The Jesus Story <vs> The Sathya Sai Baba Story

[POI]

What makes any of us believe the Jesus claim(s)? And by "Jesus claims", not merely that He was a homeless preacher killed for 'heresy'. But, that Jesus really rose from the grave to save humanity, etc...?

We ALSO have countless modern testimonials of Sathya Sai Baba. Why does the Christian not take him seriously? We have modern testimonials, from first hand accounts, etc etc etc, in regards to him performing all kinds of miracles.

As has been said, "we are all atheists or agnostic to the countless positive claims out there. Us atheists/agnostics, to Christianity, just go one claim further."

For debate:

1) What makes the Jesus story line any more belief worthy, verses the Sathya Sai Baba story line?

2)
a) Does the Christian believe Sathya Sai Baba really did perform miracles, but is not THE ONE?
b) Or, are you in the atheists/agnostic camp? Meaning, "I do not currently believe he even performed any miracles."

[TRANSPONDER]

So far as I can see I addressed every one one of your points, and rebutted them, and you simply repeated them and accused me of not addressing them. If you could post one or two and I'll undertake to show whether or not I addressed it, that might look less like the running away claiming a win that I have seen many a time before.

I'll do it for you

"How does your view that Mark doesn’t teach a resurrection account and future appearances account for Mark 16:6-7? “But he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

I recall that I posted that John has NO angelic message, so that is good evidence that there was not one originally and the synoptic (original version) added one as an explanation was needed in case the erstwhile believer didn't jump to the right conclusion.

That addresses the point and rebuts it. How can you argue that I didn't even deal with the point, never mind refuting it?

You can say it looks like whatever you want. I'm not claiming a win (which would be empty rhetoric) and I don't think I'm running away. But everyone reading can make up their own minds on if any one is running away, which responses are irrelevant, and all of that.

With the above example, I must have missed that response to my question. I apologize for that. This response certainly doesn't refute the point. John not deciding to include an angelic message is not good evidence that there wasn't one originally and that the author of Mark added it in against what the earliest Christians believed and taught. It's clear that every gospel speaks of Jesus actually resurrecting. To say all of these do so against the original stories that we no longer have is not convincing to me in the least.

I think you agreed (at least for the sake of argument) in (1) an empty tomb. The above touches on (3) the earliest Christians preaching a resurrection, but it fails (in my estimation) to counter that adequately. I'm not sure you've said much against (2) the claims of post-mortem appearances, beyond talk of the New Testament being wholly unreliable, which I've responded to concerning it's not all-or-nothing and that with assuming the contradictions you believe are there, it still doesn't negate fact #2. I've shared why I don't think that is the case. I didn't see anything new to respond to there.

If you think I haven't responded to something regarding these 3 facts or what theory best interprets them, please share it and I'll try to clarify.

"I may very well be wrong, but I’m not going to keep going in circles, so I’m good with letting our posts stand for themselves. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me and others on this topic." I may be wrong too, but it looks like a classic fade -away.

Off the top of my head, Your three points were the 'disciples would not die for a lie'apologetic in the form of they faced persecution rather than recant, I Corinthians supporting the gospel resurrection - stories and the empty tomb. And I argue that - yes - John Not having an angel and angelic message is primary evidence that there wasn't one in the story. You should credibly explain why (to not look like sliding off) , if he would not have put in two lines to have it if he knew,or why he would not have known - unless the accounts are (as I argue) independent fabrications.

Ok, you missed that, no problem, but I refuted or at least rebutted those, even explaining it when you failed to understand or claimed I hadn't answered. It looks to me (and yes, I can dig those out just as I dug out the query about the empty tomb which you said I hadn't done.

So your post I quoted looks devilish like running away and I'd say you have some face - saving spadework to do, after having pointed the accusing finger at me, falsely, I'd say and have shown, I think.

[The Tanager]

Off the top of my head, Your three points were the 'disciples would not die for a lie'apologetic in the form of they faced persecution rather than recant, I Corinthians supporting the gospel resurrection - stories and the empty tomb.

My three points, stated on numerous occasions, are:

(1) there was an empty tomb
(2) there were claims by the earliest Christians of post-mortem appearances
(3) the earliest Christian message centered on there being an actual resurrection

And I argue that - yes - John Not having an angel and angelic message is primary evidence that there wasn't one in the story. You should credibly explain why (to not look like sliding off) , if he would not have put in two lines to have it if he knew,or why he would not have known - unless the accounts are (as I argue) independent fabrications.

John’s account does mention angels, but not in Mary’s initial visit. As I’ve said before, disagreements about the details would be an argument against certain views of inspiration of scripture, but it is not a good reason to reject point 2 or 3 above because that point isn’t about exact details or affected by a discrepancy in exact details. I don’t see how saying that before or now is “sliding off”.

[Shem Yoshi]

I am still interested to know which opinion about truth is truth? Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper? According to scientific materialism, that says we are nothing more then the physical properties that make up our bodies and the universe.... If that is true, which physical brain fizz is true, and which physical brain fizz is not true? Dr Pepper or Mountain Dew?