Author
|
Topic: RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Actually, none of the Gospels were written down until about a generation after the Crucifixion, so we have very little idea of what, if anything, Jesus actually said. Most, if not all, of these sayings could be words put into his mouth by his later followers. As to what happened to the body, remember that crucifixion was supposed to be a horrible and humiliating form of execution. Those crucified probably weren't allowed to be buried by the authorities - they were probably either left to rot or be eaten by scavengers, or the body simply tossed into a garbage pit.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 7 of 233 (90849)
03-06-2004 7:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Asgara 03-06-2004 7:13 PM
|
|
I suspect that WillowTree thought I was purposely being insulting or demeaning. At least, that may be why he called me a "know nothing". The point of my post is that we cannot rely on the Gospels as absolute history, since they were written by the followers of the Christ cult about a generation after the alleged death of Jesus. The other point is that there may have been no problem about the body. If Jesus was crucified, then it is possible that the body was never laid in the tomb, but disposed of in a more undignified manner. The story of the tomb was probably a later addition to the myth developing around the alleged founder of the Christ cult. If the way I expressed myself seemed insulting or demeaning, I apologize. That wasn't my intent. At least, not in that particular post.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by Asgara, posted 03-06-2004 7:13 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 29 of 233 (91016)
03-07-2004 7:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by Brian 03-07-2004 6:57 PM
|
|
Is this the document allegedly found in the Qumran cave?
quote: Let us look at the fragment itself. First we will note that it is very small, it consists of five lines with only one complete word....To summarize, only one complete word ("and"), sixteen scattered Greek alphabets about half of which are nearly illegible.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 28 by Brian, posted 03-07-2004 6:57 PM | | Brian has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 31 by Brian, posted 03-07-2004 7:10 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
That miracles do not happen is consistent with my experience. I have never witnessed a miracle. Modern science has never been able to verify a miracle. Therefore, it is my default belief that miracles, of the type believed by traditional Christians, do not occur. If someone wants to convince me that miracles do happen, then the burden of proof is on them. They must supply the evidence. This isn't meant to be mean, or difficult, just that I can only go by my own beliefs and experiences. I consider myself reasonable - if someone can supply good evidence for miracles, then I will believe them. So, when an ancient story is told, and the story involves a miracle, my assumption is that the story is a myth. Again, such an assumption squares with my own experiences. To assume that the story is true and so the miracle did happen, this would contradict my experiences. If you want to present an ancient story as true, and if you want to convince me that it is true, then you have to provide some good evidence that it is true. I mean no offence when I say this, but the Gospels are a collection of stories that seem to have been first written down after the fall of Jerusalem. We don't even have any complete manuscripts that date before the third or fourth centuries CE. I know that you believe otherwise, but the Gospels themselves are not really evidence of anything except that a collection of stories were circulating among the adherents of the early Christian religion by about 70 CE or so.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
WillowTree, you are trying to present evidence that the ressurrection was a real, historical event. Okay, maybe it was, but it sounds pretty fantastic to me. So the question is: what evidence is there that the Gospels are valid? You now present the martyrdom of the apostles as evidence. Your point seems to be that they wouldn't have risked their lives for a lie. But how do we even know that the apostles actually existed? Or if they existed, how do we know that they were martyred? You are providing this as evidence, so it is you who must demonstrate that the apostles existed and were indeed martyred. Even if St. Whoever did exist and was martyred, would this be evidence for the ressurrection? No. Maybe the "apostle" was someone who came to believe in the myth later, and believed strongly enough to die for it (after all, there were martyrs centuries after the time of Jesus). And the stories that this particular person knew Jesus personally developed later, after the person's death. Or maybe this person did know Jesus. But Jesus' teachings, regardless of how he actually died, had such a profound effect on this apostle that he was willing to die for these teachings even without the miracles; again, we know of contemporary individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for political ideologies set forth by moral humans. Would it have been so different 2000 years ago? One does not need to believe in immortality to be willing to risk one's life for a cause. Edited to add:Oops. The third to the last sentence should have read "mortal humans", not "moral humans". [This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-08-2004]
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
can't be Satan
Actually, it can only be God:
Matthew 12:24-26:
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons." He knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 88 of 233 (91778)
03-11-2004 3:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by :æ: 03-11-2004 12:29 PM
|
|
quote:
Scientists do not have to prove the Earth is round to anyone claiming flat... Of course not. The person claiming the Earth is flat has the burden of proof because s/he is the one making the claim.
Actually, those asserting that the earth is flat did provide evidence that the earth is round. And not only has most of that evidence never been successfully refuted, but there is much more evidence available today. This is different than the assertian that the Jesus and apostles existed, and that they taught what is claimed that they taught. My understanding is that the early Christians and the early Church fathers did present arguments, perhaps considered good at the time, as to why the Bible should be accepted as history, but as the field of history progressed these arguments were reexamined and found wanting.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 85 by :æ:, posted 03-11-2004 12:29 PM | | :æ: has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
a clarification
quote: But in this debate, starting in Post 37, and repeated in posts 45, 59, 77, 101, and 126, was a specific challenge for anyone to produce ONE shred of evidence that contradicted the claim that the apostles/disciples did not die horribly, alone, for the report of the Resurrection.
WillowTree, no one is claiming that the apostles did not die as martyrs. Since no one is claiming this, it is silly to for anyone to provide evidence for this. You, on the other hand, did make a claim: that the apostles did die as martyrs. Therefore, it is up to you to provide some evidence for your assertian.
|