Was Jesus unsuccessful?

[marco]

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 47 by marco]

Again, if one doesn't believe that Jesus Resurrected, then what is the relevancy of whether or not he was successful? If Santa Claus doesn't give out toys to children at all, then the question of whether he gives toys to specific children is meaningless.

Bored, marco?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 50 by For_The_Kingdom]

The story is only unrealistic if God doesn't exist. If God exists, it becomes more realistic because if God exists and he chooses to raise someone from the dead, then he can raise someone from the dead.

This is like saying the the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is only unrealistic if Santa doesn't exist and isn't imbued with magical powers. Well... yes... that's true. If your make believe is not valid then your whole premise falls apart. On the other hand, if God exists and can do anything, or if Santa exists and has magic, then you can pretty much claim that anything you can think of is true. And yet at the end of the day you have not ACTUALLY produced a single flying reindeer or a single flying reanimated corpse.

Or let's put it another way. If God exists, and someone chooses to call Him Allah, then the story of Muhammad flying up to heaven on a flying steed, or tearing the moon in two, become theoretically possible. And yet they also remain just as unrealistic as they always were.

The hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and the only way the hypothesis can be unrealistic is if God doesn't exist.

The hypothesis is that the universe couldn't possibly exist without the benefit of an intelligent designer, who exists without the benefit of an intelligent designer. This particular bit of pretzel logic fails as a result of it's own illogic immediately. Make believe begets make believe.

Second, if we shouldn't believe in the Resurrection because it is unrealistic and we weren't there to witness it...then I guess macroevolution and abiogenesis is also thrown out of the window. But does that stop the naturalist?? Nope.

Fossils are physical evidence of of macroevolution. Viruses do not respire and do not excrete, commonly accepted requirements for life. All viruses do is replicate themselves. Physical evidence for protolife (something like life, but not yet life).

Bruh, you got the story completely backwards. Wow, there is no wonder why there are so many false/bad interpretations. It says it right there in the scriptures, clear as day...that Paul had his experience FIRST (Acts 9:3-6), and then he was three days without sight and neither ate or drank (vs 9).

Who is the source for this story? It is contained in Acts, which was written by the author of Gospel Luke. But the author of Luke was not present for the events in question. The author of Luke got the story from Paul. but Paul was the afflicted man! This is Paul's memory of the way events played out at a time when he had collapsed and was confused and delirious. The fact that he was severely dehydrated explains the entire incident. Paul's belief that he spoke with a dead man can never be made to be either realistic or likely. It's more make believe which has to be accepted entirely on faith. And the more one studies Christian claims, the more one realizes that they are invariably make believe which have to be accepted on faith. Faith is the result of specific indoctrination, and does not rely on either logic or the facts.

Yet you are on here claiming it was his dehydration that lead to his "hallucination". SMH. Can't even get the narrative right, yet you are so ready to put forth the theory that supposedly comes from the narrative? LOL

Wikipedia
Dehydration
"Dehydration", is thus a term that has loosely been used to mean loss of water, regardless of whether it is as water and solutes (mainly sodium) or free water. Those who refer to hypotonic dehydration therefore refer to solute loss and thus loss of intravascular volume but in the presence of exaggerated intravascular volume depletion for a given amount of total body water gain. It is true that neurological complications can occur in hypotonic and hypertonic states. The former can lead to seizures, while the latter can lead to osmotic cerebral edema upon rapid rehydration."

"For severe cases of dehydration where fainting, unconsciousness, or other severely inhibiting symptom is present (the patient is incapable of standing or thinking clearly), emergency attention is required. Fluids containing a proper balance of replacement electrolytes are given orally or intravenously with continuing assessment of electrolyte status; complete resolution is the norm in all but the most extreme cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

Wikipedia
Survival skills

Water
A human being can survive an average of three to five days without the intake of water. The issues presented by the need for water dictate that unnecessary water loss by perspiration be avoided in survival situations. The need for water increases with exercise.

A typical person will lose minimally two to maximally four liters of water per day under ordinary conditions, and more in hot, dry, or cold weather. Four to six liters of water or other liquids are generally required each day in the wilderness to avoid dehydration and to keep the body functioning properly. The U.S. Army survival manual does not recommend that you drink water only when thirsty, as this leads to under hydrating. Instead, water should be drunk at regular intervals. Other groups recommend rationing water through "water discipline".

A lack of water causes dehydration, which may result in lethargy, headaches, dizziness, confusion, and eventually death. Even mild dehydration reduces endurance and impairs
concentration, which is dangerous in a survival situation where clear thinking is essential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_skills

Acts tells us directly that Paul went three days without drinking. And dehydration matches Pauls symptoms exactly. No make believe required.

If you speak to a "dead" man, wouldn't that make the "dead" man alive?

Not if the conversation only occured inside of a person's head.

A bad premise can only lead to a bad conclusion.

If God never existed to begin with, then every premise one makes concerning the things that God wants and does will unfailingly lead to an erroneous conclusion. Conclusions which require a supernatural explanation to support them. All religions are constructed on various supernatural claims. And very clearly, not all religions are valid. In fact, all of the religions you DON"T believe in are pure nonsense. Wouldn't you agree?

I disagree....wholeheartedly. I also wholeheartedly...disagree. LOL.

Please provide an example of a supernatural occurrence that is commonly acknowledged (accepted universally) to have occurred.

We've exhausted all possible natural explanations to explain the origin of the disciples beliefs...and once all natural explanations have been exhausted, there is only one game left in town (supernatural).

We have only what certain of the The origin of the universe <---it is impossible for there to be a natural explanation for this, so right from jump street does the supernatural explanation rear its ugly head. the disciples CLAIMED. Please provide a list of the disciples that specifically claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

The origin of the universe <---it is impossible for there to be a natural explanation for this, so right from jump street does the supernatural explanation rear its ugly head.

The universe began when energy, reduced by the force of gravity to a very concentrated condition, exploded and began expanding. This is not "impossible" at all. This in fact represent the current best understanding of the beginning of the universe. But let me make this clear. It doesn't necessarily represent the beginning of the energy that formed the universe.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You certainly would not so readily accept unrealistic claims presented by believers of a non Christian religion.

Show me the evidence. I am open.

Are you familiar with "The Night Ride" (Isra and Mi'raj) of Muhammad? According to the story one night in the year 621 when the prophet Muhammad was fifty years old, he traveled to heaven aboard the flying steed Buraq. He visited the seven levels of heaven while there, meeting first with Allah's other great prophets, including Jesus. Next he met with all the various angelic beings. And then finally he met with God Himself, who gave Muhammad instructions to take back to humankind. All of this was accomplished in a single night. The source for this story and these occurrences is none other than Muhammad himself, as only it could be since only he experienced them. And the Isra and Mi'raj is well known among Muslims to have been historically valid, since it is mentioned in the holy Qur'an itself which is inerrant and therefore beyond all questioning. In fact the 17th chapter of the Qur'an, sura 17 Al-Isra , is devoted to the subject of Muhammad's "night ride."

The story of Isra and Mi'raj, Muhammad's "Night Ride" is attested to by none other than the founder of one of the world's great religions, practiced and believed with total devotion by two billion living Muslims, and billions more who are now deceased.

Is Muhammad a "reliable witness?" Is the story of the Night Ride historically valid? Could the origin of the story simply have been the result of a dream, or a hallucination? Are we forced to accept this story as undoubtedly and necessarily true? Or is skepticism warranted?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq

And then there is the time that Muhammad split the moon in two, after which he restored it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e_Moon.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Examples of the feats accomplished by the Hindu Gods would take too much space.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
What the apostles actually believed is known only to those apostles that claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. And they are no longer talking.

So, I guess the entire genre of history is thrown out of the window on that note.

Do you not routinely exclude the belief systems of billion of non Christians as unrealistic and invalid? in other words you have thrown the entire genre of history out of the window. As difficult as it is for anyone to suppose that THEIR belief system is not true and valid, the fact is that not all of these various beliefs can be true and valid. There are billions of individuals in this world who subscribe to a particular world view. And they are just wrong. What makes you special and immune to being wrong?

Paul stated that there were more than a handful of people...and even if it was only a handful..its amazing how you can go from a handful of believers to #1 in the entire world.

Paul stated that there were more than 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus on one occasion. But Paul also by his own admission was the LAST person to receive his calling.

1 Cor.15:
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul was not present to witness any of the claimed post crucifixion appearances of Jesus. So where do he get this claim? He doesn't say. It may have been part of the rumor then in circulation. Or he may have dreamed it. One way or another the story of five hundred individuals communing with a risen dead man is an unbelievable story. Especially when presented by an individual who clearly was not present to witness what he is claiming occurred. If you actually had 500 eyewitness testimonies this story STILL would not be realistic. But if you had 500 eyewitness testimonies you would at least have the basis for making a credible case for your belief. You have only one testimony for an unrealistic claim however. And he wasn't an eyewitness.

Bro, that is what history is all about. Historians who are living today were not present during any of the events in antiquity, yet, the genre of history is well, an established
genre/tool/methodology we use for truth value.

Unless, again, you want to throw the entire genre of history out of the window. Or is this a double standard?

There are NO claims of supernatural occurrences that are considered to be a part of the accepted historical record. If Christians claims were the lone exception THAT would be a double standard.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Much in the same way that Muslims have been convinced that Muhammad's claims are true, of Mormons are convinced that Joseph Smith's claims are true. And yet those of us that are outside of those belief systems looking in see only unrealistic foolishness. Because people invariably give their own belief systems a free pass from any in depth skepticism.

Case by case.

Who gets to decide which of the various claims are true and are not, on a case by case basis? The current standard is that supernatural claims are systematically excluded as unrealistic.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Christians proclaim, and believe, that the empty tomb is evidence that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew away. And yet that is among the least likely possibilities.

Actually it isn't. The only way you can determine it is the least likely possibility is if you are able to determine God's level of desire to raise Jesus from the dead. But you can't do that, can you? Nope.

In other words, a claim should be subjected to individual systems of make believe. That can be a problem though, when contradictory claims are made. For example, the Quran specifically denies that Jesus was resurrected.

"That they said (in boast) "We have killed Christ Jesus the
son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not,
nor crusified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and
those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain)
knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they
killed him not:--" (Koran, Su 4:157).
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp ... &verse=157


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
In fact it has no "likelihood" of being true at all.

Based on what?

Based on all observation over the course of human history, a corpse CANNOT AND WILL NOT, return to life and walk away. Much less fly off up into the sky. A single unverifiable claim cannot change the observations of all of common history.

Our head to head is supposed to be on the possibility of infinity, remember? In my last pm to you, I made that very point. No wonder I've yet to receive a response.

The question of infinity was brought up in one of our PM's. It was not necessarily supposed to be the focal point of our discussion. If so, it will be a short discussion. We can potentially dispose of it right now in fact. Do you believe that God has existed eternally? If the answer is yes, then you do believe in infinity. I personally suppose that there are no discreet beginnings at all. Something has always existed.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The secular historical record is also entirely bereft of any supernatural claims which are considered to be uniformly accepted historical fact.

So, "because the claims are of supernatural nature, the claims cannot be historical".

That is a text book non sequitur example.

That supernatural claims have been made is a historical fact. That supernatural occurrences happen is NOT a historical fact. For example, here is a passage from my old Western Civ textbook, circa the 1960's.

"The crucifixion of Jesus marked a great climax in Christian history. At first his death was viewed by his followers as the end of their hopes. Their despair soon vanished, however, for rumors began to spread that the Master was alive, and that he had been seen by certain of his faithful disciples. The remainder of his followers were quickly convinced that he had risen from the dead, and that he was truly a divine being." (Western Civilizations, Their History and their Culture; fifth edition, 1958; Pg. 252)

Notice that this quote acknowledges the historical origins of Christianity. What it does not acknowledge is that the resurrection actually occurred. That is a religious belief. What is presented represents secular history.

Then apply that line of reasoning to the concept of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the concept that life arose from non living material. Life is COMPOSED of non living material. Biologists suppose that life arose spontaneously (of its own volition as a result of the process of hundreds of millions of years of ongoing organic biology) from non living material.

Christians declare that life could not have arisen spontaneously from non living material and must therefore be the result of intelligent design. An intelligent designer who was NOT the result of intelligent design. So Christian immediately seek to overturn their initial claim through an appeal to make believe and imagination. Direct observation indicates that life not only exists, but that it is made up of non living material. God on the other hand can not be observed at all, but must be ENTIRELY MADE UP AND IMAGINED INTO EXISTENCE. Make believe.

The idea isn't that "just because they claimed it, it is true". The argument is rather that "they believed it, and the origin of the belief is best explained based upon the truth value of their claims".

We don't know what the apostles and some few of the earliest disciples actually believed. All we know is what they claimed. And what they claimed is unrealistic. We have every reason and right to doubt that their claims were true.

That is a big distinction. In other words, we are appealing to the best explanation to explain the effect, which we believe to be the Resurrection.

The resurrection might only approach the "best explanation" if it stands without any natural explanation to challenge it. And that simply is not the case.


The four Gospels represent the ONLY information on the life Jesus that anyone supposes has any connection to valid history. And a good deal of what is contained in the NT strains credulity. In fact, it is flatly unbelievable. Here is a short version of events that closely follows the accepted story, but which does not require any recourse to any supernatural occurrences. I am not claiming that this is what actually occurred, simply that it explains the events naturally without recourse to supernatural claims.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

The day after the crucifixion chief priests went out to Joseph's tomb, and finding it covered with a large stone, and owing to the nature of the day (the Sabbath and Passover) did not open and search it, but instead secured what was an already empty tomb! Why was the tomb already empty? Because Joseph of Arimathea,who was a disciple of Jesus, got legal possession of the body from the Roman governor.

Matthew 27:
[57]When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph never intended that his brand new family crypt should be the final resting place for Jesus, but only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body. Because the day was late and his tomb was "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus had been crucified. The next day when the priests secured Joseph's tomb, the body of Jesus was already being relocated to its actual intended final resting place by his disciples.

And so exactly what the priests feared the disciples intended to do is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty. Six weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and began to circulate the rumor that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Something only they witnessed, according to them.

So when the priests took possession of Joseph's new tomb on the next day, they did not open and inspect it for the body of Jesus, because it was a high holy day. Instead they placed seals on the tomb to insure that whatever its condition was that condition would remain until they could return and inspect the tomb. The tomb proved to be empty the next morning. Clearly the body of Jesus WAS ALREADY GONE! The conclusion that Christians declare to be the only explanation for the empty tomb is in fact the least likely explanation.


So where would the final resting place of Jesus have been? The Gospels do not say, but we can make an educated guess. It was a strong custom among the Jews to bury their dead with family members. Any family of any substance had a personal family crypt where family members were interred together. Rich folks like Joseph could afford hand cut family crypts to be constructed. Folks of lesser means tended to use natural caves and caverns, usually with the family named carved at the entrance. If Joseph the rich man truly wanted to honor Jesus, he would have had the body transported home to be buried with is own family, not inter him with Joseph's family. Home to his family in Galilee, about 65 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. About a three day journey on foot. All down hill.

Matthew 28:
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The remaining apostles all journeyed to Galilee after the crucifixion! The home of the family of Jesus.

The only thing I am assuming is that Joseph of Arimathea never intended to use his personal family crypt as the final resting place for Jesus, only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body, and had the body shipped home to be buried by Jesus' own family members. All of which fits easily into the story at hand.

Why was Joseph's tomb empty on sunday morning? BECAUSE THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB ON SATURDAY. The body had already been moved by the disciples of Jesus WHO ALREADY HAD LEGAL POSSESSION OF IT.

This is in fact THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION! The conclusion that the body came back to life and left the tomb under its own power is the LEAST LIKELY CONCLUSION. In fact this conclusion has no likelihood at all.

So, is this they way things actually played out? There is no way to know just how much of the story is valid. This particular accounting makes perfect sense however. It DOES NOT lead to supposing that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away I am afraid.

Now, of course, there are religious folks out there who believe all sorts of things, which is why I keep stressing the case by case approach, because all beliefs aren't created equal.

"Now, of course, there are religious folks out there who believe all sorts of things." And the overwhelming majority of them are wrong, of course. So how should we go about determining just who is right? Well I have discovered a foolproof way of determining who is right. Just ask! Because what I have discovered is that whoever I am in conversation with is more than happy to verify that THEY are the one who has it all figured out correctly. For example any Mormon will happily tell you that they are the only ones who have it all right.

Religious beliefs are ALL created equal. They just all make different claims.

Yeah, but James probably wouldn't have had any position in the Church if it weren't for being convinced by the resurrection.

He was the brother of Jesus, son if Mary. That should have carried with it considerable cred. Unless you subscribe to the unsubstantiatable Catholic claim that Mary was Joseph's second wife and that his brothers and sisters had a different mother. Because if one is comfortable making up claims as they go along, then whatever one finds the most satisfying to believe is what will be transformed into dogma.

What took MLK so long to propose a march on Washington? Who knows.

The closest family members of Jesus, the individuals who knew him best, were not among his early followers.

Hey, you can't please everyone.

Does this apply to living in close proximity to God as well?

They are also mentioned from time to time. Jesus was also on the road a lot..and usually when someone goes on tour, they don't take their whole neighborhood with them.

Jesus did not begin his ministry until about the age of thirty. Prior to that the people who knew him do not seem to have been especially impressed with him.

Again, you can't please everyone. Some people are gonna hate on you no matter what you do. And to point out the fact that some people weren't impress with Jesus is irrelevant, because I can just as easily point out the fact that there were those that WERE impressed with him.

Again, you are referring to GOD here are you not? Thirty years of living in close proximity to God and no one was impressed?

When Jesus made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (on donkey), he was greeted by large crowds who WERE impressed with him.

Acts 1:15 indicates that Jesus had about 120 disciples shortly after his death. Enough, certainly, to put on the display described in Matthew. Assuming that it happened at all. The author of Matthew has a way of detailing things that no one else seemed to be aware of. And yet when Pilate expressly offered to free Jesus, the crowd chose a thief instead. It seems that relatively few people were actually all that impressed with Jesus.

So you clear his name by saying that he Resurrected from the dead?? LOL. Still doesn't explain the empty tomb...and you talk about disgrace...the tomb was found by women..and the testimony of women just wasn't credible in Judaism. So if the male followers of Jesus did concoct a story, they wouldn't have had women discover the empty tomb first.

I believe that I explained the empty tomb well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

Plus, given the fact that the narratives (Gospels) had the apostles looking like naive fools most of the time and even cowards..it is unlikely that they would put themselves in such a bad light..if the story was originated from them and was fabricated by them.

And this is odd. According to the Gospels his apostles directly witnessed Jesus perform many miracles, including raising others from the dead. And yet even they were not convinced, until, they say, they saw the risen Jesus. Does their apparent naivatity and cowardarly actions prior to their claims of the risen Jesus serve to put thiem in a bad light... or does their claimed resurgence of faith after they claimed to have seen the risen Jesus actually work to promote the truth of their claims after Jesus was dead. Because their claimed resurgence of faith seems to have worked to convince you... as well as every other Christian I have ever met.

James and Paul weren't his followers.

That would be news to both James and John. Again, James was not apparently impressed with Jesus prior to Jesus' execution.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And of course both of these claims violate all common sense and common experience.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

What exactly prevents Paul from being every bit as fulla-bulla as the religious zealots that you DO NOT happen to personally subscribe too?

Right, and if God exists and he has the power to give life, take life, and restore life again...I don't see the issue here. Again, the hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. It was a miracle. Now, if the claim was that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, then I could see your point. However, that isn't the argument.

Agreed! If your make believe happens to be true than everything falls right into place. And exactly the same thing can be said of the make believe of every other religious believer that has ever lived. A mere statement of faith is not evidence for anything, however. No matter how emphatically is it stated.

That being said, again; I find it amazing that people who think that "dead" matter can/did come to life have such a beef with a corpse coming back to life...and what is even more amazing is the fact that the "dead" matter coming to life is the actual naturalistic claim!!!

They believe that "dead" matter "naturally" came to life...when there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it will fall right in the category of the "common sense and common
experience" that you claim the Resurrection violates!!

It blows my mind.

First notice that all living things die. I am 69 years old, so if I am lying I am dying. Which all living things do. I do not choose it to be this way. But what one cannot change, one must accept.

There is a process by which life arises naturally. And life relies on this process being maintained until such time as the process breaks down. As yet, we have no scientific means to restore life. The restoration of life is currently in the realm of science fiction and make believe.

Which still doesn't explain the empty tomb. If they lied, then Jesus' corpse should have still be in the tomb. But it wasn't. And not only that, but what you are suggesting is that the apostles and a few other disciples lied about seeing the Resurrected Jesus, and Paul just happened to hallucinate about seeing the Resurrected Jesus...which is to suggest that if the apostles wouldn't have spread the false rumors, that Paul would have still hallucinated and been all by his lonesome in believing that Jesus rose from the dead.

Your continued reference to the empty tomb is an indication that you have never given any actual thought to how preposterous the risen from the dead claim is. And more important, how easy it is to explain! If you care to make the effort.

But then again, if no rumors were spread and Paul hallucinated and therefore was lead to believe in the Resurrected Jesus, then Jesus' followers could have just pointed to his corpse in the tomb and said "Buddy, get some rest,..Jesus' body is right here"...and Christianity would have ceased before it began.

But it didn't quite work out that way, did it?

According to Acts, the rumors of the resurrection of Jesus began to be spread about six weeks after Jesus was executed. Paul did not undergo his conversion until some few years later.

Paul was a product of the rumors that were being spread about by the earliest followers of Jesus. And according to Gospel Matthew the chief priests suspected that a plot existed to move the body and claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Which is exactly what happened.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But for each new convert, they had an individual like you and Paul; an individual who was not knowingly spreading a false false rumor, but telling a story they believed in with all certainty. Just like you.

Sure, assuming that the story was false.

The story is that a corpse came back to life and then flew off up into the clouds. We have every right and reason to begin with the assumption that it is false. So where is the unassailable evidence to support it? "Well, that's what someone said!" And the response to that, I am afraid, is BIG FRICKEN DEAL. Stories and tall tales are exceedingly common.

Genetic fallacy. How a religion is founded is independent of the truth value of the religion.

The truth value of a religion is NOT independent from how the claims of that religion apparently coincide with all common observation, common experience and all common sense. When the claims of a religion are in direct conflict with all common observation, common experience and all common sense, then a very heavy amount of physical evidence must necessarily be presented to balance out the inherent reasons for immediately dismissing claims which directly conflict with all common observation, common experience and all common sense. "That's what I heard," does not qualify as physical evidence.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Or maybe it's more accurate to say that humans have a difficult time recognizing and understanding the truth.

Some do, some don't. Still generalizing, eh?

The trick of course, is determining just who seems to be following the lines of truth, and who seems to be following lines of folly. For example, on the one hand we have those who subscribe to the scientific explanation for how the universe works. These individuals have working technology, the fruit of scientific investigation, to point to. On the other hand we

have those who subscribe to the claim that an individual who lived 2,000 years ago is about to come back at any time now (or at least will EVENTUALLY). This group has a record of being right that currently stands at zero for 2,000 years and counting. This would SEEM to be a very clear way of determining just who is on the right track, and who is not.

It also shows and/or rather doesn't support the idea that inanimate matter can suddenly/gradually come to life..but again, that doesn't stop naturalists from believing it.

Oh and just for the record, in case you haven't noticed: that is one of my "go to" retorts. Whenever a skeptic starts talking about how "dead corpses don't come back to life", my rebuttal will always be "Well, dead matter doesn't come to life either."

This is in fact the only instance in which I can not give you step by step scientific examples of how it occurs. It's all you have so you will obviously choose to beat it to death.

I would also like to point out that it was once claimed, by Christians, that the earth could not possibly be billions of years old, because erosion would have worn down the mountains by now. A valid objection. Until plate tectonics and continental drift was discovered. Now it's clear that mountains are simply wrinkles in the earth's crust caused by massive floating plates pushing into each other. Some mountains, the Sierria's and the Himalayas for example, are actually in the process of growing. This is because the earth is undergoing its own evolution. And the cause, like everything else that occurs, is quantum mechanics. So the religious have had to move their tents away from the claim that the mountains should have eroded away by now, and have repositioned their tents around the question of the exact method by which protons neutrons and electrons might have transformed naturally into living things. Biologists believe that they are very close to figuring out the exact steps needed to create life from scratch. When (if) science figures out the exact process by which life arose from a collection of organic soup, the believers will be forced once again to pick up their tents and reposition them around some other question which is not completely understood. And of course believers will never for a moment question their own assumptions. We are rapidly moving towards a time when there are not real unanswered questions. At which point believers will have to do exactly what they are already doing over the question of evolution. Which is to deny that it is true, and to create a myth to tell themselves that even scientists have largely given up on evolution. Which is pure unadulterated self delusion.

Naturalists don't believe that a dead body can come back to life, but they sure as hell will believe that dead matter can become living. It is a text book example of the taxi cab fallacy. A double standard.

The problem that you will have to overcome, is that both things are observed to be true. Life arises naturally. Dead things do not come back to life. These are simply observable facts. But of course, if you first arm yourself with the claim that make believe is valid, then anything you claim can be declared to be viable.

And another thing, it is now becoming a straw man. We (believers) agree with you that dead corpses stay dead, according to the laws of nature. However, no one is saying that the Resurrection was a natural event...the hypothesis is supernatural...therefore, you continually pointing out what naturally occurs when someone dies is rather pointless.

No, you are claiming that the resurrection occurred... based on claims made by his earliest followers. And yet it is true that corpses unfailingly remain dead, while people lie and falsify copiously.

We are on a completely different realm of reality (supernatural)...and I know that might not be your thing, but nevertheless, it is what it is. So from now on when you make that point...I will simply say...straw man.

supernatural
[soo-per-nach-er-uh l, -nach-ruh l]
adjective
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural:
4. of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

I specifically deny that the supernatural occurs. I cannot be more clear than that.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
A simple claim to the contrary cannot overcome all common observation. People lie!

Ok, and I am saying people tell the truth, and your simple claim to the contrary (people lie) also cannot overcome all common observation. See what I did there? You have to do more than just say "they could have been lying" because for all you know, they could have very well been telling the truth.

How do we normally determine what is true and what isn't? We compare the claim to all common experience, common observation and all common sense. As I already pointed out, the claim that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and then flew away directly defies all common experience, common observation and all common sense. We are therefore left with the conclusion that they were either lying or mistaken.

You have to demonstrate how does the likelihood of them lying outweigh the likelihood of them telling the truth...and I don't think you can do that. But I can, on the flip-side tho.

What would be gained by their lying? Was there a motive?

Matthew 27:64 gives us a perfectly clear motive. The disciples wanted to relocate the body of Jesus for the purpose of spreading the rumor that he had returned from the dead. Jesus had died in the most degraded manner possible for a Jew. "He that is hanged is accursed of God" (Deut.21:23) Since being restored to life could ONLY be regarded as a clear act of God Himself, not only was Jesus clearly NOT the "accursed of God," he was clearly one of God's special chosen emissaries. The story of the "risen Christ" would serve to completely undo all that the priests had intended through the degraded and ignominious way Jesus had been put to death. If enough people could be convinced, the story would also serve to restore some very serious weight of credibility to the movement that Jesus had begun, and which the disciples would now inherit and attempt to carry on with. A crucified Jesus literally represents a dead end. The story of the "risen Christ" on the other hand provides a basis of an entirely new imperative, not to mention a very powerful and compelling passion story. A story that makes for great and dramatic storytelling. It in fact proved to be a brilliant move which served to completely reverse all that the Jewish priests had intended. And since it ultimately managed to evolve into one of the world's great religions, it worked far better than the apostles and early followers of Jesus could ever have possibly imagined.

There was also a monetary motive, as it turned out.

Acts 4:
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Traveling about telling stories of Jesus, and having money lain at one's feet, was a far more inviting occupation than the back breaking and dangerous job of fishing. Or that even more dangerous job; tax collecting.

Some people tell the truth with good motivation (one would be; because they dont like lying). Often they tell the truth because it is the moral thing to do, and it works to achieve a goal of being trustworthy.

You are not lying to me. Yet, are you telling me the truth? Some people proclaim what they believe to be the truth with all of their heart and soul. Just as you are doing now. And some people are uttering utter nonsense and do not realize it. Just as everyone of every religious belief that you don't accept as true is doing now. So how can we tell truth from falsehood? You have to back away and look at ALL OF THEM OBJECTIVELY. The ones that defy all common experience, common observation and all common sense you discard. I have discard all religious claims as being contrary to all common experience, common observation and common sense and have moved on to considering scientific claims. Claims with ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support them.

I don't think I am. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually 100%) that God exists. The only question is, which/what God exists? And based on the evidence that has been
presented, I draw the conclusion that the Christian God exist.

I can't imagine even the most profusely gullible of the gullible knowingly choosing to be gullible. Gullible people are firmly convinced that they are dead right.

Wikipedia
Harold Camping
Camping gained notoriety owing to his prediction that the Rapture would take place on May 21, 2011,[50][51][52] and that the end of the world would subsequently take place five months later on October 21, 2011.[53] Followers of Camping claimed that around 200 million people (approximately 2.8% of the world's 2011 population) would be raptured,[54] and publicized the

prediction in numerous countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

Time Magazine
By Kayla Webley Friday, May 20, 2011
Like all who proselytize the end the world, Camping has spread his message using a small army of followers; in his case, they're supported by a substantial budget that by some estimates is more than $100 million. There have been stories in the media of families selling their homes, quitting their jobs and budgeting their finances such that by May 21 they will be left with nothing. After all, they won't need it, right?
http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 48,00.html

What do you call someone who is broke, homeless and out of a job? Gullible. Also foolish. Knucklehead works, if one is feeling a little mean.

So what happened in May of 2011? Well, not the end of the world obviously.

Wikipedia
Harold Camping
On May 23, 2011, in an appearance before the press, Camping stated he had reinterpreted his prophecy. In his revised claim, May 21 was a "spiritual" judgment day, and the physical Rapture would occur on October 21, 2011, simultaneously with the destruction of the world. Camping said his company would not return money donated by followers to publicize the failed

May 21 prediction, stating: "We’re not at the end. Why would we return it?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

What happened in October 21, 2011? Well, we're still here.

Wikipedia
Harold Camping
Aftermath
In March 2012, Camping admitted that his predictions were in error, stating: "We humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing."[64] He also announced the "End to Doomsday

Predictions".[65] In May 2012, a year after the failure of Camping's prophecy, Religion Dispatches published a report on Camping's disillusioned former followers, some of whom had reportedly come to view him as a cult leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

Like many things, apparently gullibility only happens to OTHER people.

Some scientist believe that dead matter came to life and began to talk.

I am composed of non living protons neutrons and electrons and I talk.

The obvious conclusion is that abiogenesis is a lie.

The obvious conclusion is that life exists and is therefore possible. Invisible Gods are the epitome of that which is not obvious.

And believing that a process which can't think (nature), but yet is still somehow able to give you a fully functional brain with a complimentary package of consciousness is something that I am not capable of accepting.

And also, a process which can't see (nature), but yet is still somehow able to give you eyeballs with a complimentary package of vision is something else that I am not capable of accepting.

If if I wasn't a Christian, I STILL wouldn't believe that stuff.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away. You believe that the universe could not possibly "just exist" without the benefit of an intelligent designer, an intelligent designer who "just exists" without the benefit of an intelligent designer. Science observes that the universe is made up of energy, and energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy is therefore eternal, continuously reforming itself. That is what is observed to be true. The concept of God on the other hand contradicts itself logically, and cannot be observed to be true.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
If I am suggesting that you are gullible to a foolish degree, and I am, I am also suggesting that the vast majority of people around the world are also gullible to a foolish degree.

Because the various unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world is staggering.

Right, and some of the unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world comes right from those who don't "believe".

All other beliefs that deny the truth of your beliefs are "unrealistic and outlandish." Wouldn't you agree? Which is of course exactly what they are claiming about your belief.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
People have motives for making claims.

People have motives for making truth claims too.

People even have motives for making claims that are NOT true, but to which they ascribe with all of their hearts. And of course I am referring to you. But I am also referring to every religious believer of every religious belief that ever existed. How many of the other thousands of religious beliefs that have passed into obscurity are you prepared to defend just because those individuals believed they were making true claims?

And believing that dead matter came to life and began to talk, that also fails miserably when compared to common experience...and what is the evidence for the truth of the claim in that case? "A scientist said so"!

I talk, and I am surrounded by individuals who do the same. This represents direct physical evidence that a being made up of non living protons neutrons and electrons can achieve sentient thought and the ability to speak. I have also been exposed to enough direct evidence to allow me to conclude that the further back into the past we investigate, the less and less complicated life was. This indicates that life was once so simple as to blur the common definitions of life. At some point organic compounds took on some of the aspects of what we would consider life. Life is an ongoing experiment in organic chemistry.

Yeah, but Paul was talking about events that happened a few years after the Resurrection tho. And sure, it may have been written about a quarter of a century after Jesus' death...but then again, pointing that out is irrelevant because most written history (which is what he is claiming it was) is written after the events of the subject matter.

Paul is talking about the post crucifixion claims, which occurred during a forty day period, after which Jesus was taken bodily up to heaven. But even if you attempt to proclaim that the experience of the 500 occurred after the forty days, you are still left with the fact that Paul does not himself claim to have been a personal witness to the event. Either Paul heard this story elsewhere, or he dreamed it.

Which puts me in mind of a story I once heard on Christian radio. The radio minister made the claim that he had "personal knowledge" of an actual miracle. He had a Nigerian minister friend, he indicated, that told him that one of his parishioners who had no eyes had been miraculously healed. New eyes and all. This is similar to Paul's story. Something believed, but not personally experienced.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This is in fact the only source for this claim of the five hundred.

So what?

An unbelievable claim with no supporting evidences cannot reasonably be considered historically accurate, can it?

He may not have been a personal witness to the post crucifixion of Jesus, but he was a contemporary to the original apostles, one being Peter, who was Jesus' right hand man...and he stated from his own testimony that he spent time with Peter personally (Gal 1:18-24).

And who better than Peter would you want to talk to about Jesus?? (except maybe John).

And not only that but, Paul was a contemporary to Jesus. He may have never met him, but he was still a contemporary nevertheless.

Second, in verse 8 (1Corin 15), Paul stated that Christ appeared to him...now, whether or not he is talking about the road to Damascus incident or another appearance is up for debate.

I agree these ARE the individuals upon whom we can reasonably assign responsibility for spreading the story of the risen Jesus. A story which is totally unbelievable, and which was largely rejected at the time. Apparently with good cause.

And this individual got his information from those who were present.

This individual got his information from those who CLAIMED it to be true.

Sure doesn't. Paul was simply passing down the creed as it was passed down to him, and what was passed down to him was the mention of the five hundred folks.

Again, we don't know where Paul got this story from. But like the Nigerian pastor's story of the restoration of the sight of the blind man, it is just a STORY, with no corroborating evidence.

I also concede the historical existence of individuals (scientists, atheists) who once thought that the universe is finite and static...which is a belief that is now largely extinct (for the most part).

You might as well throw the Piltdown man hoax into the argument while you are at it. Piltdown man was disproved by scientists once the science became sophisticated enough to recognize that it was a hoax. Science is continuously advancing. Einstein thought the universe was static until he personally witnessed the evidence that proved that the universe is expanding.

Because science is only concerned with the truth. Religion is concerned with maintaining a fixed and dogmatic view of reality. Which is why religion is ultimately fated to fade away.

Science does not purposely seek to undermine religion. But that is what is occurring.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This would only be true if humans were reliable. But as we all know too well, they are not.

Some are, some aren't. No generalizing.

It makes a difference though, doesn't it! Humans are considered to be either reliable or unreliable depending upon their actions and words. The early disciples of Jesus were apparently, according to Acts, spreading the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. This leaves every indication that they were unreliable. And as I already pointed out, their new leader, Peter, is one of the most renowned lairs in all of western literature. People lie freely when there is a motive.

Sooo, let me get this straight; Peter would lie about merely knowing Jesus...but would also be the front-man in concocting a story about the physical Resurrection from death of the man of whom he just claimed he didn't know??
Makes no sense.

People lie when there is sufficient motive. The attempt to restore Jesus' good name was plenty of motivation. Had Peter changed after the execution of Jesus? Or was he still the same sword carrying ear slaying violent man that he had always been?

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

If you could dispassionately consider the extortion murder of Ananias and Sapphira at the hands of Peter and his band of thugs, you might recognize that these were not necessarily very nice people. I predict, however, that you will attempt to rationalize away what is otherwise a very cold blooded description of murder.

And for those who don't believe in intelligent design (non-theists), they truly believe that dead matter came to life and began to talk.

I hear my own words, as well as the words of others. Some people argue that our existence is merely an illusion and that we have no actual reality. I want to understand exactly how the universe operates however, and to that purpose I find that I have no other choice but to trust my senses.

There must be a reason why they believe it (abiogenesis).

Because I am living and I observe the existence of other forms of life as well. Life exists.

Genetic fallacy. Oh, and btw, the genetic fallacy has nothing to do with genetics. Look it up and you will find that most unbelievers commit this fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning and I will call it out whenever I see it, which is most of the time on this great forum.

Genetics has no direct bearing on reasoning. Which was my point. Except insofar as some individuals were blessed (or cursed) with a greater degree of ability to things through. If you are attempting to establish that causal considerations have no impact on whether or not a statement, or postulation, is true or not, then that is perfectly ridiculous.

Well, you certainly seem to have "convincing" evidence which leads you to believe the contrary. So are you going to apply that same line of reasoning to yourself? Or does it not work with your reasoning, only the reasoning of others who don't believe as you do?

Convincing evidence... working technology. Evidence which is not convincing... someone says that a corpse came back to life and then flew away, and that this corpse will one day return, despite a 2,000 year record of being DEAD WRONG!

Genetic fallacy. Even if what you say is true, that has no barren on whether or not the indoctrinated belief is true or not. That is why any attempts to discredit a belief based on the beliefs origins is fallacious.

My point was that people tend to believe in the religion that they were indoctrinated into by their parents. The map shows this to be true. There are regions of the world where the different religions are concentrated, because the majority of the population was indoctrinated into the local religion. But you were aware of that already. And so is everyone else.

Trying to dismiss what everyone can clearly see is true, serves no purpose but to blunt your credibility.

So, there is no difference between you, and a rock?

Only in the way were are put together. Which is huge. The same matter could be used to construct either me or a rock of the same mass. Protons neutrons and electrons are interchangeable. That is in fact the theoretical principle behind the replicators on Star Trek. It's science fiction of course, we are a long way from such technology ( a very transformative technology, I might add), but the principle is scientifically sound. A 10 ounce sirloin is simply a collection of 10 ounces of protons neutrons and electrons placed in the proper order.

The second law of thermodynamics comes into play only after the universe began to exist...which by all contemporary accounts, it did.

The second law of thermodynamics only functions as stated as long as the universe continues to expand. And in that sense it is perfectly valid and functional within the conditions that we currently find ourselves living in. Scientists have long supposed that the expansion of the universe will eventually be arrested by the force of gravity. If that occurs, then the universe and all of its systems will become increasingly more energized as things pull back together.

Yeah but it couldn't have been changing forms since past eternity. Such a concept is logically incoherent and cannot happen under any conceivable circumstance...so much so that even God himself is subjected to this absurdity...and if he is subjected to it, then so is nature.

According to the big bang theory, the universe began as a compressed spark of pure energy. How did all of the energy of the universe become so compressed? The only compressing force that we are aware of that could accomplish that is the force of gravity. So what was the material (energy) of our universe doing before the big bang? It was apparently collapsing and compressing. What was it doing before that? We do not know of course, but we have no reason to suppose that it was doing anything other than interacting with itself; it was changing from form to form. Because that it what it does. It's comparable to a virus in some ways. All it does is change from form to form. Happily, one of those forms is us.

See, now you are speculating, relying on the unseen. You say above that most people don't understand modern concepts of biology and physics...yet, there is nothing about biology and/or physics that will "allow you to believe that non sentient matter could, over time, in certain cases evolve the ability to respire and excrete, and reproduce, and eventually even become 1self aware".

I am not immune to speculation based on the best current evidence. What I do not do is make things up and declare them to be true.

There is nothing about science that allows you believe this. You haven't conducted any experiment, test...gathered any data, or done any research that will get you to conclusively draw such a conclusion. You are simply relying on faith.

You know nothing of my background in science. Let's just say that I have witnessed

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

My original reply was too long. Here is the remainder.

There is nothing about science that allows you believe this. You haven't conducted any experiment, test...gathered any data, or done any research that will get you to conclusively draw such a conclusion. You are simply relying on faith.

You know nothing of my background in science. Let's just say that I have witnessed some of the experiments for myself and I agree that they have manifest every indication of being true.

Sure, you are free to believe that it could happen, but mere belief is not going to get the unconscious matter to become conscious. Go in the lab, conduct the experiments, and get the desired results. Until then, you are assuming, speculating, and faith-utilizing.

I have been to the lab, observed experiments being conducted, and observed them getting the expected results. No faith was involved.

It is hard to argue against ones own existence, but where one came from and how one got here....that is a different story.

I began as the union of material from my parents. My parents underwent the same process. But the material from my parents that formed me was not unique to my parents. It had existed in other forms for AT LEAST 14 billion years. And perhaps eternally. That material had existed, in various forms, in stars and planets, plants, animals and rocks. It eventually formed me, and then moved on to be something else as I drew in new material to sustain my life, and excreted the old material. When I am gone every particle of my body will go on to be something else. Change without end.

Yeah, because Paul's agenda wasn't to give a biography of Jesus' life, which is why you won't find any biograph-full themes in his letters.

Paul was simply writing down what he believed to various others in the church. Christians have taken his musings and declared them to be the inerrant word of God.

In what? About a decade later? LOL.

No. About two decades later. Forty years. Gospel Mark was written sometime after 70 AD. How do we know? Because Gospel Mark is the earliest of the Gospels to have been written, and Mark 13:2 makes a reference to the stone by stone destruction of the temple. This occured at a known date, 70 AD. And that really is the way history functions.

Any specifics?

Well, there is always the perpetual virginity of Mary that the Catholics have declared to be inerrant doctrine. That's the one that leads to the assertion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were really only half siblings from Joseph's earlier marriage. Is this doctrine based on any actual evidence in scripture? NOPE! Catholics have declared that the idea that the virgin Mary had sex with her husband is "repugnant to humankind." Joseph, they insist, was old and impotent when he married Mary. Because anything else is offensive. Somehow an impotent old man marrying a girl of twelve or thirteen is not offensive to Catholics at all. But like so much of Christian belief, this entire line of belief is completely made up of assertions and wishful thinking.

Wikipedia
Perpetual virginity of Mary
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Marian doctrine taught by the Catholic Church and held by a number of groups in Christianity which asserts that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was "always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ."[2][3] This doctrine also proclaims that Mary had no marital relations after Jesus' birth nor gave birth to any children other than Jesus.[2] While the Bible mentions brothers of Jesus,[4] Catholic, Orthodox, and some traditional Protestant interpretations offer various explanations that align with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity; that these siblings were either children of Joseph from a previous marriage, cousins of Jesus, or were closely associated with the Holy Family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual ... ty_of_Mary

[PghPanther]

The mission is a complete failure.........Christ never wrote a thing down so he had to depend on stories and oral transmission of believers to end up being written down in a different language some 800 miles from where the supposed events took place anywhere from 40 to 90 years after they happened?

That is no way to establish the reality of any claims..........

..within twenty years after a weather balloon crash in Roswell, NM the story grew among the oral transmissions of those who believed others......into an alien space ship with 3 live aliens recovered and being kept alive in area 51 where communications from these being were being used to back engineer the ship to develop anti-gravity propulsion military aircraft today............

Is that a legitimate way to document reality and make claims today?

You can go to any UFO convention and find many people who swear and live by these tall tales and are sincere about it.........

.......just like Priests, Ministers and born again believers of the faith claim with Christ.

[bjs]

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

Having read through the opening post, I do not know what you think Jesus’ mission was. Therefore, I do not think that it is a good summary of Jesus mission.

What do you think Jesus mission was?

[For_The_Kingdom]

This is like saying the the story of Santa's team of flying reindeer is only unrealistic if Santa doesn't exist and isn't imbued with magical powers. Well... yes... that's true.

Glad you agree.

If your make believe is not valid then your whole premise falls apart.

I agree...if.

On the other hand, if God exists and can do anything, or if Santa exists and has magic, then you can pretty much claim that anything you can think of is true.

Case by case.

And yet at the end of the day you have not ACTUALLY produced a single flying reindeer or a single flying reanimated corpse.

What I can provide is evidence as to why the belief is more probable than not..and in some cases, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the belief is valid/true.

Or let's put it another way. If God exists, and someone chooses to call Him Allah, then the story of Muhammad flying up to heaven on a flying steed, or tearing the moon in two, become theoretically possible. And yet they also remain just as unrealistic as they always were.

Bro, the point is; if God exists then what you claim is unlikely is not so unlikely at that point.

The hypothesis is that the universe couldn't possibly exist without the benefit of an intelligent designer, who exists without the benefit of an intelligent designer. This particular bit of pretzel logic fails as a result of it's own illogic immediately.

Don't see what is so illogical about it.

Fossils are physical evidence of of macroevolution.

No it isn't. Fossils are evidence that something died. Anything deduction made after that is speculative at best.

Viruses do not respire and do not excrete, commonly accepted requirements for life. All viruses do is replicate themselves. Physical evidence for protolife (something like life, but not yet life).

Fail to see what any of that has to do with abiogenesis.

Who is the source for this story? It is contained in Acts, which was written by the author of Gospel Luke. But the author of Luke was not present for the events in question. The author of Luke got the story from Paul. but Paul was the afflicted man! This is Paul's memory of the way events played out at a time when he had collapsed and was confused and delirious. The fact that he was severely dehydrated explains the entire incident.

So Paul was so dehydrated/delirious that he didn't know whether it was the experience that made him dehydrated/delirious, or whether it was the dehydration/delusion that made him have the experience.

SMH. Anything but the "G" word, right?

Paul's belief that he spoke with a dead man can never be made to be either realistic or likely.

I agree, on naturalism. But since this has nothing to do with naturalism, it can be made realistic and likely.

It's more make believe which has to be accepted entirely on faith.

Negative. When you see Christian warriors like WLC, Mike Licona, Gary Habermas out there debating skeptics on the Resurrection, they are not relying on faith, they are relying on evidence.

And the more one studies Christian claims, the more one realizes that they are invariably make believe which have to be accepted on faith. Faith is the result of specific indoctrination, and does not rely on either logic or the facts.

I feel the same way about the poor studies who are in public schools getting indoctrinated with unproven scientific theories such as abiogenesis and macroevolution.

"For severe cases of dehydration where fainting, unconsciousness, or other severely inhibiting symptom is present (the patient is incapable of standing or thinking clearly), emergency attention is required. Fluids containing a proper balance of replacement electrolytes are given orally or intravenously with continuing assessment of electrolyte status; complete resolution is the norm in all but the most extreme cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

The dehydration occurred after the experience, according to the narrative.

Acts tells us directly that Paul went three days without drinking. And dehydration matches Pauls symptoms exactly. No make believe required.

After the experience.

If you speak to a "dead" man, wouldn't that make the "dead" man alive?

Not if the conversation only occured inside of a person's head.

A bad premise can only lead to a bad conclusion.

If God never existed to begin with, then every premise one makes concerning the things that God wants and does will unfailingly lead to an erroneous conclusion. Conclusions which require a supernatural explanation to support them. All religions are constructed on various supernatural claims. And very clearly, not all religions are valid. In fact, all of the religions you DON"T believe in are pure nonsense. Wouldn't you agree?

I disagree....wholeheartedly. I also wholeheartedly...disagree. LOL.

Please provide an example of a supernatural occurrence that is commonly acknowledged (accepted universally) to have occurred.

We've exhausted all possible natural explanations to explain the origin of the disciples beliefs...and once all natural explanations have been exhausted, there is only one game left in town (supernatural).

We have only what certain of the The origin of the universe <---it is impossible for there to be a natural explanation for this, so right from jump street does the supernatural explanation rear its ugly head. the disciples CLAIMED. Please provide a list of the disciples that specifically claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

The origin of the universe <---it is impossible for there to be a natural explanation for this, so right from jump street does the supernatural explanation rear its ugly head.

The universe began when energy, reduced by the force of gravity to a very concentrated condition, exploded and began expanding. This is not "impossible" at all. This in fact represent the current best understanding of the beginning of the universe. But let me make this clear. It doesn't necessarily represent the beginning of the energy that formed the universe.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You certainly would not so readily accept unrealistic claims presented by believers of a non Christian religion.

Show me the evidence. I am open.

Are you familiar with "The Night Ride" (Isra and Mi'raj) of Muhammad? According to the story one night in the year 621 when the prophet Muhammad was fifty years old, he traveled to heaven aboard the flying steed Buraq. He visited the seven levels of heaven while there, meeting first with Allah's other great prophets, including Jesus. Next he met with all the various angelic beings. And then finally he met with God Himself, who gave Muhammad instructions to take back to humankind. All of this was accomplished in a single night. The source for this story and these occurrences is none other than Muhammad himself, as only it could be since only he experienced them. And the Isra and Mi'raj is well known among Muslims to have been historically valid, since it is mentioned in the holy Qur'an itself which is inerrant and therefore beyond all questioning. In fact the 17th chapter of the Qur'an, sura 17 Al-Isra , is devoted to the subject of Muhammad's "night ride."

The story of Isra and Mi'raj, Muhammad's "Night Ride" is attested to by none other than the founder of one of the world's great religions, practiced and believed with total devotion by two billion living Muslims, and billions more who are now deceased.

Is Muhammad a "reliable witness?" Is the story of the Night Ride historically valid? Could the origin of the story simply have been the result of a dream, or a hallucination? Are we forced to accept this story as undoubtedly and necessarily true? Or is skepticism warranted?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq

And then there is the time that Muhammad split the moon in two, after which he restored it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... e_Moon.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

Examples of the feats accomplished by the Hindu Gods would take too much space.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
What the apostles actually believed is known only to those apostles that claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. And they are no longer talking.

So, I guess the entire genre of history is thrown out of the window on that note.

Do you not routinely exclude the belief systems of billion of non Christians as unrealistic and invalid? in other words you have thrown the entire genre of history out of the window. As difficult as it is for anyone to suppose that THEIR belief system is not true and valid, the fact is that not all of these various beliefs can be true and valid. There are billions of individuals in this world who subscribe to a particular world view. And they are just wrong. What makes you special and immune to being wrong?

Paul stated that there were more than a handful of people...and even if it was only a handful..its amazing how you can go from a handful of believers to #1 in the entire world.

Paul stated that there were more than 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus on one occasion. But Paul also by his own admission was the LAST person to receive his calling.

1 Cor.15:
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul was not present to witness any of the claimed post crucifixion appearances of Jesus. So where do he get this claim? He doesn't say. It may have been part of the rumor then in circulation. Or he may have dreamed it. One way or another the story of five hundred individuals communing with a risen dead man is an unbelievable story. Especially when presented by an individual who clearly was not present to witness what he is claiming occurred. If you actually had 500 eyewitness testimonies this story STILL would not be realistic. But if you had 500 eyewitness testimonies you would at least have the basis for making a credible case for your belief. You have only one testimony for an unrealistic claim however. And he wasn't an eyewitness.

Bro, that is what history is all about. Historians who are living today were not present during any of the events in antiquity, yet, the genre of history is well, an established
genre/tool/methodology we use for truth value.

Unless, again, you want to throw the entire genre of history out of the window. Or is this a double standard?

There are NO claims of supernatural occurrences that are considered to be a part of the accepted historical record. If Christians claims were the lone exception THAT would be a double standard.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Much in the same way that Muslims have been convinced that Muhammad's claims are true, of Mormons are convinced that Joseph Smith's claims are true. And yet those of us that are outside of those belief systems looking in see only unrealistic foolishness. Because people invariably give their own belief systems a free pass from any in depth skepticism.

Case by case.

Who gets to decide which of the various claims are true and are not, on a case by case basis? The current standard is that supernatural claims are systematically excluded as unrealistic.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Christians proclaim, and believe, that the empty tomb is evidence that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew away. And yet that is among the least likely possibilities.

Actually it isn't. The only way you can determine it is the least likely possibility is if you are able to determine God's level of desire to raise Jesus from the dead. But you can't do that, can you? Nope.

In other words, a claim should be subjected to individual systems of make believe. That can be a problem though, when contradictory claims are made. For example, the Quran specifically denies that Jesus was resurrected.

"That they said (in boast) "We have killed Christ Jesus the
son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not,
nor crusified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and
those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain)
knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they
killed him not:--" (Koran, Su 4:157).
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp ... &verse=157


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
In fact it has no "likelihood" of being true at all.

Based on what?

Based on all observation over the course of human history, a corpse CANNOT AND WILL NOT, return to life and walk away. Much less fly off up into the sky. A single unverifiable claim cannot change the observations of all of common history.

Our head to head is supposed to be on the possibility of infinity, remember? In my last pm to you, I made that very point. No wonder I've yet to receive a response.

The question of infinity was brought up in one of our PM's. It was not necessarily supposed to be the focal point of our discussion. If so, it will be a short discussion. We can potentially dispose of it right now in fact. Do you believe that God has existed eternally? If the answer is yes, then you do believe in infinity. I personally suppose that there are no discreet beginnings at all. Something has always existed.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The secular historical record is also entirely bereft of any supernatural claims which are considered to be uniformly accepted historical fact.

So, "because the claims are of supernatural nature, the claims cannot be historical".

That is a text book non sequitur example.

That supernatural claims have been made is a historical fact. That supernatural occurrences happen is NOT a historical fact. For example, here is a passage from my old Western Civ textbook, circa the 1960's.

"The crucifixion of Jesus marked a great climax in Christian history. At first his death was viewed by his followers as the end of their hopes. Their despair soon vanished, however, for rumors began to spread that the Master was alive, and that he had been seen by certain of his faithful disciples. The remainder of his followers were quickly convinced that he had risen from the dead, and that he was truly a divine being." (Western Civilizations, Their History and their Culture; fifth edition, 1958; Pg. 252)

Notice that this quote acknowledges the historical origins of Christianity. What it does not acknowledge is that the resurrection actually occurred. That is a religious belief. What is presented represents secular history.

Then apply that line of reasoning to the concept of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the concept that life arose from non living material. Life is COMPOSED of non living material. Biologists suppose that life arose spontaneously (of its own volition as a result of the process of hundreds of millions of years of ongoing organic biology) from non living material.

Christians declare that life could not have arisen spontaneously from non living material and must therefore be the result of intelligent design. An intelligent designer who was NOT the result of intelligent design. So Christian immediately seek to overturn their initial claim through an appeal to make believe and imagination. Direct observation indicates that life not only exists, but that it is made up of non living material. God on the other hand can not be observed at all, but must be ENTIRELY MADE UP AND IMAGINED INTO EXISTENCE. Make believe.

The idea isn't that "just because they claimed it, it is true". The argument is rather that "they believed it, and the origin of the belief is best explained based upon the truth value of their claims".

We don't know what the apostles and some few of the earliest disciples actually believed. All we know is what they claimed. And what they claimed is unrealistic. We have every reason and right to doubt that their claims were true.

That is a big distinction. In other words, we are appealing to the best explanation to explain the effect, which we believe to be the Resurrection.

The resurrection might only approach the "best explanation" if it stands without any natural explanation to challenge it. And that simply is not the case.


The four Gospels represent the ONLY information on the life Jesus that anyone supposes has any connection to valid history. And a good deal of what is contained in the NT strains credulity. In fact, it is flatly unbelievable. Here is a short version of events that closely follows the accepted story, but which does not require any recourse to any supernatural occurrences. I am not claiming that this is what actually occurred, simply that it explains the events naturally without recourse to supernatural claims.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

The day after the crucifixion chief priests went out to Joseph's tomb, and finding it covered with a large stone, and owing to the nature of the day (the Sabbath and Passover) did not open and search it, but instead secured what was an already empty tomb! Why was the tomb already empty? Because Joseph of Arimathea,who was a disciple of Jesus, got legal possession of the body from the Roman governor.

Matthew 27:
[57]When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph never intended that his brand new family crypt should be the final resting place for Jesus, but only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body. Because the day was late and his tomb was "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus had been crucified. The next day when the priests secured Joseph's tomb, the body of Jesus was already being relocated to its actual intended final resting place by his disciples.

And so exactly what the priests feared the disciples intended to do is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty. Six weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and began to circulate the rumor that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Something only they witnessed, according to them.

So when the priests took possession of Joseph's new tomb on the next day, they did not open and inspect it for the body of Jesus, because it was a high holy day. Instead they placed seals on the tomb to insure that whatever its condition was that condition would remain until they could return and inspect the tomb. The tomb proved to be empty the next morning. Clearly the body of Jesus WAS ALREADY GONE! The conclusion that Christians declare to be the only explanation for the empty tomb is in fact the least likely explanation.


So where would the final resting place of Jesus have been? The Gospels do not say, but we can make an educated guess. It was a strong custom among the Jews to bury their dead with family members. Any family of any substance had a personal family crypt where family members were interred together. Rich folks like Joseph could afford hand cut family crypts to be constructed. Folks of lesser means tended to use natural caves and caverns, usually with the family named carved at the entrance. If Joseph the rich man truly wanted to honor Jesus, he would have had the body transported home to be buried with is own family, not inter him with Joseph's family. Home to his family in Galilee, about 65 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. About a three day journey on foot. All down hill.

Matthew 28:
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The remaining apostles all journeyed to Galilee after the crucifixion! The home of the family of Jesus.

The only thing I am assuming is that Joseph of Arimathea never intended to use his personal family crypt as the final resting place for Jesus, only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body, and had the body shipped home to be buried by Jesus' own family members. All of which fits easily into the story at hand.

Why was Joseph's tomb empty on sunday morning? BECAUSE THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB ON SATURDAY. The body had already been moved by the disciples of Jesus WHO ALREADY HAD LEGAL POSSESSION OF IT.

This is in fact THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION! The conclusion that the body came back to life and left the tomb under its own power is the LEAST LIKELY CONCLUSION. In fact this conclusion has no likelihood at all.

So, is this they way things actually played out? There is no way to know just how much of the story is valid. This particular accounting makes perfect sense however. It DOES NOT lead to supposing that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away I am afraid.

Now, of course, there are religious folks out there who believe all sorts of things, which is why I keep stressing the case by case approach, because all beliefs aren't created equal.

"Now, of course, there are religious folks out there who believe all sorts of things." And the overwhelming majority of them are wrong, of course. So how should we go about determining just who is right? Well I have discovered a foolproof way of determining who is right. Just ask! Because what I have discovered is that whoever I am in conversation with is more than happy to verify that THEY are the one who has it all figured out correctly. For example any Mormon will happily tell you that they are the only ones who have it all right.

Religious beliefs are ALL created equal. They just all make different claims.

Yeah, but James probably wouldn't have had any position in the Church if it weren't for being convinced by the resurrection.

He was the brother of Jesus, son if Mary. That should have carried with it considerable cred. Unless you subscribe to the unsubstantiatable Catholic claim that Mary was Joseph's second wife and that his brothers and sisters had a different mother. Because if one is comfortable making up claims as they go along, then whatever one finds the most satisfying to believe is what will be transformed into dogma.

What took MLK so long to propose a march on Washington? Who knows.

The closest family members of Jesus, the individuals who knew him best, were not among his early followers.

Hey, you can't please everyone.

Does this apply to living in close proximity to God as well?

They are also mentioned from time to time. Jesus was also on the road a lot..and usually when someone goes on tour, they don't take their whole neighborhood with them.

Jesus did not begin his ministry until about the age of thirty. Prior to that the people who knew him do not seem to have been especially impressed with him.

Again, you can't please everyone. Some people are gonna hate on you no matter what you do. And to point out the fact that some people weren't impress with Jesus is irrelevant, because I can just as easily point out the fact that there were those that WERE impressed with him.

Again, you are referring to GOD here are you not? Thirty years of living in close proximity to God and no one was impressed?

When Jesus made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (on donkey), he was greeted by large crowds who WERE impressed with him.

Acts 1:15 indicates that Jesus had about 120 disciples shortly after his death. Enough, certainly, to put on the display described in Matthew. Assuming that it happened at all. The author of Matthew has a way of detailing things that no one else seemed to be aware of. And yet when Pilate expressly offered to free Jesus, the crowd chose a thief instead. It seems that relatively few people were actually all that impressed with Jesus.

So you clear his name by saying that he Resurrected from the dead?? LOL. Still doesn't explain the empty tomb...and you talk about disgrace...the tomb was found by women..and the testimony of women just wasn't credible in Judaism. So if the male followers of Jesus did concoct a story, they wouldn't have had women discover the empty tomb first.

I believe that I explained the empty tomb well enough. Feel free to ask questions.

Plus, given the fact that the narratives (Gospels) had the apostles looking like naive fools most of the time and even cowards..it is unlikely that they would put themselves in such a bad light..if the story was originated from them and was fabricated by them.

And this is odd. According to the Gospels his apostles directly witnessed Jesus perform many miracles, including raising others from the dead. And yet even they were not convinced, until, they say, they saw the risen Jesus. Does their apparent naivatity and cowardarly actions prior to their claims of the risen Jesus serve to put thiem in a bad light... or does their claimed resurgence of faith after they claimed to have seen the risen Jesus actually work to promote the truth of their claims after Jesus was dead. Because their claimed resurgence of faith seems to have worked to convince you... as well as every other Christian I have ever met.

James and Paul weren't his followers.

That would be news to both James and John. Again, James was not apparently impressed with Jesus prior to Jesus' execution.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
And of course both of these claims violate all common sense and common experience.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

What exactly prevents Paul from being every bit as fulla-bulla as the religious zealots that you DO NOT happen to personally subscribe too?

Right, and if God exists and he has the power to give life, take life, and restore life again...I don't see the issue here. Again, the hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead. It was a miracle. Now, if the claim was that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, then I could see your point. However, that isn't the argument.

Agreed! If your make believe happens to be true than everything falls right into place. And exactly the same thing can be said of the make believe of every other religious believer that has ever lived. A mere statement of faith is not evidence for anything, however. No matter how emphatically is it stated.

That being said, again; I find it amazing that people who think that "dead" matter can/did come to life have such a beef with a corpse coming back to life...and what is even more amazing is the fact that the "dead" matter coming to life is the actual naturalistic claim!!!

They believe that "dead" matter "naturally" came to life...when there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it will fall right in the category of the "common sense and common
experience" that you claim the Resurrection violates!!

It blows my mind.

First notice that all living things die. I am 69 years old, so if I am lying I am dying. Which all living things do. I do not choose it to be this way. But what one cannot change, one must accept.

There is a process by which life arises naturally. And life relies on this process being maintained until such time as the process breaks down. As yet, we have no scientific means to restore life. The restoration of life is currently in the realm of science fiction and make believe.

Which still doesn't explain the empty tomb. If they lied, then Jesus' corpse should have still be in the tomb. But it wasn't. And not only that, but what you are suggesting is that the apostles and a few other disciples lied about seeing the Resurrected Jesus, and Paul just happened to hallucinate about seeing the Resurrected Jesus...which is to suggest that if the apostles wouldn't have spread the false rumors, that Paul would have still hallucinated and been all by his lonesome in believing that Jesus rose from the dead.

Your continued reference to the empty tomb is an indication that you have never given any actual thought to how preposterous the risen from the dead claim is. And more important, how easy it is to explain! If you care to make the effort.

But then again, if no rumors were spread and Paul hallucinated and therefore was lead to believe in the Resurrected Jesus, then Jesus' followers could have just pointed to his corpse in the tomb and said "Buddy, get some rest,..Jesus' body is right here"...and Christianity would have ceased before it began.

But it didn't quite work out that way, did it?

According to Acts, the rumors of the resurrection of Jesus began to be spread about six weeks after Jesus was executed. Paul did not undergo his conversion until some few years later.

Paul was a product of the rumors that were being spread about by the earliest followers of Jesus. And according to Gospel Matthew the chief priests suspected that a plot existed to move the body and claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Which is exactly what happened.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But for each new convert, they had an individual like you and Paul; an individual who was not knowingly spreading a false false rumor, but telling a story they believed in with all certainty. Just like you.

Sure, assuming that the story was false.

The story is that a corpse came back to life and then flew off up into the clouds. We have every right and reason to begin with the assumption that it is false. So where is the unassailable evidence to support it? "Well, that's what someone said!" And the response to that, I am afraid, is BIG FRICKEN DEAL. Stories and tall tales are exceedingly common.

Genetic fallacy. How a religion is founded is independent of the truth value of the religion.

The truth value of a religion is NOT independent from how the claims of that religion apparently coincide with all common observation, common experience and all common sense. When the claims of a religion are in direct conflict with all common observation, common experience and all common sense, then a very heavy amount of physical evidence must necessarily be presented to balance out the inherent reasons for immediately dismissing claims which directly conflict with all common observation, common experience and all common sense. "That's what I heard," does not qualify as physical evidence.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Or maybe it's more accurate to say that humans have a difficult time recognizing and understanding the truth.

Some do, some don't. Still generalizing, eh?

The trick of course, is determining just who seems to be following the lines of truth, and who seems to be following lines of folly. For example, on the one hand we have those who subscribe to the scientific explanation for how the universe works. These individuals have working technology, the fruit of scientific investigation, to point to. On the other hand we

have those who subscribe to the claim that an individual who lived 2,000 years ago is about to come back at any time now (or at least will EVENTUALLY). This group has a record of being right that currently stands at zero for 2,000 years and counting. This would SEEM to be a very clear way of determining just who is on the right track, and who is not.

It also shows and/or rather doesn't support the idea that inanimate matter can suddenly/gradually come to life..but again, that doesn't stop naturalists from believing it.

Oh and just for the record, in case you haven't noticed: that is one of my "go to" retorts. Whenever a skeptic starts talking about how "dead corpses don't come back to life", my rebuttal will always be "Well, dead matter doesn't come to life either."

This is in fact the only instance in which I can not give you step by step scientific examples of how it occurs. It's all you have so you will obviously choose to beat it to death.

I would also like to point out that it was once claimed, by Christians, that the earth could not possibly be billions of years old, because erosion would have worn down the mountains by now. A valid objection. Until plate tectonics and continental drift was discovered. Now it's clear that mountains are simply wrinkles in the earth's crust caused by massive floating plates pushing into each other. Some mountains, the Sierria's and the Himalayas for example, are actually in the process of growing. This is because the earth is undergoing its own evolution. And the cause, like everything else that occurs, is quantum mechanics. So the religious have had to move their tents away from the claim that the mountains should have eroded away by now, and have repositioned their tents around the question of the exact method by which protons neutrons and electrons might have transformed naturally into living things. Biologists believe that they are very close to figuring out the exact steps needed to create life from scratch. When (if) science figures out the exact process by which life arose from a collection of organic soup, the believers will be forced once again to pick up their tents and reposition them around some other question which is not completely understood. And of course believers will never for a moment question their own assumptions. We are rapidly moving towards a time when there are not real unanswered questions. At which point believers will have to do exactly what they are already doing over the question of evolution. Which is to deny that it is true, and to create a myth to tell themselves that even scientists have largely given up on evolution. Which is pure unadulterated self delusion.

Naturalists don't believe that a dead body can come back to life, but they sure as hell will believe that dead matter can become living. It is a text book example of the taxi cab fallacy. A double standard.

The problem that you will have to overcome, is that both things are observed to be true. Life arises naturally. Dead things do not come back to life. These are simply observable facts. But of course, if you first arm yourself with the claim that make believe is valid, then anything you claim can be declared to be viable.

And another thing, it is now becoming a straw man. We (believers) agree with you that dead corpses stay dead, according to the laws of nature. However, no one is saying that the Resurrection was a natural event...the hypothesis is supernatural...therefore, you continually pointing out what naturally occurs when someone dies is rather pointless.

No, you are claiming that the resurrection occurred... based on claims made by his earliest followers. And yet it is true that corpses unfailingly remain dead, while people lie and falsify copiously.

We are on a completely different realm of reality (supernatural)...and I know that might not be your thing, but nevertheless, it is what it is. So from now on when you make that point...I will simply say...straw man.

supernatural
[soo-per-nach-er-uh l, -nach-ruh l]
adjective
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural:
4. of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

I specifically deny that the supernatural occurs. I cannot be more clear than that.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
A simple claim to the contrary cannot overcome all common observation. People lie!

Ok, and I am saying people tell the truth, and your simple claim to the contrary (people lie) also cannot overcome all common observation. See what I did there? You have to do more than just say "they could have been lying" because for all you know, they could have very well been telling the truth.

How do we normally determine what is true and what isn't? We compare the claim to all common experience, common observation and all common sense. As I already pointed out, the claim that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and then flew away directly defies all common experience, common observation and all common sense. We are therefore left with the conclusion that they were either lying or mistaken.

You have to demonstrate how does the likelihood of them lying outweigh the likelihood of them telling the truth...and I don't think you can do that. But I can, on the flip-side tho.

What would be gained by their lying? Was there a motive?

Matthew 27:64 gives us a perfectly clear motive. The disciples wanted to relocate the body of Jesus for the purpose of spreading the rumor that he had returned from the dead. Jesus had died in the most degraded manner possible for a Jew. "He that is hanged is accursed of God" (Deut.21:23) Since being restored to life could ONLY be regarded as a clear act of God Himself, not only was Jesus clearly NOT the "accursed of God," he was clearly one of God's special chosen emissaries. The story of the "risen Christ" would serve to completely undo all that the priests had intended through the degraded and ignominious way Jesus had been put to death. If enough people could be convinced, the story would also serve to restore some very serious weight of credibility to the movement that Jesus had begun, and which the disciples would now inherit and attempt to carry on with. A crucified Jesus literally represents a dead end. The story of the "risen Christ" on the other hand provides a basis of an entirely new imperative, not to mention a very powerful and compelling passion story. A story that makes for great and dramatic storytelling. It in fact proved to be a brilliant move which served to completely reverse all that the Jewish priests had intended. And since it ultimately managed to evolve into one of the world's great religions, it worked far better than the apostles and early followers of Jesus could ever have possibly imagined.

There was also a monetary motive, as it turned out.

Acts 4:
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Traveling about telling stories of Jesus, and having money lain at one's feet, was a far more inviting occupation than the back breaking and dangerous job of fishing. Or that even more dangerous job; tax collecting.

Some people tell the truth with good motivation (one would be; because they dont like lying). Often they tell the truth because it is the moral thing to do, and it works to achieve a goal of being trustworthy.

You are not lying to me. Yet, are you telling me the truth? Some people proclaim what they believe to be the truth with all of their heart and soul. Just as you are doing now. And some people are uttering utter nonsense and do not realize it. Just as everyone of every religious belief that you don't accept as true is doing now. So how can we tell truth from falsehood? You have to back away and look at ALL OF THEM OBJECTIVELY. The ones that defy all common experience, common observation and all common sense you discard. I have discard all religious claims as being contrary to all common experience, common observation and common sense and have moved on to considering scientific claims. Claims with ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support them.

I don't think I am. I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually 100%) that God exists. The only question is, which/what God exists? And based on the evidence that has been
presented, I draw the conclusion that the Christian God exist.

I can't imagine even the most profusely gullible of the gullible knowingly choosing to be gullible. Gullible people are firmly convinced that they are dead right.

Wikipedia
Harold Camping
Camping gained notoriety owing to his prediction that the Rapture would take place on May 21, 2011,[50][51][52] and that the end of the world would subsequently take place five months later on October 21, 2011.[53] Followers of Camping claimed that around 200 million people (approximately 2.8% of the world's 2011 population) would be raptured,[54] and publicized the

prediction in numerous countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

Time Magazine
By Kayla Webley Friday, May 20, 2011
Like all who proselytize the end the world, Camping has spread his message using a small army of followers; in his case, they're supported by a substantial budget that by some estimates is more than $100 million. There have been stories in the media of families selling their homes, quitting their jobs and budgeting their finances such that by May 21 they will be left with nothing. After all, they won't need it, right?
http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 48,00.html

What do you call someone who is broke, homeless and out of a job? Gullible. Also foolish. Knucklehead works, if one is feeling a little mean.

So what happened in May of 2011? Well, not the end of the world obviously.

Wikipedia
Harold Camping
On May 23, 2011, in an appearance before the press, Camping stated he had reinterpreted his prophecy. In his revised claim, May 21 was a "spiritual" judgment day, and the physical Rapture would occur on October 21, 2011, simultaneously with the destruction of the world. Camping said his company would not return money donated by followers to publicize the failed

May 21 prediction, stating: "We’re not at the end. Why would we return it?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

What happened in October 21, 2011? Well, we're still here.

Wikipedia
Harold Camping
Aftermath
In March 2012, Camping admitted that his predictions were in error, stating: "We humbly acknowledge we were wrong about the timing."[64] He also announced the "End to Doomsday

Predictions".[65] In May 2012, a year after the failure of Camping's prophecy, Religion Dispatches published a report on Camping's disillusioned former followers, some of whom had reportedly come to view him as a cult leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping

Like many things, apparently gullibility only happens to OTHER people.

Some scientist believe that dead matter came to life and began to talk.

I am composed of non living protons neutrons and electrons and I talk.

The obvious conclusion is that abiogenesis is a lie.

The obvious conclusion is that life exists and is therefore possible. Invisible Gods are the epitome of that which is not obvious.

And believing that a process which can't think (nature), but yet is still somehow able to give you a fully functional brain with a complimentary package of consciousness is something that I am not capable of accepting.

And also, a process which can't see (nature), but yet is still somehow able to give you eyeballs with a complimentary package of vision is something else that I am not capable of accepting.

If if I wasn't a Christian, I STILL wouldn't believe that stuff.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away. You believe that the universe could not possibly "just exist" without the benefit of an intelligent designer, an intelligent designer who "just exists" without the benefit of an intelligent designer. Science observes that the universe is made up of energy, and energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy is therefore eternal, continuously reforming itself. That is what is observed to be true. The concept of God on the other hand contradicts itself logically, and cannot be observed to be true.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
If I am suggesting that you are gullible to a foolish degree, and I am, I am also suggesting that the vast majority of people around the world are also gullible to a foolish degree.

Because the various unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world is staggering.

Right, and some of the unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world comes right from those who don't "believe".

All other beliefs that deny the truth of your beliefs are "unrealistic and outlandish." Wouldn't you agree? Which is of course exactly what they are claiming about your belief.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
People have motives for making claims.

People have motives for making truth claims too.

People even have motives for making claims that are NOT true, but to which they ascribe with all of their hearts. And of course I am referring to you. But I am also referring to every religious believer of every religious belief that ever existed. How many of the other thousands of religious beliefs that have passed into obscurity are you prepared to defend just because those individuals believed they were making true claims?

And believing that dead matter came to life and began to talk, that also fails miserably when compared to common experience...and what is the evidence for the truth of the claim in that case? "A scientist said so"!

I talk, and I am surrounded by individuals who do the same. This represents direct physical evidence that a being made up of non living protons neutrons and electrons can achieve sentient thought and the ability to speak. I have also been exposed to enough direct evidence to allow me to conclude that the further back into the past we investigate, the less and less complicated life was. This indicates that life was once so simple as to blur the common definitions of life. At some point organic compounds took on some of the aspects of what we would consider life. Life is an ongoing experiment in organic chemistry.

Yeah, but Paul was talking about events that happened a few years after the Resurrection tho. And sure, it may have been written about a quarter of a century after Jesus' death...but then again, pointing that out is irrelevant because most written history (which is what he is claiming it was) is written after the events of the subject matter.

Paul is talking about the post crucifixion claims, which occurred during a forty day period, after which Jesus was taken bodily up to heaven. But even if you attempt to proclaim that the experience of the 500 occurred after the forty days, you are still left with the fact that Paul does not himself claim to have been a personal witness to the event. Either Paul heard this story elsewhere, or he dreamed it.

Which puts me in mind of a story I once heard on Christian radio. The radio minister made the claim that he had "personal knowledge" of an actual miracle. He had a Nigerian minister friend, he indicated, that told him that one of his parishioners who had no eyes had been miraculously healed. New eyes and all. This is similar to Paul's story. Something believed, but not personally experienced.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This is in fact the only source for this claim of the five hundred.

So what?

An unbelievable claim with no supporting evidences cannot reasonably be considered historically accurate, can it?

He may not have been a personal witness to the post crucifixion of Jesus, but he was a contemporary to the original apostles, one being Peter, who was Jesus' right hand man...and he stated from his own testimony that he spent time with Peter personally (Gal 1:18-24).

And who better than Peter would you want to talk to about Jesus?? (except maybe John).

And not only that but, Paul was a contemporary to Jesus. He may have never met him, but he was still a contemporary nevertheless.

Second, in verse 8 (1Corin 15), Paul stated that Christ appeared to him...now, whether or not he is talking about the road to Damascus incident or another appearance is up for debate.

I agree these ARE the individuals upon whom we can reasonably assign responsibility for spreading the story of the risen Jesus. A story which is totally unbelievable, and which was largely rejected at the time. Apparently with good cause.

And this individual got his information from those who were present.

This individual got his information from those who CLAIMED it to be true.

Sure doesn't. Paul was simply passing down the creed as it was passed down to him, and what was passed down to him was the mention of the five hundred folks.

Again, we don't know where Paul got this story from. But like the Nigerian pastor's story of the restoration of the sight of the blind man, it is just a STORY, with no corroborating evidence.

I also concede the historical existence of individuals (scientists, atheists) who once thought that the universe is finite and static...which is a belief that is now largely extinct (for the most part).

You might as well throw the Piltdown man hoax into the argument while you are at it. Piltdown man was disproved by scientists once the science became sophisticated enough to recognize that it was a hoax. Science is continuously advancing. Einstein thought the universe was static until he personally witnessed the evidence that proved that the universe is expanding.

Because science is only concerned with the truth. Religion is concerned with maintaining a fixed and dogmatic view of reality. Which is why religion is ultimately fated to fade away.

Science does not purposely seek to undermine religion. But that is what is occurring.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This would only be true if humans were reliable. But as we all know too well, they are not.

Some are, some aren't. No generalizing.

It makes a difference though, doesn't it! Humans are considered to be either reliable or unreliable depending upon their actions and words. The early disciples of Jesus were apparently, according to Acts, spreading the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. This leaves every indication that they were unreliable. And as I already pointed out, their new leader, Peter, is one of the most renowned lairs in all of western literature. People lie freely when there is a motive.

Sooo, let me get this straight; Peter would lie about merely knowing Jesus...but would also be the front-man in concocting a story about the physical Resurrection from death of the man of whom he just claimed he didn't know??
Makes no sense.

People lie when there is sufficient motive. The attempt to restore Jesus' good name was plenty of motivation. Had Peter changed after the execution of Jesus? Or was he still the same sword carrying ear slaying violent man that he had always been?

Acts.5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
[6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
[7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
[8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
[9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

If you could dispassionately consider the extortion murder of Ananias and Sapphira at the hands of Peter and his band of thugs, you might recognize that these were not necessarily very nice people. I predict, however, that you will attempt to rationalize away what is otherwise a very cold blooded description of murder.

And for those who don't believe in intelligent design (non-theists), they truly believe that dead matter came to life and began to talk.

I hear my own words, as well as the words of others. Some people argue that our existence is merely an illusion and that we have no actual reality. I want to understand exactly how the universe operates however, and to that purpose I find that I have no other choice but to trust my senses.

There must be a reason why they believe it (abiogenesis).

Because I am living and I observe the existence of other forms of life as well. Life exists.

Genetic fallacy. Oh, and btw, the genetic fallacy has nothing to do with genetics. Look it up and you will find that most unbelievers commit this fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning and I will call it out whenever I see it, which is most of the time on this great forum.

Genetics has no direct bearing on reasoning. Which was my point. Except insofar as some individuals were blessed (or cursed) with a greater degree of ability to things through. If you are attempting to establish that causal considerations have no impact on whether or not a statement, or postulation, is true or not, then that is perfectly ridiculous.

Well, you certainly seem to have "convincing" evidence which leads you to believe the contrary. So are you going to apply that same line of reasoning to yourself? Or does it not work with your reasoning, only the reasoning of others who don't believe as you do?

Convincing evidence... working technology. Evidence which is not convincing... someone says that a corpse came back to life and then flew away, and that this corpse will one day return, despite a 2,000 year record of being DEAD WRONG!

Genetic fallacy. Even if what you say is true, that has no barren on whether or not the indoctrinated belief is true or not. That is why any attempts to discredit a belief based on the beliefs origins is fallacious.

My point was that people tend to believe in the religion that they were indoctrinated into by their parents. The map shows this to be true. There are regions of the world where the different religions are concentrated, because the majority of the population was indoctrinated into the local religion. But you were aware of that already. And so is everyone else.

Trying to dismiss what everyone can clearly see is true, serves no purpose but to blunt your credibility.

So, there is no difference between you, and a rock?

Only in the way were are put together. Which is huge. The same matter could be used to construct either me or a rock of the same mass. Protons neutrons and electrons are interchangeable. That is in fact the theoretical principle behind the replicators on Star Trek. It's science fiction of course, we are a long way from such technology ( a very transformative technology, I might add), but the principle is scientifically sound. A 10 ounce sirloin is simply a collection of 10 ounces of protons neutrons and electrons placed in the proper order.

The second law of thermodynamics comes into play only after the universe began to exist...which by all contemporary accounts, it did.

The second law of thermodynamics only functions as stated as long as the universe continues to expand. And in that sense it is perfectly valid and functional within the conditions that we currently find ourselves living in. Scientists have long supposed that the expansion of the universe will eventually be arrested by the force of gravity. If that occurs, then the universe and all of its systems will become increasingly more energized as things pull back together.

Yeah but it couldn't have been changing forms since past eternity. Such a concept is logically incoherent and cannot happen under any conceivable circumstance...so much so that even God himself is subjected to this absurdity...and if he is subjected to it, then so is nature.

According to the big bang theory, the universe began as a compressed spark of pure energy. How did all of the energy of the universe become so compressed? The only compressing force that we are aware of that could accomplish that is the force of gravity. So what was the material (energy) of our universe doing before the big bang? It was apparently collapsing and compressing. What was it doing before that? We do not know of course, but we have no reason to suppose that it was doing anything other than interacting with itself; it was changing from form to form. Because that it what it does. It's comparable to a virus in some ways. All it does is change from form to form. Happily, one of those forms is us.

See, now you are speculating, relying on the unseen. You say above that most people don't understand modern concepts of biology and physics...yet, there is nothing about biology and/or physics that will "allow you to believe that non sentient matter could, over time, in certain cases evolve the ability to respire and excrete, and reproduce, and eventually even become 1self aware".

I am not immune to speculation based on the best current evidence. What I do not do is make things up and declare them to be true.

There is nothing about science that allows you believe this. You haven't conducted any experiment, test...gathered any data, or done any research that will get you to conc