucinated God.. Can you?

Yes, yes I do. It is known as 'wishful thinking. You also have to look at the culture at the time, where the belief in God/Gods were rampant, low amounts of literacy, and the pressures of the occupancy of Israel by the Roman's at the time, it was something people could cling to for 'hope for the next world.

There is a thing called 'law of parsimony' that says the solution to a problem is often the simplest one. So, I can look at the belief in God, and then look at the alternative. The belief in a deity to bend the laws of the universe to accomplish miracles, and would require a whole bunch of assumptions that can not be shown to be true, or I can look at the quite often demonstrated principle' "People fool themselves" as an explanation. The 'people fool themselves' is much simpler than assuming a deity that can contradict my life experiences , or postulate a way to bend the laws of nature. I also have evidence of the former, and none of the later.

Ok, well Occam's Razor is not some kind of prove hypothesis, and many reject it as one... I wouldnt reject it or claim it is always true, just a suggestion... But that aside, i think the most reasonable, and simplest explanation of Christianity is Jesus is the Messiah... Its that simple....

Of course if you disagree, I am interested in you making sense out of Christianity, coherently.

If Jesus was not really the Messiah, everything crumbles away and nothing in Christianity makes sense... I dont even know how to make sense out of Christianity, objectively, if Jesus wasnt really the Messiah...

You are suggesting "people fool themselves", so are you suggesting Paul "fooled himself" (does that mean hallucinate or something?), and Peter fooled himself (hallucinated?), and so did John and James? And all the other witnesses?

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later? Or do you think the words in the Bible are lies? Some kind of untold conspiracy?

Why would Paul beleive in Jesus (assuming you are familiar with the evidence)? Paul had no wishful thinking Jesus was anything special... In fact he supported the killing, and imprisonment of anyone who believed in Christ... (or do you think those testifying so lied or something?).. To make Paul turn around, he would have had to come to realize he was wrong.. Terribly wrong... How would that be wwishful thinking (Or fooling himself?)?

Or the prophecies... We have dozens of prophets prophesying a Messiah to come... Why?... How is it Jesus could come fulfilling it?

In fact Judaism doesnt even make sense, without Christ... A "blood sacrifice for sin"? How bizarre... The "Passover" by the blood of the Lamb? The festival of the unleavened bread? Abraham sacrifice of his "only begotten"?

these are just bizarre examples, that have no reasonable explanation logically, until Christ came and made sense out of all this. Because he was the fulfillment of the prophecies, of the Law, of the Will of God. Destiny... The Bible is like 1/3, total, of prophecy.. 33%... But Why? "People fooling themselves"?

I just want a coherent answer for the evidence.. That makes sense of it.... certainly the most reasonable, and simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Im just trying to make sense of Christianity is all. Like a scholar seeking to make sense of the evidence... "they fooled themselves", would not pass for a freshman paper, right? That would be a gross generalization of the evidence, that doesnt work in its totality.... But "Jesus is the Messiah", does work... It is certainly the simplest answer we can get.

How do you make sense of the evidence? Im seeking a comprehensive answer, for all the evidence, and coherent...

Well, I don't see 'Jesus is the messiah' as the simplist answer. The Christian concept of the Messiah is much different than the Jewish concept, and it much much more complicated. The Christiain concept of 'Salvation' does not makes sense to me.

[Clownboat]

Can we all just agree, right off the bat, that there is no amount of burden of proof atheism can bare to establish that it is accurate and correct? That atheism has no valid right to claim any truth claims about God, whether He does or does not exist, they simply cant make any determining claims of truth in the regard of Gods existence... And all the truth claims, and positive evidence rest on the side of Christianity (between atheism is Christianity that is)...

Can we just agree, there is no truth claims atheism can make?

Not an atheist, but let me try...

It is true that a Christian believes that all religions are false, besides their own.
It is true that a Muslim believes that all religious are false, besides their own.

It is true that if you ask a Christian and a Muslim for a list of man made religions, that every single religion, even their own would make it on the list. Not a single religion would not be included in the man made list. Therefore, according to Christians and Muslims, there are no true religions.

What more needs to be known when it comes to religions?

[Tart]

simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Such an answer is only "simple" if you already believe the rest of Christianity and are just looking for a Jesus-shaped puzzle piece to complete the picture. It is not so hard to construct a fairly internally consistent work of fiction to guide you into such a frame of mind. Simply construct a narrative that requires a miracle and thereby "prove" it. A ready example is that of Matthew and the guards at the tomb.

---

In the genre of detective-mystery fiction, a common pattern is a so-called "locked room mystery". It is an event occurring inside a thoroughly locked room, where it would have been 'impossible' for anyone to have caused it. When I first read Matthew, the parallel was immediately apparent to me, that the guards to the tomb were a 'lock' to make the tomb 'impossible' to access (by natural means). In other words, the guards fit the profile of a narrative device better than they do a historical account.

Just follow the motives. The Pharisees and Priests have no real incentive to place guards at the tomb, because a body disappearing while unguarded is no miracle. However, the writer of Matthew does have an incentive to write guards into the story- to ensure that the only explanation for the vanishing corpse is a supernatural one.

But forcing these guards into the story has consequences. You yourself say:

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later?

Indeed, then why would anyone see a reason to place guards at the tomb? Well, I already provided the explanation of it being the writer who placed those guards there after the fact. Sooooooo........ now because writer Matthew has to have his guards, we have quite the awkward situation where apparently the Pharisees and Priests take Jesus's prediction of resurrection even more seriously than his own disciples do. :lol::lol:

And the problems don't stop there- the Pharisees' and Priests' reaction to the guards' report also makes no sense. Spreading lies about the disciples stealing the corpse should be obviously rather fruitless, being as they know Jesus can appear in public whenever he wants to. That is, unless they think they can stop him- but they make no such attempts to do so either, in spite of knowing where Jesus is supposed to be next.

The only way it fits is if the bad guys somehow predicted that Jesus would follow the inexplicable course of action that he supposedly did- of rising from the dead only to live as a rumor. In other words, it's more like the rather scripted behavior of villains filling a role in a cartoon than it is of real people in a real situation.

---

So, do you have a better explanation for the guards at the tomb than "It's made-up Christian propaganda"?

Ya, the Guards were placed at the tomb to stop the disciples from steeling the body... Just as it says... They werent there to stop the Resurrection from happening, that is impossible, and they didnt even believe in Jesus... The narrative in Matthew clearly says the Guards were put there to stop the disciples from steeling the body and deceiving us about the Resurrection...


So, why would that not be historical? You say this is a "lock and key" kind of fiction.. How do you know this is fiction?

Also, what do you think... Is the story of Jesus, historical, fiction, or part historical part fiction.. And where would you draw the line? How do you know?

[Tart]

Claim God has never demonstrated his nature, in the context of the conversation, is saying God has never revealed himself. period.... That is what we are talking about.


What evidence or reasoning does anyone have to establish God has never revealed himself to anyone?

Let's look at the claim 'God has demonstrated his nature'. and 'God has revealed himself'.

Both those claims are done through testimony, either through the writing down of a book or verbally. NOw, there are people who believe that. But, let's propose an alternate hypothesis.

Those people who though God has revealed himself to them are mistaken. They are misinterpreting their experiences , emotions, etc etc, to be god, when their experience is either a natural phenomenon that isn't god, or is something that was en experience only within the brain that they misinterpreted due to social condition and personal desire.

People being fooled by their senses can be demonstrated all the time, for example with optical illusions. States that can mimic people thinking that 'god is revealed to them can be induced with magnetic pulses, and also drugs, showing it can be condition in the brain.

Can you falsify the thesis that people are just plain fooling themselves? How woudl you do it, and what evidence do you have?

Great question... So first of all, we should only believe in things that is supported by the evidence, or more accurately, we should only believe in things that are objectively true...

So if we accept the claim that people are hallucinating God, that should be an objective true statement. If it isnt true, then saying "its possible" is meaningless, just throwing mud in the water.

Now, on the basis of Christianity, this claim, that people hallucinated God, is not even a coherent explanation of the evidence... In Christianities case, perhaps the only way you could make this claim is claiming Paul hallucinated Jesus's resurrection, which many people have done so in the past. They say, Paul didnt have food or water (which is a distortion of the evidence in Acts 9, and id be happy to show why), therefor he hallucinated Jesus's Resurrection on the road to Damascus. Which they say is supported by the evidence because none of the other people with Paul could see this vision Paul had....

That is the only claimed hallucination I have seen against Christianity. But this doesnt make sense... Not only Paul saw Jesus's risen body, but a big list of people witnessed such things. And even more importantly, we have their reasoning God raised Christ from the dead. We have a coherent explanation for Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc, in the Epistles of the reasoning why they believed what they believe, and why they claimed Jesus was raised... It isnt just some random hallucination of some nonsensical delusion, it is explained by the witnesses and the prophets... And the explanation makes sense... The Resurrection of Christ was a piece of the puzzle that fell into place. A cornerstone of Christianity, that completed the picture by falling in place...

I dont even know how to make sense out of the idea people hallucinated God.. Can you?

Yes, yes I do. It is known as 'wishful thinking. You also have to look at the culture at the time, where the belief in God/Gods were rampant, low amounts of literacy, and the pressures of the occupancy of Israel by the Roman's at the time, it was something people could cling to for 'hope for the next world.

There is a thing called 'law of parsimony' that says the solution to a problem is often the simplest one. So, I can look at the belief in God, and then look at the alternative. The belief in a deity to bend the laws of the universe to accomplish miracles, and would require a whole bunch of assumptions that can not be shown to be true, or I can look at the quite often demonstrated principle' "People fool themselves" as an explanation. The 'people fool themselves' is much simpler than assuming a deity that can contradict my life experiences , or postulate a way to bend the laws of nature. I also have evidence of the former, and none of the later.

Ok, well Occam's Razor is not some kind of prove hypothesis, and many reject it as one... I wouldnt reject it or claim it is always true, just a suggestion... But that aside, i think the most reasonable, and simplest explanation of Christianity is Jesus is the Messiah... Its that simple....

Of course if you disagree, I am interested in you making sense out of Christianity, coherently.

If Jesus was not really the Messiah, everything crumbles away and nothing in Christianity makes sense... I dont even know how to make sense out of Christianity, objectively, if Jesus wasnt really the Messiah...

You are suggesting "people fool themselves", so are you suggesting Paul "fooled himself" (does that mean hallucinate or something?), and Peter fooled himself (hallucinated?), and so did John and James? And all the other witnesses?

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later? Or do you think the words in the Bible are lies? Some kind of untold conspiracy?

Why would Paul beleive in Jesus (assuming you are familiar with the evidence)? Paul had no wishful thinking Jesus was anything special... In fact he supported the killing, and imprisonment of anyone who believed in Christ... (or do you think those testifying so lied or something?).. To make Paul turn around, he would have had to come to realize he was wrong.. Terribly wrong... How would that be wwishful thinking (Or fooling himself?)?

Or the prophecies... We have dozens of prophets prophesying a Messiah to come... Why?... How is it Jesus could come fulfilling it?

In fact Judaism doesnt even make sense, without Christ... A "blood sacrifice for sin"? How bizarre... The "Passover" by the blood of the Lamb? The festival of the unleavened bread? Abraham sacrifice of his "only begotten"?

these are just bizarre examples, that have no reasonable explanation logically, until Christ came and made sense out of all this. Because he was the fulfillment of the prophecies, of the Law, of the Will of God. Destiny... The Bible is like 1/3, total, of prophecy.. 33%... But Why? "People fooling themselves"?

I just want a coherent answer for the evidence.. That makes sense of it.... certainly the most reasonable, and simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Im just trying to make sense of Christianity is all. Like a scholar seeking to make sense of the evidence... "they fooled themselves", would not pass for a freshman paper, right? That would be a gross generalization of the evidence, that doesnt work in its totality.... But "Jesus is the Messiah", does work... It is certainly the simplest answer we can get.

How do you make sense of the evidence? Im seeking a comprehensive answer, for all the evidence, and coherent...

Well, I don't see 'Jesus is the messiah' as the simplist answer. The Christian concept of the Messiah is much different than the Jewish concept, and it much much more complicated. The Christiain concept of 'Salvation' does not makes sense to me.

Perhaps it doesnt make sense, becuase you dont want it to make sense....

"Jesus is the Messiah" give us an explanation for the scripture in all, as whole... All the prophets, the fulfillment of the law, the promises, the witnesses, dozens or scores of people and sources, are supported by this explanation... They all support each other, and support Jesus as the Messiah...

I would suggest people who dont agree with that, it is becuase they dont want to agree with it... Its very clearly, easily to see. The Bible has references from all over depicting this exact narrative. The people who disagree, are people who want to impose there beliefs, as not accepting Christ, on the evidence...

[Tart]

Can we all just agree, right off the bat, that there is no amount of burden of proof atheism can bare to establish that it is accurate and correct? That atheism has no valid right to claim any truth claims about God, whether He does or does not exist, they simply cant make any determining claims of truth in the regard of Gods existence... And all the truth claims, and positive evidence rest on the side of Christianity (between atheism is Christianity that is)...

Can we just agree, there is no truth claims atheism can make?

Not an atheist, but let me try...

It is true that a Christian believes that all religions are false, besides their own.
It is true that a Muslim believes that all religious are false, besides their own.

It is true that if you ask a Christian and a Muslim for a list of man made religions, that every single religion, even their own would make it on the list. Not a single religion would not be included in the man made list. Therefore, according to Christians and Muslims, there are no true religions.

What more needs to be known when it comes to religions?

What a ridiculous thing to say...

If Muslims say Christianity is wrong, and Christians say Muslims are wrong, Obviously these both cant be true (like you are suggesting)... That would be absurd...

[Tart]

[Replying to post 47 by Tart]

Like for example I completely agree with Simon Greenland, expert in evidence, when he was quoted saying
"Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God."

Tart, why is it you quote Greenleaf yet again? This isn't the first time, and again, this isn't the first time that I've had to point out that this statement is ultimately empty, since neither you nor Greenleaf are actually telling us what these evidences supposedly are!

You guys should really stop pretending there is no evidence for Christianity... We all know (or should know) that the Bible is the evidence of Christianity...

You're quoting Greenleaf as an argument from authority, but not establishing his authority, which in turn rests on what he claims to be evidence. So present to us what Greenleaf claimed to be evidence, or is that one quote all you have from Greenleaf?

The quote from Greenleaf was a response to marco's statement.
"No gods exist because if they did exist it is reasonable to expect very clear evidence for them. Since we have no such evidence, gods in all probability don't exist save in the imagination."~marco

Aparently we have people saying the exact opitite from marco... This evidence exists, and is undoubt-able...

I am not trying to claim Christianity is true because Greenleaf says its true, that would be an argument from authority... I am simply claiming, other people believe that marco is wrong in why he thinks no God exists... That there is no evidence...

[FarWanderer]

simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Such an answer is only "simple" if you already believe the rest of Christianity and are just looking for a Jesus-shaped puzzle piece to complete the picture. It is not so hard to construct a fairly internally consistent work of fiction to guide you into such a frame of mind. Simply construct a narrative that requires a miracle and thereby "prove" it. A ready example is that of Matthew and the guards at the tomb.

---

In the genre of detective-mystery fiction, a common pattern is a so-called "locked room mystery". It is an event occurring inside a thoroughly locked room, where it would have been 'impossible' for anyone to have caused it. When I first read Matthew, the parallel was immediately apparent to me, that the guards to the tomb were a 'lock' to make the tomb 'impossible' to access (by natural means). In other words, the guards fit the profile of a narrative device better than they do a historical account.

Just follow the motives. The Pharisees and Priests have no real incentive to place guards at the tomb, because a body disappearing while unguarded is no miracle. However, the writer of Matthew does have an incentive to write guards into the story- to ensure that the only explanation for the vanishing corpse is a supernatural one.

But forcing these guards into the story has consequences. You yourself say:

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later?

Indeed, then why would anyone see a reason to place guards at the tomb? Well, I already provided the explanation of it being the writer who placed those guards there after the fact. Sooooooo........ now because writer Matthew has to have his guards, we have quite the awkward situation where apparently the Pharisees and Priests take Jesus's prediction of resurrection even more seriously than his own disciples do. :lol::lol:

And the problems don't stop there- the Pharisees' and Priests' reaction to the guards' report also makes no sense. Spreading lies about the disciples stealing the corpse should be obviously rather fruitless, being as they know Jesus can appear in public whenever he wants to. That is, unless they think they can stop him- but they make no such attempts to do so either, in spite of knowing where Jesus is supposed to be next.

The only way it fits is if the bad guys somehow predicted that Jesus would follow the inexplicable course of action that he supposedly did- of rising from the dead only to live as a rumor. In other words, it's more like the rather scripted behavior of villains filling a role in a cartoon than it is of real people in a real situation.

---

So, do you have a better explanation for the guards at the tomb than "It's made-up Christian propaganda"?

Ya, the Guards were placed at the tomb to stop the disciples from steeling the body... Just as it says... They werent there to stop the Resurrection from happening, that is impossible, and they didnt even believe in Jesus... The narrative in Matthew clearly says the Guards were put there to stop the disciples from steeling the body and deceiving us about the Resurrection...

You are missing the point. Without the guards a disappearing body is proof of nothing (whether it was stolen or otherwise), so there is no reason for placing guards in the first place.

So, why would that not be historical? You say this is a "lock and key" kind of fiction.. How do you know this is fiction?

Because it's contrived. The Jewish authorities take Jesus's claims of resurrection more seriously than his own followers do. It makes no sense.

I could go on. For example, Jesus never even makes the claim that he will rise after 3 days (except cryptically and without being understood), and by all appearances Jesus's disciples act in concordance with this situation (i.e. they don't recognize any such claim having been made). Yet the Jewish authorities (of all people!) seem to think that he has made such a claim, and it's because of this inexplicable belief that the guards are placed. This is what is called a "plot hole". Plot holes exist in fiction, not in real life.

Never mind the fact that all these conversations are private conversations between Jesus's enemies. How would writer Matthew even have knowledge of them?

Given all this, and the fact that the guards aren't even mentioned in Mark or Luke, I think it is quite obvious they were added in by writer Matthew.

Also, what do you think... Is the story of Jesus, historical, fiction, or part historical part fiction.. And where would you draw the line?

My personal opinion is that probably a very charismatic Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, had followers, upset the authorities, and was executed. Then there probably was an empty tomb "witnessed" (because I think this is the best explanation for the initial spark for the religion), but I think this was most likely due to a misunderstanding. The rest is legend built up over the years and decades after his death.

How do you know?

I think the scientific arguments are sufficient against the claims of so-called "miracles". And I think the logical inconsistencies about God's nature, intentions, and actions are also sufficient against the religious claims as a whole.

But if I am to confine my reasoning entirely to the historical/literary dimension it's because of how the stories read. They read like fiction and propaganda. The characters of the story are extremely flat, and significant portions (like the guards) are obviously just made up.

For what it's worth I actually have a Bachelor's degree in history.

[Tart]

simplest answer is Jesus was the Messiah...

Such an answer is only "simple" if you already believe the rest of Christianity and are just looking for a Jesus-shaped puzzle piece to complete the picture. It is not so hard to construct a fairly internally consistent work of fiction to guide you into such a frame of mind. Simply construct a narrative that requires a miracle and thereby "prove" it. A ready example is that of Matthew and the guards at the tomb.

---

In the genre of detective-mystery fiction, a common pattern is a so-called "locked room mystery". It is an event occurring inside a thoroughly locked room, where it would have been 'impossible' for anyone to have caused it. When I first read Matthew, the parallel was immediately apparent to me, that the guards to the tomb were a 'lock' to make the tomb 'impossible' to access (by natural means). In other words, the guards fit the profile of a narrative device better than they do a historical account.

Just follow the motives. The Pharisees and Priests have no real incentive to place guards at the tomb, because a body disappearing while unguarded is no miracle. However, the writer of Matthew does have an incentive to write guards into the story- to ensure that the only explanation for the vanishing corpse is a supernatural one.

But forcing these guards into the story has consequences. You yourself say:

It is said that no one believed in Jesus when he was put to death... Even his boldest disciple, Peter, was said to deny him when he was on the Cross... Why follow any man as a Messiah who came and died? They actually killed Jesus, mocking him as if he was a fool to be the Messiah and they were killing Him.. They were essentially proving to themselves and everyone else that Jesus was a nobody.... No one believed in Him... Why would anyone start three days later?

Indeed, then why would anyone see a reason to place guards at the tomb? Well, I already provided the explanation of it being the writer who placed those guards there after the fact. Sooooooo........ now because writer Matthew has to have his guards, we have quite the awkward situation where apparently the Pharisees and Priests take Jesus's prediction of resurrection even more seriously than his own disciples do. :lol::lol:

And the problems don't stop there- the Pharisees' and Priests' reaction to the guards' report also makes no sense. Spreading lies about the disciples stealing the corpse should be obviously rather fruitless, being as they know Jesus can appear in public whenever he wants to. That is, unless they think they can stop him- but they make no such attempts to do so either, in spite of knowing where Jesus is supposed to be next.

The only way it fits is if the bad guys somehow predicted that Jesus would follow the inexplicable course of action that he supposedly did- of rising from the dead only to live as a rumor. In other words, it's more like the rather scripted behavior of villains filling a role in a cartoon than it is of real people in a real situation.

---

So, do you have a better explanation for the guards at the tomb than "It's made-up Christian propaganda"?

Ya, the Guards were placed at the tomb to stop the disciples from steeling the body... Just as it says... They werent there to stop the Resurrection from happening, that is impossible, and they didnt even believe in Jesus... The narrative in Matthew clearly says the Guards were put there to stop the disciples from steeling the body and deceiving us about the Resurrection...

You are missing the point. Without the guards a disappearing body is proof of nothing (whether it was stolen or otherwise), so there is no reason for placing guards in the first place.

Ok, well the Gospel says that the officials were worried the Disciples would still the body... The IS the reason they gave... I dont understand how you get from there, to there is no reason to place the guards?

Can you explain?

So, why would that not be historical? You say this is a "lock and key" kind of fiction.. How do you know this is fiction?

Because it's contrived. The Jewish authorities take Jesus's claims of resurrection more seriously than his own followers do. It makes no sense.

The Jewish authorities dont take his claim seriously... I think its pretty clear they dont believe in Jesus as their Messiah. The Gospel says they believed the Disciples would steal the body and fabricate the Resurrection... Thats your understanding too, right?

I could go on. For example, Jesus never even makes the claim that he will rise after 3 days (except cryptically and without being understood), and by all appearances Jesus's disciples act in concordance with this situation (i.e. they don't recognize any such claim having been made). Yet the Jewish authorities (of all people!) seem to think that he has made such a claim, and it's because of this inexplicable belief that the guards are placed. This is what is called a "plot hole". Plot holes exist in fiction, not in real life.

Well it seems to be the case that the Gospels have him making that claim, plainly.. Are you interested in the specific verses?

Never mind the fact that all these conversations are private conversations between Jesus's enemies. How would writer Matthew even have knowledge of them?

Id need specific references to conversations...

Given all this, and the fact that the guards aren't even mentioned in Mark or Luke, I think it is quite obvious they were added in by writer Matthew.

Well much of the reasoning here isnt even valid, or needs further explanation, as i questioned above...

This is all based on claiming Jesus wasnt really risen from the dead... Right? It is a plot in a fictional story is what you think? I think that is a far assumption to be made, on a simple detail in the story, being the guards placement which im still not convinced of this being evidence of fabrication. Certainly the officials could have understood Jesus's claim to be risen from the dead on the third day, and placed guards there thinking the disciples would steal the body... It seem to be, any claim otherwise may have some reasoning you are given (questionable reasoning as noted above), but certainly this is all speculation...

Now, this minor detail gives credit to an empty tomb, and a Resurrection, but the entire story that compiles the totality of the Bible and the evidence for it, has a much bigger case for the risen Jesus Christ... Which id like good explanations for... Saying the passage of the guards demonstrates its fiction (which im not even convinced about), still raises many more questions... It begs the question, at what point is the words from the historical figures in the Bible decided to be written as fiction? Pontius Pilate is who you are claiming said fictional words, but is confirmed historical person, who put Jesus on trial...

Im just trying to make sense of the evidence... At what point do we establish fictional events in the Gospels? Where do we draw the lines? Clearly we are drawing the lines on speculation at this point... Evidence is important, positive evidence...

And more importantly, how is it we can make sense of the entire picture.. Why is it anyone prophecies anything? How in the heck did the words of, perhaps over a dozen of prophets, all converge to one man? Why is it that the prophesies in Christianity, seem to be fulfilling, and not even with just Jesus, but even today? Why is it the Disciples testified to such things? Why not recant lies (apparently "lies") they fabricated the story and not face the death by the Romans? How is it that the Disciples could have lied, and yet given their reasoning of their beliefs, establish their evidence along with their witnessing?


Certainly, these questions, and many more questions, should have answer...

I think the answer is clear. Jesus was the Messiah... It is the only thing that has made sense of the evidence...

Also, what do you think... Is the story of Jesus, historical, fiction, or part historical part fiction.. And where would you draw the line?

My personal opinion is that probably a very charismatic Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, had followers, upset the authorities, and was executed. Then there probably was an empty tomb "witnessed" (because I think this is the best explanation for the initial spark for the religion), but I think this was most likely due to a misunderstanding. The rest is legend built up over the years and decades after his death.

A misunderstanding, is surely a far stretch, and a generalization, that may only explain a small fraction of the story.

How do you know?

I think the scientific arguments are sufficient against the claims of so-called "miracles". And I think the logical inconsistencies about God's nature, intentions, and actions are also sufficient against the religious claims as a whole.

But if I am to confine my reasoning entirely to the historical/literary dimension it's because of how the stories read. They read like fiction and propaganda. The characters of the story are extremely flat, and significant portions (like the guards) are obviously just made up.

For what it's worth I actually have a Bachelor's degree in history.

Well the historical aspects, passive statement, minor insignificant details, are all littered throughout the New Testament... And yes your base presupposition can clearly dictate how you interpret the evidence...

But have you read the entire New Testament? If so how do you feel about the historical merit of the Book of Acts, and the Epistles? Like "how they read"? What is your opinion of "How they read"?