Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(5)
Message 4 of 511 (771309)
10-24-2015 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Raphael
10-23-2015 10:32 PM


I won't comment on the videos because I haven't watched them.
But your own positive claims seem pretty dubious. And I laughed, almost out loud when I saw the claim that there was excellent evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Odd that I've never seen any, despite investigation. I'd say that the evidence, properly considered is against it. Care to produce your evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Raphael, posted 10-23-2015 10:32 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 10-24-2015 10:22 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-24-2015 8:56 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 10-24-2015 10:36 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 20 by Raphael, posted 10-25-2015 3:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 14 of 511 (771362)
10-25-2015 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
10-24-2015 10:36 PM


As you know we've been over this and the case against the resurrection is stronger. Despite your dishonest attempts to attack the evidence.
The Gospel accounts certainly do not have a "ring of truth" and the differences between Matthew and Luke show clear signs of legendary development. Adding in the paucity of the pre-Gospel accounts that Jesus was not resurrected is the best way to make sense of the mess.
Even the women's discovery of the tomb is poor evidence. Having women who did not pass on the story as the discoverers of the tomb would explain why the empty tomb story was not known earlier. Certainly it is absent from an earlier sources.
The absence of the body is easily explained, since there is no clear motivation for anybody who would have known the whereabouts of the body (likely a common grave) to produce it.
The rest is equally subjective. We can't know what happened to the others, whether some core of their movement hung on and found ways to deny their failure or not. Likely they did - unless the Romans killed them all - and certainly we can't know what beliefs they came to.
Really you haven't got much - relying on accounts known to be inaccurate. Claiming that they have the "ring of truth" Claiming they would have been corrected when the big, obvious differences between Matthew and Luke persist. Subjective and inaccurate impressions and obvious falsehoods have no value as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 10-24-2015 10:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 10-25-2015 11:07 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 10-27-2015 8:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 511 (771363)
10-25-2015 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
10-25-2015 12:09 AM


Re: More evidence for the resurrection
Faith, I am afraid that you have no ability to evaluate evidence. Which is something of a handicap in these discussions.
The women did not even see the resurrection (nobody saw the actual event). They aren't put forward as court witnesses, just participants in the events. And in Mark, the original version, they don't even tell anyone what they supposedly saw.
As I pointed out to GDR this is evidence against the empty tomb story (which likely is fiction)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 12:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 4:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 511 (771365)
10-25-2015 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
10-25-2015 4:24 AM


Re: More evidence for the resurrection
quote:
Let me put it this way. Millions of people who are far better judges of just about anything than you are have found these accounts to be good evidence both for the resurrection and for the inerrancy of scripture. I'll take their word over yours any day.
Come off it Faith. if that was true they would have better reasons. And inerrancy in particular generates a lot of silly excuses to twist the Bible.
quote:
What on earth could it mean to "see the actual event?" A man waking up and sitting up that you thought was dead? You'd just say it was a lie anyway, obviously he hadn't been dead or some such, anything to discredit the account.
How can you be a witness to a resurrection without seeing an actual resurrection? And surely the decades-long delay between the supposed events and the first report does rather more to discredit the account than any opinion I might offer.
quote:
And what could it add to the evidence of seeing there was no body in the tomb that you expected to be there, since he was supposed to be dead, a body that nobody ever produced? And the actual seeing of him alive as first Mary Magdalene did and then the other disciples. You split hairs and condemn yourself.
I'm hardly splitting hairs. The first reports we have just say that various people - not including the women saw Jesus in some sense. and even if we granted the empty tomb story (and I don't) a missing body is just a missing body. It's hardly good evidence that the body came to life again.
quote:
And by the way you've bought another lie: Mark was NOT the first gospel. Matthew was. That's why it's first in the canon. You prefer the revisionists who do whatever they can to twist things around to cast doubt on the scriptures. They are only leading you down the primrose path to you know where.
Hardly a lie - the considered opinion of the majority of Bible scholars. People much more familiar with the evidence than you are. All you have to the contrary is tradition, which we know is unreliable,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 4:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 511 (771371)
10-25-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
10-25-2015 11:07 AM


In fact I said that I wasn't aware of any "excellent evidence". And you certainly didn't manage to produce any of that.
As for your dishonesty, I give one example from the previous discussion. According to the Gospel of Luke Jesus ordered to the disciples to stay in Jerusalem. Because the gospel also says that they took a short trip outside the walls, to the Mount of Olives - a trip too short to count against Sabbath provisions against travelling, you insisted that the restriction would also allow a trip to Galilee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 10-25-2015 11:07 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 10-25-2015 8:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 511 (771386)
10-25-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Raphael
10-25-2015 3:31 PM


Just to make things easier I'm probably familiar with the common arguments and consider them to be pretty worthless, so you needn't rehearse any of those.
If you want to use the Empty Tomb story, then you'd better come up with some pretty novel reasons to think it genuine AND explain why a missing body qualifies as "excellent evidence" of a resurrection. I think that's a tall order.
And don't assume that the Gospels are reliable for anything more than telling us about Christian beliefs in the later part of the 1st Century. They aren't (although the conflict between Matthew and Luke looks interesting - and it's probably worth considering why that conflict might be there)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Raphael, posted 10-25-2015 3:31 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 4:53 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 47 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 23 of 511 (771390)
10-25-2015 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
10-25-2015 4:53 PM


Yes Faith, we know you despise the honest search for the truth. And that is really all you've said. Personally I have some hope of an intelligent discussion with Raphael, and neither you, nor GDR seem able to manage that. So please butt out, instead of indulging your usual hostility to honest enquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 7:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 511 (771423)
10-26-2015 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
10-25-2015 7:53 PM


quote:
What you fail to grasp is that there is such a thing as no longer NEEDING to search for the truth because it's been FOUND
On the contrary. However, if you had found the truth you would still have no cause to attack those honestly searching for it. Rather you should help them. Your approach makes it quite obvious that you don't have the truth and don't want anyone else to know it wither.
Since your hate for the truth and the Bible - the real Bible - leaves you unable to rationally discuss the matter, again I ask you to please bow out of the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 10-25-2015 7:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 10-26-2015 1:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 511 (771425)
10-26-2015 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
10-25-2015 8:22 PM


quote:
Whether it is excellent or not is my opinion against yours and we aren't going to agree.
I'd say that it is the facts against your opinion. Even if I were being generous my opinion clearly has a rational basis and yours does not. if your mind was open there would be a chance of agreement. So long as it remains perversely closed, there is not.
quote:
Can you give me a link to that? I sure can't remember that discussion and frankly it isn't an argument I would make.
Really? Do you really accept that a command to stay in Jerusalem would allow a short trip outside the walks, but rule out a trip to Galilee ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 10-25-2015 8:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 10-26-2015 2:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 511 (771448)
10-26-2015 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
10-26-2015 2:16 AM


Interesting that you don't answer the question.
But here you are insisting that if the disciples could get away with a trip to the Mount of Olives, they could get away with going all the way to Galilee.
Message 27
Seriously, a little day trip,just outside the walls, certainly could be within the bounds of staying in Jerusalem. Heading off to Gallee certainly is not,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 10-26-2015 2:16 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 10-26-2015 5:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 511 (771450)
10-26-2015 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
10-26-2015 1:55 AM


Yawn, just more of your usual slanders. Look we all know what a nasty peace of work you are. It doesn't encourage anyone to believe your silliness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 10-26-2015 1:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 511 (771516)
10-26-2015 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
10-26-2015 5:36 PM


quote:
That wasn't the point I was making at all. I agree that there are discrepancies in the accounts. I don't agree that these discrepancies negate the main point which is that God did something unique in Jesus by resurrecting Him.
Not exactly true, is it ?
It is an open question as to where the disciples were over the 40 day period but it seems pretty clear that they didn't remain in Jerusalem the whole time. Even in Acts Luke has them returning to Jerusalem from Olivet, which has to lead you to understand that Luke is agreeing that they didn't stay in Jerusalem even though he had written in his gospel that they had been told to do
You definitely suggest a trip to Galilee, based on the short day-trip to the Mount of Olives, which is only against the strictest interpretation of Jesus' (supposed) command.
quote:
For that matter I contend that the fact that there are differences just goes to show that there wasn't collusion and that there wasn't an organized group starting something with ulterior motives. INHO, which obviously is opposite to your opinion, is that the differences actually give credibility to the essential message of the NT.
In reality the suggestion of collusion is a straw man, and one that serves to obscure the copying between the Synoptic Gospels. But writing off the differences without considering them as you do is just to ignore what is going on. And in this case The author of Luke/Acts seems to be deliberately attacking the account in Matthew. And that is hardly the only significant difference between the two Gospels.
And really, can you imagine Matthew completely ignoring the encounter on the road to Emmaus, and wrongly placing the appearances in Galilee as would have to be the cause if Luke/Acts is correct. And if Luke/Acts is wrong, then the Encounter on the road to Emmaus must be a fiction and quite likely more, besides.
But I don't expect you to deal honestly with these points, because you have already failed to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 10-26-2015 5:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 10-26-2015 8:11 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 511 (771530)
10-27-2015 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Raphael
10-27-2015 12:52 AM


Oh dear, already I see the bad apologetic arguments turning up.
There is not a lot of physical evidence for the Gospel's reliability. The number of manuscripts is only evidence for transmission, not that the original text was accurate. And even that is hampered by the fact that most are relatively late and the early manuscripts are often just fragments. The amount of time is likewise at best evidence for accurate transmission, it dies not and cannot show that the original text is trustworthy.
Moreover Christians would be more concerned with passing on their doctrines than accurate history. And the stories that they told and believed almost certainly drifted away from the original history.
The evaluations of Tacitus and Suetonious and so on are not based solely on the existing manuscripts. Knowledge of the authors, their sources, their methods - and their biases - are far more important. The Gospels have very little there.
So really, this is just an apologetic mangling of the historical method..
On to the next part. The only thing that depends on the women's story is the discovery of the empty tomb. Even if I did not believe that that is better explained by that story being a late addition, it would still be less important than the post-resurrection appearances. A missing body is simply not good evidence for a resurrection The list of appearances given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 predates any mention of the empty tomb, and that omits any mention of the women.
The claim that the whole thing depends on the testimony of women is a clear falsehood.
The appearance to the 500 also has little value as evidence. We have almost no information on it at all. It does not even recognisably appear in the Gospels or Acts. I personally suspect it was simple pareidolia. Nothing that is said contradicts that, and people "see" Jesus in that even now.
The witnesses are in no way identified so there is little risk even in inventing the whole thing (if it is not, as some have argued, an interpolation)
So in answer to your two claims I point out
1) the idea of the resurrection rests in the testimony of men, not women. All the named witnesses in 1Corinthians 15 are men.
2) even if we trust the story of 500 witnesses, despite the problems it is too lacking in detail to provide real evidence of a resurrection
And finally, the growth if the Christian church had very little to do with the evidence you've produced. Nor should we expect it to depend on the truth of the story. The Mormons have been quite successful despite the fact that their (new) scriptures are 19th century fabrications, claimed to be translations of ancient doctrines.
In summary, nothing you have offered is good evidence for the resurrection, even the parts that are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:52 AM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 4:47 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 66 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 11:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 511 (771531)
10-27-2015 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
10-26-2015 8:11 PM


You didn't realise that the Mount of Olives was only a little way outside the walls ? I'm fairly sure I pointed that out, and anyway Luke/Acts calls it a Sabbath-days journey - too short to count as travelling.
The rest is just more silly excuses. Not worth the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 10-26-2015 8:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 55 of 511 (771552)
10-27-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Raphael
10-27-2015 4:47 AM


Correcting Raphael's many errors. Part 1
quote:
This is where I expected you to go, based on previous conversations with you here
Pointing out that your false assertions are untrue is certainly predictable.
quote:
First, this is a misleading statement simply because there isn't a lot of physical evidence for the reliability of many ancient documents
No, pointing out that your false assertion is in fact false is hardly misleading.
quote:
Second, your bias for physical evidence is shown here when, in reality, testimonial evidence is almost equally as valid, especially when it is impossible to procure physical evidence.
You were the one who claimed that the "amount of physical evidence" for the Gospels was a good reason to believe in their reliability. The fact that the physical evidence isn't anywhere near as good as you claim doesn't illustrate bias on MY part.
quote:
This is a logical fallacy, an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). We cannot assume the originals are not accurate simply because we don't know.
I have no responsibility for whatever arguments you imagine I am making. I am only pointing out that the number of copies is not significant evidence of reliability in the original documents. There's no argument that they are unreliable there.
quote:
We cannot assume the originals are not accurate simply because we don't know. "We don't know" is the furthest we could go
Which essentially agrees with my point.
quote:
The amount of manuscripts is significant because we can create a stronger approximation of what the originals would be than if we had less. We do this with Plato, Caesar, Aristotle, so why the stretch when doing the same thing with scripture?
What stretch? I *agreed* that the manuscripts can be used as evidence for transmission. Why are you assuming otherwise.
quote:
This is an incorrect assumption about the nature of early Christianity. There were no "doctrines" in the first century. There was no "Church." There were churches
And there is a massive non-sequitur. I'm not making any claim that there was full agreement on doctrine, only that passing down doctrines like the resurrection - which would have been commonly agreed anyway - was more important to the writers than historical accuracy.
quote:
So on what grounds do you assume the stories drifted away from the original histories? Where is the evidence? Unfortunately this is only an assumption friend.
The fact that even oral traditions are mutable until they are formalised, and there were decades between Jesus' death and the writing of even the first Gospel. And indeed, modern Christians can fall for and circulate urban legends or mistake fictions for facts (see some of the "glurge" entries on Snopes). Why assume that the early Christians were so different ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 4:47 AM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024