On a Scale of 1-100 How Certain Are You That Jesus Arose?

Christian, on a scale of 1-100 how certain are you that Jesus bodily arose from the dead? Let's say that your own existence is a 100, that there is gravity stands at 99. On the other end let's say that the existence of the elves of Iceland merits a 1. How certain are you Jesus arose from the dead on such a scale?

188 comments:

Wes Widner said...

I'd have to say 99. Though I'm also sure there are some midgets living in Ireland as well.

Luke said...

Do you mean the elves of Iceland?

I'm sure Ireland has little people.

Mat Wilder said...

And, almost as importantly, why are you that certain about Jesus (and perhaps I could add, and not just as certain about UFOs, ghosts, that Mohamed is Allah's prophet, that Shiva is the Destroyer, etc.)?

John W. Loftus said...

Yes, elves of Iceland. I was writing on the fly. Corrected.

Eric J.S. said...

I will give it a 3. Jesus might of had his start up for a few seconds because of gas. Or he might have awaken from a three day coma and died or lightening might have stricken him and Frankenstein would revive him. Something outlandish could of happen.

I also think it is possible a snake oil salesman played upon the fact or rumor that the tomb was empty and pretended to be Jesus in order to trick the mourning, gullible disciples. It is not uncommon for there to be people who take advantage of others in order to be the messiah. A lot of people have pretended to be Jesus or a prophet.

kurt said...

I love freethought! Please join me in discussing things. Very few people I know care about thinking. Alas, this is what creates the nonsense of today's society!

kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com

Ginx said...

Am I the only one who thinks Jesus didn't die? They say you're supposed to hang up on a cross for days, and it explicitly says his legs were not broken (which would have killed him faster). Isn't it possible he was taken down while alive (at the behest of a Christian sympathizer, Joseph of Arimathea, no less), nursed back to health over 3 days, walked around for a while, then succumbed to an infection?

Russ said...

Elves of Iceland? If the elves of Iceland do not exist, then do they not not exist everywhere, including Iceland, Ireland and all other elsewheres?

Breckmin said...

100%

John, you wouldn't expect anything
different from me.

Breckmin said...

The doubt for a mature Christian
is not "whether" or not Jesus rose
again..but "how?" What type of
body did He have? Was His new body
a body like ours but with different
systems? Was it simply a spiritual
body that can manifest itself in
the physical world?

I personally "believe" that it is
some sort of transformation of
matter from one atomic structure
to another that is eternal and
perfect. This is belief that is
on a scale of say 10 to 60.

The fact that He DID rise again
is absolutely 100. In fact, I am
more certain that Jesus rose again
that I am sure of John Loftus'
existence. You could have a differnt name, for instance, and
could even have a twin who you
partner with. I would put the
existence of JWL somewhere around
98 or less. Jesus' Resurretion is
100 for me.

Toby said...

My certainty for Jesus being raised from the dead is equal to my certainty that Jesus will heal an amputee victim who prays for a regenerated limb.

So, .000000001%. Just a rough estimate.

Walter said...

On a scale of 1-100 I might give it a plausibility rating of 3 or 4. More than likely Jesus' followers might have had some type of emotional, visionary experience of Jesus after his death, but they saw no physically resurrected body that allowed Jesus to walk through walls, eat fish like a man, then fly into the clouds like Superman.

evolutionaryfreethinker said...

The fact that there are even individuals amongst us who honestly and sincerely give thought to pondering a number at all- regardless how small that number is, and genuinely BELIEVE that...is truly scary and should open our eyes to the degradation of today's society in which we live and the lunatics roaming amongst us. Seriously?!?!

Now I ask the likes of Breckmin to consider but one simple question. Which is more likely - that a man named Jesus died and was resurrected by a supernatural entity, or that this legend was borrowed from the existing mythology of the time and slightly modified to fit the needs of a new religious movement?

jim said...

.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1%.

magnumdb said...

I strongly feel that Breckmin has confused certainty with desire.

He so so soooo badly wants it to be true, that he puts 100% of himself into that belief. It doesn't actually mean he's certain, as that would be impossible because he wasn't there to see Jesus arise. How can you be more certain about someone living in another century that you've never met, than you are about someone living today that you interact with?

zenmite said...

My grandfather became a christian 20 years or so before he died. During this time he sounded like Breckmin and most other christians. He didn't just claim to strongly suspect...but was certain jesus was the son of god, rose again, etc. I've seen Falwell's congregation raise their hands if they were 'sure' they were going to heaven. He would've probably raised his.

A few weeks before my grandfather passed away, I was in the room with him while he was speaking with his pastor. The pastor asked him if he believed in jesus, etc. and my grandfather kept saying; "Oh, I want to believe! Please help me to believe! I really do want to believe!"

The certainty is a front. They may even be hiding doubts from themselves on some level. Belief and doubt go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.

Thomas said...

zenmite,
So sorry to hear about your grandfather’s passing.
The certainty is a front. They may even be hiding doubts from themselves on some level. Belief and doubt go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.

You seem to know with certainty that the Christian’s certainty is a front. What is your proof of this (other than your personal experience)? Your logic just doesn’t seem to follow.

Thomas said...

magnumdb,
It doesn't actually mean he's certain, as that would be impossible because he wasn't there to see Jesus arise.

Why would you have to personally witness a historical event to be certain that it happened? If this is your criteria, then you can’t believe the vast majority of world history.

Kev said...

I'd give it a 2 personally. This is because there are smart Christians out there and just maybe I have missed something.

What about the dead zombies that the bible also says were raised from the dead? Should that number be different?

Lvka said...

100.

Eric J.S. said...

If anyone really read John's post, they should notice what he said 99 was: "the existence of gravity"
Thomas said:
"Why would you have to personally witness a historical event to be certain that it happened? If this is your criteria, then you can’t believe the vast majority of world history."


As Isaiah Berlin philosophized, there is this fallacy of certainity. If there is a possiblity that there are other possible alternatives or is more to the story, then one should not be certain. Being certain is very different then knowing the truth. People say they are certain even when they have not proved their belief. Someone may know something without being absolutely sure it is true. For instance, if gravity exists and I believe in gravity, then I know gravity exists even though I am only 99 percent certain because I might be part of some demon's illusion.

I also think it is funny that a bunch of depress, gullible disciples kept seeing a Jesus-who-did-not-look-like-Jesus after the supposed resurrection. It really just sounds like a bunch of Big Foot sightings and Jesus of the Potato chip stories to me.

Kevin H said...

I would put it at 95 prior to seeing some of the new data on the Shroud of Turin. Now it's at 98!

Clare said...

I say .00000001 percent likely. notice that John said "bodily"- no mention of rearranged atoms or spirits.
I am not 100percent sure that Jesus even existed as described in the Bible. Maybe 20percent on that one.
There is no evidence other than JOsephus writings outside the Bible for proof of his existance, and the passage in Josephus has been found to be a forgery.
re history not being 100percent accurate - that is true. even recent history, say from 100 years ago, is not all quite accurate. There is aa certain amount of guesswrok, so 2000 years ago- how can you expect that to be 100percent accurate? It is impossible.

John W. Loftus said...

Kevin, but think about it. Everyone believes in gravity because of the overwhelming and convincing evidence.

And you want to place the resurrection of Jesus at 98%?

Please explain to me why more people do not believe he bodily arose from the grave.

Brian_E said...

Ginx - I'm of that thought as well. If Jesus was up on the cross for only a few hours, and didn't take the kind of beating that Mel Gibson suggests (not likely), and a few sympathetic Roman guards decide to turn their heads, then you've got a plausible situation. Certainly more plausible than the resurrection itself.

Any christian giving this a plausibility above 50 is just exposing their bias. Considering that other pagan religions are filled with the 'rising god' theme, one has to weigh the plausibility that the christian god is either a plagiarist, or Jesus' resurrection is completely made up. To give the former more plausibility than the latter is simply intellectually dishonest.

MWM said...

ehhh, I can't put an exact number on it, but I guess somewhere between 51 and 99.

magnumdb said...

Thomas:

"Why would you have to personally witness a historical event to be certain that it happened? If this is your criteria, then you can’t believe the vast majority of world history."

To clarify for you, Jesus rising is in a different category than most past history because the story of Jesus breaks scientific laws. So we're talking about something nearly impossible and basically completely untestable and unverifiable in our history, over other events in our histories which are far more corroborated, and testable.

With that said, yes - there is an ounce of more certainty I have about myself than anything in the past that has as little record as Jesus.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Even the Gospels can’t get their stories straight.

First, Jesus tells Mary not to touch him: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father. John 20:17

Secondly, even if Mary tried to touch Jesus, she would have felt nothing as he is not physical: A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" John 20:26

Thirdly, Jesus himself contradicts both the above statements by telling Thomas to touch him: Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." John 20:27

Fourthly, Jesus can now transforms his appearance from unknowable to the knowable at will: When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him…Luke 24:30a and in John 21: 4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

Then Jesus disappears into thin air again: …and he disappeared from their sight. Luke 24:30 Beam me up Scotty!

Fifthly, according to the Bible itself, faith in the resurrected Jesus can ONLY based on the Bible which uses Circular Reasoning to prove the point: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20: 30 -31

Sixthly, Jesus had to have active E-coli resurrected in his gut with him so he could digest the fish: He (Jesus) asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. Luke 24: 42

Thus, we no only have Jesus' resurrection, but now we have millions of E-coli resurrections too!!!

Finally, Christians love to tell worldly Christians: If you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? To which I would counter: If all the Gospel’s conflicting statements about the resurrected Jesus were used in court, how many of the Gospel composers would serve jail time for perjury?

Marcus McElhaney said...

This will be of no surprise...I am 100% sure Jesus was crucified...died...buried...and resurrected. Why? Even the mot liberal and apostate scholar agrees that Jesus was crucified and buried in the tomb. They even will agree that the tomb was empty but disagree why the tomb was empty. Notice Loftus asked about the resurrection event itself and not the crucifixion or the death or the burial. No one versed in 1st Century AD history would even suggest Jesus came down off the cross alive. Recall that he was speared in the chest and blood and water poured out - proving Jesus was dead. Second thing evidence that Jesus rose again is embodied in the testimonies themselves of see and experiencing Jesus. You who might want to rip apart the disciples' testimony as wish fulfillment you have to explain why Paul saw him> Paul had no desire to see Jesus...he thought Jesus was a fraud.

BobCMU76 said...

15-20 maybe. There is so much reason to believe it must have been something else. The main reason being.... that such things just don't happen.

But, it seems 8 or 10 or dozens or hundreds of groups disagreed on what it meant that such a thing happened, while pretty much allowing that such a thing did indeed happen. The phenomenon of "many Christianities" has made many uncertain what to believe, if not if to believe...

But it's what I cling to. That something concrete and substantial and surprising happened a long long time ago. And I'm 15% sure that what did happen was an intervention by the Creator within creation, to reconcile the two.

My major doubt arises from the theory that Paul speculated a "wouldn't it be neat if..." theory of substitutionary atonement, independent of, but ultimately attached to the Jesus cult, and that this speculative symbiosis has become the viral root meme of a fantastical infestation.

stephsousa said...

I'm 100% sure. Not only did the Disciples see him, but hundreds of other people that were not his disciples saw him too.
Yes he did die on the cross. Remember that he was actually beaten up before going on the cross. The Romans did not brutally whip their victims who were going to hang on a cross. The Romans wanted those who were going on a cross to suffer for awhile so they can show everyone not to follow his example.
Yes it seems quite impossible for someone to die and rise again 3 days later, but then again, Jesus is also God not only man. Seems quite difficult to comprehend since he was part human, but we're also limited in reason, which can go against my argument that Christ died and rose again because then it would make me seem that I'm allowing faith to step in instead of reason. However, hundreds of people saw him. There are more accounts about Jesus then there is about anyone else, from believers and non believers. So not only do I have faith, but there is also proof.

Art Klym said...

Somewhere between 0 and 1. Actually, that is being overgenerous. I think it is much more likely that I will win the lottery tonight.

zenmite said...

At least 6 other gods died and were resurrected prior to Jesus:

Horus c. 3000 BCE
Osiris c. 3000 BCE
Attis of Phrygia c.1400 BCE
Krishna c. 1400 BCE (possibly as early as 5771 BCE)
Mithra of Persia c. 600 BCE
Dionysus c. 186 BCE

Now, what would you think if a follower of Krishna told you she was 'certain' that her saviour rose from the dead? A devotee of Osiris? Mithra? etc.

Would you think much of their claim of certainty or just suspect they were exagerating to emphasize the strength of their 'faith'?

Steven Bently said...

By faith, I would say jesus was resurrected by 100% maybe a 1000%, but by using common sense and reason, in all plausibility, I seriously doubt by 100% jesus ever existed!

Faith does not prove anything nor can faith be trusted!

Russ said...

I start out giving it as low an estimation as the scale allows, a 1, meaning I consider it impossible. From there I will consider moving that estimation up if Christianity ever demonstrates with compelling evidence that any of its claims are anything more than wishful thinking.

Realistically Jesus was nothing special. Only a couple thousand words out of the 180000 or so in the NT are attributed to someone by that name and none of those words were original.

I stand on a one on John's scale until such time as Christians produce something far more reliable as evidence than is their own Bible.

Marcus McElhaney said...

zenmite wrote

At least 6 other gods died and were resurrected prior to Jesus:

Horus c. 3000 BCE
Osiris c. 3000 BCE
Attis of Phrygia c.1400 BCE
Krishna c. 1400 BCE (possibly as early as 5771 BCE)
Mithra of Persia c. 600 BCE
Dionysus c. 186 BCE

Now, what would you think if a follower of Krishna told you she was 'certain' that her saviour rose from the dead? A devotee of Osiris? Mithra? etc.

Would you think much of their claim of certainty or just suspect they were exagerating to emphasize the strength of their 'faith'?

By all means go ahead and rationalize your denial of Jesus. Just please don't keep using arguments that most scholars ignore today. How close are the dying/rising gods you mention to Jesus Christ? Not close at all if you search it out and I did. These will help you. Go find better arguments.

Jesus Parallels - 22 Posts

Andre said...

Sheesh, so much certainty amongst our Christian friends then. I wonder why they need faith then.

John Sfifer said...

Zennmite:
\
\how do we know this story is true, about your grand father?

zenmite said...

"By all means go ahead and rationalize your denial of Jesus. Just please don't keep using arguments that most scholars ignore today. How close are the dying/rising gods you mention to Jesus Christ? Not close at all if you search it out and I did. These will help you. Go find better arguments."

Marcus, I think you misunderstood why I posted that. I was not making the argument that Jesus' resurrection was just stolen from these earlier accounts or that a dying and returning god is a recurrent theme in mythology...though there is something to consider there. I was merely pointing out that other faiths have made similar claims. Claims which I would guess most christians would find unbelievable. My point was that you would also strongly doubt their claims of 'certainty' that Osirus, Mithra, etc. had risen from the dead.

Why do you think I'm 'denying' Jesus? I think it's likely he existed. Or are you refering to my denying that he was the son of god, saviour, risen from the dead, etc.? Yes, I deny that..as in very strongly doubt it. Do you deny Allah? Krishna? Mithra? Is your denial of other gods and saviours just a rationalization?

There have been countless "eyewitness" accounts of, ghosts, reincarnation, levitation and other miracles by various holy men throughout the ages. Uri Geller's believers would have claimed eyewitness accounts of his bending spoons too. Sai Baba followers claim all sorts of eye witness accounts of his miraculously materializing objects. There are accounts in Buddhist sutras of the buddha teaching while thousands of onlookers witnessed visions of lights, heavenly beings and miracles. It says they witnessed this right there in the book. Does this make it true?

John Sfifer; That is a strange question. I know it is true because I was there.

Clare said...

You cannot argue with blind faith. Christians will believe in the resurrection just because they have to in order to call themselves Christians and be "saved". They will use any type of circular logic, rationalisations and even lies to convince us otherwise. Even Martin Luther said that it was OK to lie to promote Christianity.
No-one can say they are 100 percent sure, as that is impossible. Think in terms of statistical probabilities where to be a significant fact, the P value has to be less than .05

Clare said...

There are quite a few moderate or revisionist Christians who do not believe in the literal resurrection. Read Bishop John Shelby Spong. He wrote a book called Resurrection: Myth or fact.
He has written several other books on modern concepts of the Bible.

John Sfifer said...

zenmite:

So where the disciples they were eyewitnesses.

why do atheists resort to shame when they are backed down? Asnwer the question, no commentary needed.

Marcus McElhaney said...

@zenmite

I was not saying that you claimed Jesus did not exist. I was referring to what you deny about Jesus - the very crux and central truth claims of Christianity. Osirus' "resurrection" cannot be compared with Christ's. The ancient Egyptians did not believe that a man died and was walking around on earth again. Read their stories and not the parodies and you will see that none of these figures parallels Jesus any more than peanut butter parallels Jelly.

@Clare...by the definitions given in the Bible it is impossible to be a Christian and reject Jesus' physical bodily resurrection. You can claim to be whatever you want, but that is what characterizes a Christian.

zenmite said...

"So where the disciples they were eyewitnesses."

Consider this:

"Indian Yogis performing acts of levitation have been documented as far back as 1884, but when a report and pictures were published in 1936 of Yogi Subbayah Pullavar, an Indian Guru, levitating for 4 minutes, a serious interest into Yogis and their power of levitation.

On 6 June 1936, Indian Yogi Subbayah Pullavar levitated for four minutes in front of 150 witnesses.

Yogi’s feat was publicly observed and photographed in an exhibition that occurred in South India."

Subbayah's disciples are probably "certain" that he actually levitated. Are you? Does this eyewitness account from relatively modern times (as opposed to the dusts of centuries) convince you?

"why do atheists resort to shame when they are backed down? Asnwer the question, no commentary needed"

I have no idea to what or who you're referring. I suspect you may be projecting your own feelings.

The islamic terrorists that blow themselves up seem pretty certain that they are going to paradise with allah. Just as certain and just as willing to die for their belief as christians. Do you doubt their certainty? Does it have any relation as to whether their beliefs are true? Certainty is simply a tenet / value of your faith itself.

Double A said...

zenmite where are these followers of Osiris and Mithra? Are there any existing today? Or is it storybook lore? Jesus is real. He lived, died, and rose again. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. Yes, these words have been uttered by hypocrites and abominations calling themselves Christians, giving you plenty of reasons to deny yourself an honest contemplation of the exciting truth. There is no shame in believing.

Clare said...

Double A, are you saying that most people who call themselves Christians are not Christians? Which ones are the "real" ones? How can you tell the difference?
There must be a lot more atheists and agnostics out there than are counted in the census. Great!
John Shelby Spong is a Bishop, but according to your definition, he is not a Christian.
Are you saying you are holier than a Bishop? Isn't that blasphemy?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

The resurrection of Jesus is 100% sure. In fact if he didn't rise we're no better off than you John...we have no hope of anything after this life and everything we do is only a product of mindless materialism and there is no real justice.

For centuries people have been sure of this fact. The very martyrdom of early Christians, especially the apostles themselves who could have easily spared their own lives is a proof. Don't even try to compare the psychology of martyrdom with some Islamic jihad. You' know they don't even come close on a comparative psychological analysis.

Then there's a Jewish apologetic of the body being stolen (Mt. 28:11) when all that had to be done to stamp out all of Christianity was for the Jews to parade Jesus dead body through the streets, and for the romans to kill someone that looked like Jesus...but NONE of that happened now did it???

So the bible CREARLY teaches without a doubt in the resurrection of Jesus. But since you don't like bibles to prove what the bible talks about (a lot like rejecting a dictionary because it gives definitions of words) then you can look at any number of sources and extrabiblical writings. Some include

That of Clement Of Rome:

"Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit's certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come. [1Clement 42:3]

The writing of Pliny The Younger in 110 AD who examines what the early Christians not only believed but what they also lived by. Clearly, the early church worshipped someone whom they believed was living.

Marcion in 140 AD even though being hailed as a heretic presents an ALIVE and resurrected Jesus in his version of the first NT cannon which included 1 Cor. 15 which teaches a physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Beyond that, there are countless critics and scholars who took a look at the evidence who's lives were completely changed as a result of what they found for themselves. One such person is Sir William Ramsay, who was trained in identifying factual historical evidences and left his atheism and agnosticism because of what he found then there's Lee Strobel, and other such the like, who are modern former atheists who claim the 100% certainty knowing and having once promoted many of the bogus arguments that are commonly found on this site.

In all, I think Christians are in rather good shape when all the critic can level is a "possibility" or some elaborate Dan Brown or Dominic Crossan conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.

So far as the copycat thesis, now which myths was the resurrection supposed to have copied? It couldn't have been all of them because all of them are different now aren't they? Then, if you can get past that one, which did they use, the ones BEFORE the resurrection (33 AD)... or the ones after 200 AD?

Most copycat artists reference the ones created after second century as if they existed before first century and...they didn't! ie: they aren't the same???

The dying and rising gods that have been mentioned were only in relationship to crops and farming as the readers and writers understood. In addition the stories were revamped second century and beyond to emulate Christianity trying to capitalize on its success...

In short we have early and often CERTAINTY behind our faith...there is no doubt...John. Or should I just say Thomas???

Anthony said...

Boy, I wish I had more time to write and discuss things.

Marcus: This will be of no surprise...I am 100% sure Jesus was crucified...died...buried...and resurrected.

This is a faith statement and cannot be verified historically. Part of the issue is what is meant by "certainty." If we are thinking along the lines of probability based upon evidence then the resurrection does not come close to 100%.

Marcus: Even the mot liberal and apostate scholar agrees that Jesus was crucified and buried in the tomb.

Most would agree with the crucifixion but how he was buried and where will generate a lot of debate.

Marcus: They even will agree that the tomb was empty but disagree why the tomb was empty.

See above. I don't think there is as much agreement as you think. For example was he buried in a common tomb designated for criminals?

Marcus: No one versed in 1st Century AD history would even suggest Jesus came down off the cross alive.

This is mere assertion, demonstrate your claim. The fact is we do not know for sure what his state was when he was removed from the cross. He may have been dead, in a coma, passed out. We simply do not know and most likely will never know.

Marcus: Recall that he was speared in the chest and blood and water poured out - proving Jesus was dead.

We can easily argue that this is a later embellishment added to the story.

Marcus: Second thing evidence that Jesus rose again is embodied in the testimonies themselves of see and experiencing Jesus.

I know Richard Bauckham has developed this idea (building on the work of Byrskog and others), but not all scholars agree with his assessment. In fact Judy Redman has just published a paper ("How Accurate are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research" in the Journal of Biblical Literature) challenging Bauckham's notions.

On the issue of the death of Jesus I would highly recommend James McGrath's The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith.

Anthony said...

Kevin: I would put it at 95 prior to seeing some of the new data on the Shroud of Turin. Now it's at 98!

The shroud of Turin? Seriously? Even when I was a believer I ended up rejecting the whole thing.

Ryan Anderson said...

Harvey; I think a careful reading of Pliny's letter to Trajan undermines the "martyerdom" argument. It's clear that Pliny is uncertain if he should spare the Christians if they recant. The implication being that it's at least possible that some of the mayters that Christians hold up as examples did in fact recant, but were killed anyway.

Pliny's doubts certainly support this, but we'll never really know.

zenmite said...

"Mr. Radhakrishna had been dead for three days. On the thirdday, his body was cold, stiff and dark and decomposition was starting to set in. There was weeping and wailing in the house. That afternoon, at about half past two, Sai Baba went to the room and closed the door after him. In a few minutes, he opened the door and called the people back in, and they saw Radhakrishna sitting up in bed, looking very well and smiling. Baba said to the wife, `I have given your husband back to you. Now, give him a hot drink."

There are stories in Buddhism where the power of resurrection was demonstrated on at least two famous occasions in Chan or Zen Buddhist tradition. One is the famous resurrection story of Bodhidharma, the Indian master who brought the Ekayana school of India to China that subsequently became Chan Buddhism.
The other is the passing of Chinese Chan master Puhua (J., Fuke) and is recounted in the Record of Linji (J., Rinzai).

In somewhat recent years it has been learned that Gesar, the Savior of Tibet, at the end, chants on a mountain top and his clothes fall empty to the ground.[21]

The body of the first Guru of Sikhs Guru Nanak Dev is said to have disappeared and flowers were left in place of his dead body.

Anthony said...

Harvey: The resurrection of Jesus is 100% sure. In fact if he didn't rise we're no better off than you John.

Harvey, think more critically my friend. Why is there a need for the resurrection? Vindication? Biblical prophecy (Isa. 53)? None of these are convincing and as I have already stated, the resurrection is a post hoc theological argument.

Harvey: For centuries people have been sure of this fact.

Appeal to authority, which doesn't make it certain. For centuries people thought that the earth was only a few thousand years old until science showed otherwise (yes, I know there are still people today who believe that, just as there are still people today who believe a flat earth). We can point to any number of things that people had been certain about for centuries - doesn't make it so. But if it makes you feel better that you are in good company with the past, then fine.

Harvey: The very martyrdom of early Christians, especially the apostles themselves who could have easily spared their own lives is a proof.

Two things. One, we simply do not know whether the apostles were martyred, let alone for the believe of the resurrection. Second, there have been many people of have died for their faith who were not Christian. Martyrdom does not prove that what they died for was true.

Harvey: Then there's a Jewish apologetic of the body being stolen (Mt. 28:11) when all that had to be done to stamp out all of Christianity was for the Jews to parade Jesus dead body through the streets, and for the romans to kill someone that looked like Jesus...but NONE of that happened now did it???

Ugh, we simply do not know what happened historically. See McGrath's book that I reference earlier. You talk as if we know what happened and just refuse to believe it. Not so my friend.

Harvey: In all, I think Christians are in rather good shape when all the critic can level is a "possibility" or some elaborate Dan Brown or Dominic Crossan conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.

Oh come now Harvey, you are just being silly aren't you. There are much better and more sophisticated works that take a more nuanced, neutral, or skeptical position. Such works as Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus, or Geza Vermes The Resurrection: History and Myth, I already mentioned McGrath's The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith, and The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave edited by Price and Lowder, just to name a few off the top of my head.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Anthony,

you said regarding statements on the resurrection:This is a faith statement and cannot be verified historically.

My friend, i believe that it can be verified in every manner in which history is generally confirmed. In addition during the time, not centuries later, there were eyewitnesses who testified to the occurrence as contained within the biblical narrative. now, you already know that I don't believe there is a reason or basis on which to discount the bible for the events that it records because it hold up under the weight of historical scrutiny.

Secondly and indirectly, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING accounts for the conversion of skeptics and critics such as Paul (A Jew who had a vested interest in stopping Christianity and who received no great earthly reward for it), his brother James (who also received no earthly payoff) and who refused to believe until he met the resurrected Jesus himself, and others such as Thomas, who was with Jesus but certainly refused to believe in his resurrection until he met him personally...in addition, these people staked their lives on the FACT not fantasy of his resurrection.

You also said:"Part of the issue is what is meant by "certainty." If we are thinking along the lines of probability based upon evidence then the resurrection does not come close to 100%."

I believe that isn't correct based on what I just enumerated previously. I think the resurrection has much and an overwhelming amount of evidence for which we can be historically certain...in fact, I believe the evidence for the resurrection is more abundant and of better quality than many, if not MOST of generally accepted historical events and persons.

There remains to be an "embarrassment of riches" in the amount and accuracy of information that was left, there is a remarkable recording of events within the same era of the events themselves, some recording within 10 years of the events themselves. In most circles historically, this is unheard of. Most historical verification only occurs centuries after the events. The resurrection was recorded within the same decade and even first few years of the event itself!

Regarding martyrdom you said:" Two things. One, we simply do not know whether the apostles were martyred, let alone for the believe of the resurrection."

There is nothing like the historical revisionary efforts of apostate Elaine Pagles...This is like reinventing the holocaust now isn't it?

Just because the events are further away from our time and out view doesn't mean that we can make it go away. You can look at how the apostles died HERE and why Christians were persecuted and for how long HERE

Now in order to get rid of Christian persecutions you have to exclude about half of the writings of Roman Emperors themselves regarding their hatred for Christians and their outlawing of Christianity. This would be a ridiculous way to do any sort of historical research and is only a revisionary tactic.

there's more...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Anthony,

So far as references and books on the resurrection is concerned there are much better and more scholarly resources than you name:

The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus ~ Habermas/Licona

Resurrection, The Greatest FEAT in History ~ Hanegraaff

The Case For The resurrection ~ Strobel

Jesus Resurrection: Fact Or Figment, Craig, Tacelli, Copan vs Ludemann

The Resurrection Of The Son Of God ~ N. T. Wright

and Resurrected: an atheist / theist dialogue ~ Flew/Habermas/Ankerberg to name a few that address many and much of the bad arguments that are prevalent on this site.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Anthony,

Then you said: Second, there have been many people of have died for their faith who were not Christian. Martyrdom does not prove that what they died for was true.

Psychology does not support someone dying subserviently and in a physically inferior position for something that they have either made up, know that is an untruth, or for something which they cannot support. Martyrdom in aggression is a different psychology. You CANNOT harmonize a jihadists actions with that of a persecuted Christian...you can't even harmonize it with that of a Warren Jeffs for instance. Christians we told to NOT violate the law and to live honestly and openly. They were not to run from the law, but were to give themselves to God and their community and be subject to the laws of the land...this is a TOTALLY different psychology and IF the resurrection weren't true and couldn't be supported the apostles would have been the first to jump ship and run as Peter did BEFORE he met the resurrected Christ.

You said regarding the Jews response to the resurrection:"Ugh, we simply do not know what happened historically. See McGrath's book that I reference earlier. You talk as if we know what happened and just refuse to believe it. Not so my friend."

I don't see why the biblical account should be discounted as saying 'we don't know"...It's CLEAR and it tells you what happened and within that time it was common knowledge. The Jews and Romans seemed to know what was said and reported. The Nazareth Inscription both HERE and HERE although not proving the resurrection speaks in a manner consistent with the biblical narrative...here's the conclusion of the author regarding it:

"The question that now needs to be answered is: Does the Nazareth Inscription prove the resurrection of Christ? The answer to that question is no. But what it does prove is that the story of the resurrection of Christ was already well known, even to the Emperor Claudius in ca. 41 A.D. This fact clearly proves that the story of the resurrection of Christ was widely known almost immediately after His crucifixion. In other words, the story of the resurrection of Christ must have been a story that was circulated by his Apostles themselves, and it was not a later invention by Christians of the post-apostolic period, as some modern scholars in the past have argued. The Nazareth Inscription does force modern scholars into making a choice of either believing in the resurrection of Christ or of believing that His disciples stole His body from the tomb in order to perpetrate a great religious fraud. As is true for philosophy, science and religion, belief is always the key issue."

The "we don't know" simply doesn't hold up.

there's more...

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

The whole hope for Christianity hinges on the Bible; not on the resurrection of Jesus (since without the Bible there is no proof for the resurrection of Jesus!)

To accept any claims of the resurrection of Jesus (be they Classical or other) apart from the Bible (meaning the New Testament) is to put the cart before the horse.

We have no proof of any resurrection of Jesus apart from the New Testament.

The Bible (New Testament) has errors, mistakes and contradictions that can only be ignored by Christians who protect this Biblical God by spinning these problem facts in order to keep their faith alive.

Apart from the Bible, Christians have nothing other than some feel good hope!

Steven Bently said...

agreed Harry,

The words, hope, faith, desire, want, long for, are all a christian has to cling on to, they have no evidence except what was written down in a book and translated and mended many thousands of times by people who had an agenda to control and manipulate the masses.

If there exists a god and the best thing he can come up with to save people's souls is a book about him inseminating (raping let's say) a innocent virgin girl and hiding himself through a females vagina, I really do not want anything to do with such an ignorant asshole and I personally do not want anything to do with anyone that is stupid enough to believe in such idiotic nonsense.

If there exists a god and he/she cannot contact people physically in the real world, then screw the bastard, it's not up to us to search the entire universe to find him/her, we are only limited to our little corner of this solar system.

The people that wrote the Bible saw very quickly how people will latch on to silly outlandish beliefs.

People in general want to be led around and get pseudo praise without having to lift a finger to earn their non-deserving praise.

Rob R said...

Confidence and the degree of likelyhood that something is true or it's provability are two different things. I am 100 % confident that Jesus Rose from the dead. Weighing all the evidence, I would gestimate that the likelyhood that he did is over the half way mark, but even that is a subjective matter that is ultimately beyond rigorous calculation. But again, as I have noted time and time again without challenge, the appeal to probability here is often so much posturing since there is in fact no real mathematically objective way to gage the possibility.

Jaden said...

I would say around 55-65.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

See Harry suffers from the radicalism that the bible is untrustworthy but on what basis? He throws a smattering of claims assuming that collectively his claims are stronger than they are individually.

Harry you say:"We have no proof of any resurrection of Jesus apart from the New Testament."

What does that mean Harry? You act as if the NT was written one book? You know as well as I do it wasn't written as one book. It was written and circulated as books and letters. The Gospels being written at different times by different authors circulated apart from one another also. This was the problem for Marcion wasn't it Harry...to try to get all the one's held as authentic together and circulate them as one, wasn't it???

So when we look at it Harry we see that there were many books/letters that were in circulation all hailing the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus beginning with the epistles of Paul which circulated according to many accounts BEFORE the Gospels based on the teachings of the apostles to and through Paul an apostle...So what does your statement really mean??? It means that you are revising history as always Harry aren't you??? You are hoping that people think the bible we have now is the bible they had in first and second century.

Now, I don't mind you doing this, only know that some of us can read for ourselves. BTW, do you do the same with a dictionary? Do you exclude definitions because they are contained in the dictionary? A dictionary is biased isn't it? why not throw out all the words defined within them because somehow it just doesn't seem right that a dictionary should contain all the definitions of words...but there's one thing, that's what a dictionary is supposed to do isn't it? It is supposed to be a place where words are defined isn't it? So why treat the bible, when it's talking about the resurrection, as if it is guilty for recording it especially when written by multiple independent sources??? Harry your argument is silly.

Harry said:"The Bible (New Testament) has errors, mistakes and contradictions that can only be ignored by Christians who protect this Biblical God by spinning these problem facts in order to keep their faith alive."

Now, what does this mean Harry? the errors, mistakes and contradictions are what??? Are they viable??? Are they a matter of punctuation and capitalization??? Are there any that change whole contexts or cardinal teachings such as Jesus was God, Son of God, He was born of a virgin, died on a cross, crucified by Romans with encouragement of the Jews, rose from the dead, appeared to many individuals, commissioned the church to preach in his name, promised to return again, etc...Are there any contradictions about any of this Harry???

Are capitalization and spelling issues enough to claim contradiction of any of those narratives??? You and your buddy Ehrman two of a kind when it comes to stuff like this and there is NOTHING that you can render that is problematic or not better understood with a little research and contextual reading of the scripture...Abathar anyone???

Harry said:"Apart from the Bible, Christians have nothing other than some feel good hope!"

What, does an atheist have Harry? They don't even have a hope...and if the claims is that they do, I say a hope of what??? They have 70 to 80 years imaginary "free-will" controlled by predetermined synaptic processes and genetics...In between the time they have a subjective brand of morality, they suffer injustices that will never be made right or reconciled, a have a nothingness to look forward to...no wonder Christians who believe in Christianity and the purpose that God has given his people have a better overall condition of mental health...at least that's what your science claims!!!

Brap Gronk said...

". . . the story of the resurrection of Christ was widely known almost immediately after His crucifixion. In other words, the story of the resurrection of Christ must have been a story that was circulated by his Apostles themselves . . ."

Atheists really don't care how well the story of the resurrection propagated because it was propagated primarily among people who believed in a supreme being. If someone could explain how they would have converted an atheist to Judaism in the first century BC, the resurrection stories might carry a little more weight.

cam_layton said...

I don't think jesus aroused because I invited him to coffee and he didn't come and he would have come if he had aroused because jesus isn't rude. So I give a 1 because I have faith in jesus.

Gandolf said...

Harvey Burrnett said...."So when we look at it Harry we see that there were many books/letters that were in circulation all hailing the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus beginning with the epistles of Paul which circulated according to many accounts BEFORE the Gospels based on the teachings of the apostles to and through Paul an apostle...So what does your statement really mean??? It means that you are revising history as always Harry aren't you??? You are hoping that people think the bible we have now is the bible they had in first and second century."

There maybe is also likely going to be many books and letters etc,written by all sorts of different people.All suggesting Benny Hinns miracles actually happened too, Harvey Burnett.

The story will differ slightly depending on who`s telling it,depending on who or how they heard the story.Some will be supposedly personal accounts,some will be variation from what they were told happened etc.

So having differnt books and letters etc from many differnt people,proves exactly what Harv??.

Years down the line some fool like you will be around saying, look sonny, there was actually many books! and letters! written about these miracles of the beloved Benny Hinn!, blah blah blah rant rave ...So look sonny, his miracles must!! have been honest and real!

But having more books! or letters! dont nessarily prove the miracles to be anymore honest, real or true.Does it.

Except maybe only in the (minds) of all the faithful Benny Hinn followers.To these people it will likely also be the total ammount of proof they ever need.

Ross said...

100. The resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. Otherwise, I might as well pack it in and go home, or worship the Great Pumpkin.

Steven Bently said...

The Bible is untrustworthy because it is tainted by humans, the very people that your phony god regretted making, remember Harvey?

Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

You know Harvey, the bumbling god that admitted he made a horrible mistake, the same god that elected a family to build a boat and kill all the humans on earth to rid the planet of all evil, yet it too never worked, another big fiasco!

The same god that lost control of Satan while he was in charge in heaven.

You Harvey, like so many millions of gullible people, have taken the easy way out, you joined the ignorant gravy train of self-righteousness, because you would prefer to believe something that cannot be proved, by anyone, yet because you put words like "hope" and faith as something that holds value to you..

You've been told that you possess something unique that only you can acquire if you just apply a little faith and hope, you'll some day get your just reward, if you'll just pray and hope, beg and plead like a worthless pauper.

If the Bible is true, so is the Harry Potter series, because it was inspired by an unknown source (god).

I wonder how much credit the Bible would receive had a woman wrote it?

Paul was an admitted murderer, he had to invent a savior to alleviate his guilt. Paul was nothing more than a murderer and a thief and a liar, yet you think he was a great saint!

I wouldn't want to go where there are nothing but thieves, liars and murderers which is all jesus is capable of forgiving, he's not capable of forgiving non-believers.

I find that christians get horrendous diseases, more so than atheists.

My dad was a very devout Baptist, he proudly boasted to have never tasted alcohol, committed adultery, prayed before every meal, gave more than 10% to the church, all of his 77 years and got terminal cancer and committed suicide, three years ago.

Just read the news Harvey, most crimes are committed by guess who, devout christians.

I've never read in the news where an atheist committed a crime.

The majority of people in the USA are christians, this is a christianized nation, Harvey, the jails are filled with christianized Americans.

But no worries Harvey, jesus forgives for all crimes except for non-belief in him.

zenmite said...

"But having more books! or letters! dont nessarily prove the miracles to be anymore honest, real or true.Does it."

For anyone that cares to check it out, there are multiple written testimonies of that Sai Baba guru guy raising people from the dead.

All we have to do is slap them together in one book, add the testimony of some kook (that never actually met him while baba lived) that claimed to encounter him 'in the spirit' on the road to Benares, add some prophecies of how guru baba will return in glory and we should be able to convert all the christians who use this as their criteria for proof. Given such overwhelming eyewitness evidence and multiple written testimony, what are the odds that guru baba really raised the dead?

BobCMU76 said...

I recall the frustration of Jesus that it was all about the miracles. Of course, at other times, he said it indeed was all about the miracles... like when he responds to Herod's inquiry of who the heck he was. But with an audience, He refuses to indulge Herod with a demonstration.

Anyhow -- Baba Seth or Swami Gahami may have bibles compiled about them. But I think Gandhi was more in tune with the divine, and I don't think any miracle was ever ascribed to him.

It ain't all about the miracles. Though the fundamentalists -- Christians and Athiests both -- seem to want it that way.

I'm with l'i'l Frankie Schaffer, who ain't so little any more.

Anthony said...

Bob: It ain't all about the miracles. Though the fundamentalists -- Christians and Athiests both -- seem to want it that way.

Sorry Bob, but this just isn't true. First, for people like Marcus and Harvey, it is about the miracles, especially the resurrection. Secondly, atheists are not fundamentalists, despite that fact that religious people continue to say so. Thirdly, for me it isn't about the miracles so much as it's about rationality and the real world around us (at least as real as we can understand it).

My argument on this thread has been that history cannot prove the certainty of the resurrection. At most all history can say is "I don't know."

BobCMU76 said...

Granted, atheists have many arguments that throw doubt on the claims of Christianity. But the argument that miracles ought be an everyday occurrance if God is both great and good (and we thank Him for our food) smacks of fundamentalism, whether among those who insist this is so (angels watching over me) or among those who scoff -- I love Herod's song in JC Superstar.

Prove to me that you're divine/Change my water into wine.

Though Janis has him beat... And if you love me, you'll buy the next round.....

zenmite said...

I'm curious about something. How do protestant christians view all the miracles associated with the virgin mary or various saints?

Do you discount visions of Mary by hundreds of faithful catholics? Miracles that occur when she is called upon? Apparitions?

From 1900-2007, Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, allegedly made 386reported appearances. Out of all these, the Catholic church has deemed only eight as authentic. Do you (protestants) accept these as authentic and credible?

"The Catholic faithful are calling it a miracle. So they're bringing their cameras, their rosaries, their children and grandchildren to an otherwise quiet church on the outskirts of town. "To me, personally, it is a miracle. You believe it or don't believe it, that's okay. But I strongly believe it", says Sacramento resident Andre Nguyen. At the Vietnamese Catholic Martyrs Church, an outdoor statue of the Virgin Mary appears to be shedding tears of blood. Tears that stream down her face onto her robe, testing the faith of all who come."I think that at this time in history, in terms of what's happening in the United States, what's happening in the church, that this is possibly a sign", says Sacramento Resident Brenda Harris. Many are so convinced it's real, they weep"

They probably rate their certainty near 100%.

joe said...

I don't know if anyone noticed, but everyone who said 100 didn't have to explain anything about there thought. That’s because it's faith. There is no proof or a way to explain it. The only reason people who don't agree have to write three paragraphs to explain it is because you need to prove to yourself first that you don't believe. I may not have the education to be able to give a good enough argument… But my God doesn’t require me to succeed higher than everyone else in this world… only to spread truth

And the truth is. That God loves you and he died on the cross for you. People deny it and for some reason they hate him for it. But he did. And I think the whole point is lost. It’s not weather he did… it’s why he did.

BobCMU76 said...

Something of a cruel aside...

When I was 10 years old, the schools drilled us on when to use

their/there/they're

Weather/whether

When did use of the appropriate word begin to signify a graduate education? Once was a day even Jethro Bodine knew the drill, though he had more fun doing the cypher drills.

Miracles and the supernatural to me are a stumbling block -- a scandal. I don't know what's real and what ain't, so I just heap them into a pile of "does it really matter?"

Does it really matter that Mary was a virgin born of a virgin? Does it really matter if fish and loaves sponteneously appeared from nothing? Does it really matter if the image on the French (ooops, freedom) toast is a faithful depiction of the historical Jesus? Does it really matter if Swami Gahami can bounce 3 inches off the ground by flexing his butt cheeks and appear to be levitating?

I don't think any of that matters a whole heckuva lot. But does it matter that Jesus was truly dead and truly risen? I can't let go of the notion that this indeed does matter.

Brap Gronk said...

"everyone who said 100 didn't have to explain anything about there (sic) thought. That’s because it's faith."

The Muslims, Mormons and followers of Jim Jones have (or had) faith, too. How does one decide what to have faith in? Is it based on evidence, logic, parents, your local culture, or something else?

Jim said...

"And the truth is. That God loves you and he died on the cross for you. People deny it and for some reason they hate him for it. But he did. And I think the whole point is lost. It’s not weather he did… it’s why he did." said Joe

What do you mean by "truth"? There is no truth if it isn't proven.

If you cannot prove "weather" (is it raining?) he did it, there is no WHY.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Response to Harvey Part 1 :

Well Harvey, as always you don’t exactly lie, but you sure bent the devil out of the truth to prove a religious point!

Harvey stated: See Harry suffers from the radicalism that the bible is untrustworthy but on what basis? He throws a smattering of claims assuming that collectively his claims are stronger than they are individually.



RE: I (unlike you) don’t make my living off Christianity so I have nothing to gain if Christianity is either true or false.

I walked away from 6 years of ministerial education because the facts proved I was lied to by professors who (like you), highly limited their historical facts or spun them to support the Bible and their sect’s theology.

Harvey stated: Harry you say: "We have no proof of any resurrection of Jesus apart from the New Testament."

What does that mean Harry? You act as if the NT was written one book? You know as well as I do it wasn't written as one book. It was written and circulated as books and letters. The Gospels being written at different times by different authors circulated apart from one another also. This was the problem for Marcion wasn't it Harry...to try to get all the one's held as authentic together and circulate them as one, wasn't it???


RE: The earliest text we have as for as any written testimony about Jesus is the "Q" Source. This Saying Source has no Birth, Passion, Resurrection or Ascension narratives in it.

The second closest document is the Gospel of Mark written in 60 – 70 CE or 30 to 40 years after the so-called resurrection was claimed to have occurred and at a time when theology was viewed as history.

Luke and Matthew (75 -80 CE) are highly embellished texts with the latest, John (90 CE)being totally theological (Jesus can not even speak in parables in this Gospel).

Maricon is himself late (he lived 85-160 CE) or who was born 55 years after the so-called resurrection and did most of his textual / theological work after about 120 CE or 90 years after the life of Jesus.

Harvey stated: So when we look at it Harry we see that there were many books/letters that were in circulation all hailing the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus beginning with the epistles of Paul which circulated according to many accounts BEFORE the Gospels based on the teachings of the apostles to and through Paul an apostle...So what does your statement really mean??? It means that you are revising history as always Harry aren't you??? You are hoping that people think the bible we have now is the bible they had in first and second century.

RE: Paul has no first hand knowledge about Jesus as he (being from Asia-Minor) never heard or saw the earthly Jesus. According to Paul’s own letters (and the highly unhistorical Book of Acts), Paul was given to visions not unlike the young Joseph Smith who saw the resurrected Jesus himself and founded Mormonism based on that experience.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches are filled with saints who have had visions of Mary, Jesus, angles or some other Biblical saints: So what?

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Response to Harvey Part 2 :

Harvey stated: Now, I don't mind you doing this, only know that some of us can read for ourselves. BTW, do you do the same with a dictionary? Do you exclude definitions because they are contained in the dictionary? A dictionary is biased isn't it? why not throw out all the words defined within them because somehow it just doesn't seem right that a dictionary should contain all the definitions of words...but there's one thing, that's what a dictionary is supposed to do isn't it? It is supposed to be a place where words are defined isn't it? So why treat the bible, when it's talking about the resurrection, as if it is guilty for recording it especially when written by multiple independent sources??? Harry your argument is silly.

RE: Harvey, your house of so-called proofs are built on sand. NONE OF YOUR SOURCES ON THE RESURRECTION ARE EARLY (PRE-60CE), or they only had second, third or fourth hand information (Paul and Maricon).

The Bible is NOT synonymous with truth; it is theology just like the un-canonized Book of
I Enoch
.

Harvey stated: Harry said: "The Bible (New Testament) has errors, mistakes and contradictions that can only be ignored by Christians who protect this Biblical God by spinning these problem facts in order to keep their faith alive."

Now, what does this mean Harry? the errors, mistakes and contradictions are what??? Are they viable??? Are they a matter of punctuation and capitalization??? Are there any that change whole contexts or cardinal teachings such as Jesus was God, Son of God, He was born of a virgin, died on a cross, crucified by Romans with encouragement of the Jews, rose from the dead, appeared to many individuals, commissioned the church to preach in his name, promised to return again, etc...Are there any contradictions about any of this Harry???

Are capitalization and spelling issues enough to claim contradiction of any of those narratives??? You and your buddy Ehrman two of a kind when it comes to stuff like this and there is NOTHING that you can render that is problematic or not better understood with a little research and contextual reading of the scripture...Abathar anyone???


RE: Simply place the Masoretic Hebrew text in parallel columns with the LXX Greek and errors, mistakes and contradictions glare out at you, yet the New Testament cites its proof texts for Jesus from the late (post 250 BCE) LXX.

Put 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles in English in parallel columns and you are again face with errors, mistakes and contradictions.

Put the Gospel accounts of the resurrected Jesus in parallel columns (as I pointed out in my first comment under this post) and you again have errors, mistakes and contradictions.

Face the facts Harvey, no lawyer would let you testify under oath if your facts of truth and historical proofs were like the Bible!

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Response to Harvey Part 3 :
Harvey stated: Harry said: "Apart from the Bible, Christians have nothing other than some feel good hope!"

What, does an atheist have Harry? They don't even have a hope...and if the claims are that they do, I say a hope of what??? They have 70 to 80 years imaginary "free-will" controlled by predetermined synaptic processes and genetics...In between the time they have a subjective brand of morality, they suffer injustices that will never be made right or reconciled, a have a nothingness to look forward to...no wonder Christians who believe in Christianity and the purpose that God has given his people have a better overall condition of mental health...at least that's what your science claims!!!


RE: Remember Harvey, you have a so-called house of cards built on sand. You make a full time living off the Bible and its theological claims. Most televangelist also make millions of dollars a year off the Bible and from depressed people needing any kind of hope to hold to. I don’t fault these depressed individuals (who only want some hope to go on living), but I fault preachers like yourself who come to DC with the idea the can set us all straight!

Facts show a person like you who lives a life of dichotomy: On the one hand, you live in denial because to face the facts about Christianity and the Bible it's built on would mean you would have to make a living in the secular world.

On the other hand you have to live life on a more secular level. As an example, if you went to a car lot to buy a used car and the one you looked at had a puddle of wet oil under it, but the used car salesman stated: “That oil did not come from that car! It was already there when we parked the car here. Anyway, you can’t prove the engine is leaking as all motors get wet fluid on them when we spill oil during our A+ check out and oil change.

You would not be stupid enough to buy that car, and I’m not stupid enough to buy your sales claims that the Bible (as a text now is sitting in a puddle of oily false statements) is really not what it appears to be, especially when a salesman like yourself needs to make a religious sale to keep an income coming in.

Sorry Harvey, I can read too, but I don’t bend the hell out of the facts and call it historical objective truths that support the Bible!

zenmite said...

"Miracles and the supernatural to me are a stumbling block -- a scandal. I don't know what's real and what ain't, so I just heap them into a pile of "does it really matter?"

And then you say;

"But does it matter that Jesus was truly dead and truly risen? I can't let go of the notion that this indeed does matter."

You can't see that a man rising from the dead is a supernatural miracle just like all the other things you mentioned? I simply place the resurrection into that same pile along with all the other hooey. The key word is "truly".

Perhaps you can't let go of the notion because the fear of death is so strong in most of us. The same reason that hindus and buddhists can't let go of the notion of reincarnation. To admit such notions are just beliefs and hopes rather than fact is to confront existence and death without the comfort of fairytales.

And Joe, do you have to prove to yourself that you don't believe in allah, brahma or thor? Is your denial of Sai Baba a rationalization?

Owlmirror said...

«" the errors, mistakes and contradictions are what??? [...] Are there any that change whole contexts or cardinal teachings such as Jesus was God, Son of God, He was born of a virgin, died on a cross, crucified by Romans with encouragement of the Jews, rose from the dead, appeared to many individuals, commissioned the church to preach in his name, promised to return again, etc...Are there any contradictions about any of this

There's a contradiction about Jesus being God:

Both Mark and Matthew record Jesus as saying "God, God, why have you abandoned me?". If Jesus was God, he could not actually speak of abandoning himself, therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that he wasn't God. The fact that Luke and John remove this line suggests that this contradiction with having a divine nature made them uncomfortable.

And there's also a contradiction with Jesus having been born of a virgin, since the two dates proclaimed in Matthew and Luke differ by ten years, and contradict other things known about classical era Rome and Judea (and in Luke's version, they contradict common sense).

Owlmirror said...

«"But my God doesn’t require me to succeed higher than everyone else in this world… only to spread truth

How do you know that it even is "truth"?

«"And the truth is. That God loves you and he died on the cross for you. People deny it and for some reason they hate him for it.

Don't be absurd. People don't hate God for that; they hate the emotional blackmail being performed by the people making that ridiculous assertion.

«"And I think the whole point is lost. It’s not weather he did…

Sorry, you don't get to just wave away the question of the purported event having happened.

«"it’s why he did.

And the "why", at least as given by most traditional Christians, is utterly insane. It's a creed of fractal wrongness.

And that, too, is a good reason to reject belief in the event having happened.

Owlmirror said...

«"Does the Nazareth Inscription prove the resurrection of Christ? The answer to that question is no. But what it does prove is that the story of the resurrection of Christ was already well known, even to the Emperor Claudius in ca. 41 A.D.

Meh. The Nazareth Inscription proves no such thing.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/nazarethlaw.html


The Nazareth Inscription provides no evidence for Christianity or its claim of an empty tomb. It contains no new or unusual laws regarding graverobbing, the decree itself is not unique, and it has no references or direct links to Christianity of any kind. Moreover, it's date is most likely pre-Christian, its origin is not likely to be Nazareth, and its contents are not explainable even as a muddled imperial reaction to the theft of Jesus' body. To tie this to Christianity requires piling dozens of conjectures onto scores of speculations, and the rejection of a good supply of contrary indications and evidence, and none of this is either necessary or reasonable.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harry McCall wrote, "The whole hope for Christianity hinges on the Bible; not on the resurrection of Jesus (since without the Bible there is no proof for the resurrection of Jesus!)"

If faith were based solely on scripture alone (which would be idolotry BTW) scripture alone would tell one that salvation and belief do not come from studying scripture alone. So belief in Jesus' resurrection is not based on scripture but scripture does affirm that Jesus is resurrected.

Oh, but I keep forgetting --- the Jesus you believed in told his followers to commit scripture to memory and quote it often, and practice and defend religious dogma in order to appease him. Yea, I keep forgetting about that.

db said...

but did you mean the SEX Elves of Iceland? Mostly SFW

Based on this video I'd rank Icelandic Elves at a 4 (she HAS freaking drawing) and a Jesus messianic teacher existing historically at a 3. That figure being executed and reviving at a 1 and being crucified and resurrecting back to life at a 0.

Mark Plus said...

According to Pirahã epistemology, people who lived before anyone's direct acquaintance with him or her doesn't matter now. So, why does it matter that Jesus might have risen from the dead in some remote era?

Chuck O'Connor said...

". . . piling dozens of conjectures onto scores of speculations, and the rejection of a good supply of contrary indications and evidence, and none of this is either necessary or reasonable."

Yeah that sounds like an accurate description or christian apologetics.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Response to MMM:

MMM thinks: If faith were based solely on scripture alone (which would be idolotry BTW) scripture alone would tell one that salvation and belief do not come from studying scripture alone. So belief in Jesus' resurrection is not based on scripture but scripture does affirm that Jesus is resurrected.

RE: Your own New Testament supports me and condemns you: So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10: 17)

Do you understand your own New Testament MMM? According to Paul, EVERYTHING YOU HOLD SO DEAR IN FAITH HINGES ON THE BIBLE. Everything!

If this is not true (and as you claim)then the Bible could only re-enforce what you already know. In such light, the Christian missionary movement would be null and void as people all over the world would be converted spontaneously! But we know that's not the case and proof of this fact is the reason Christians come here to argue the truth to the Bible.

MMM thought: Oh, but I keep forgetting --- the Jesus you believed in told his followers to commit scripture to memory and quote it often, and practice and defend religious dogma in order to appease him. Yea, I keep forgetting about that.

RE: Right on! That’s exactly why I see the false premise of your whole faith first system and can quote your own New Testament to expose your illogics!

What else MMM? (Oh I forgot, you Christians think with your hearts and not your brains!)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Harry -- your interpretation of this scripture is a narrow minded one, "So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Your understanding was/is that the "word of God" = Bible. Okay. My point is well made. Your 'god' was never anything more than a literary creature, deaf and mute --- an idol. And of course, you are cooperating with stigmatizing any other form of communication God can make, so to hear from Him in any other way would mean you are deluded. Because you hold god to the confines of scripture alone, then you ought to know that He said that some prefer darkness and your stance exemplifies that.

Take care,
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Postscript to Harry ---

Since you do hold the biblical texts as sole evidence of the divine, then this one should be good --- "the word became flesh".

bye!
3M

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

OK, my friend I see we're back to our old ways...I had heard you were a Muslim now, but I think that may just be some of those unsolicited, crank emails that I get all too regularly...Anyway,

You said regarding me and my occupation and my supposed bias in favor of Christianity:I (unlike you) don’t make my living off Christianity so I have nothing to gain if Christianity is either true or false.

Not quite Harry. I don't make my living off of Christianity. I live my Christianity. I sell insurance and financial services, help people start businesses, do estate plans, minimize taxes on highly appreciated asset transfers and such the like. That's how I get paid. So your assertion is yet another UNFOUNDED accusation...not a serious one, but it sheds light on the preconceived notions that the rest of your dialogue is filled with and provides a backdrop for the mode of thinking that you normally use when you think of anythign Christian, which you claim will not help you gain anything even if it is true...Well buddy if it is true, you have EVERYTHING to lose.

You calim:"The earliest text we have as for as any written testimony about Jesus is the "Q" Source."

You speak as if this was a book. The Q is a hypothetical document a product of Johannes Weiss and the German religious school higher criticism, stating that the primary material contained within the synoptics were created from a source document. jews certainly would have loved to expose this right? I mean like producing teh body of Jesus to stamp out the resurrection, but what happened???

Q and the late NT are rejected in part because of the absence of hostile accusations by the Jews themselves in their Mishna, Gemara, Talmud...a timeline of hundreds of years to expose a late NT...testifies to an early and reliable NT origin as well. There is no accusation of late writing after the witnesses had died off, as Josephus was able to accuse those who fabricated history were attempting to do in their volumes.

This is what is thought of your supposed Q:In 1959, S. Petrie in his NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 3 article, ‘Q is only what you make it’, destroys the validity of "Q" as a self contradiction.(Wenham, John Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke Downer’s Grove: Inter-varsity Press, 1992, p. 42). further:"And if we have known this at least that long, why all the jockeying in Biblical Criticisms now, as if "Q" were a settled fact, when it is more unstable than jello on a heated hot-plate?

there's more...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

Since your Q and late dating theory FAILS as real scholarship and succeeds as the trash that it is, better dates for the NT narratives are as follows based on much better sources than you use:

*Jude ~ Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel

*James ~Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel

*Galatians ~ A.D. 48 Philippi, Greece

*Gospel of Luke ~ A.D. 50 Corinth, Achaia

*I Thessalonians, February - July, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia

*I Corinthians July - November, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia

* Revelation Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 Patmos, Aegean

* Romans October - November, A.D. 53 Corinth, Achaia

* Titus ~ February, A.D. 54 Troas, Aegean Sea

*Colossians ~May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel

*I Timothy May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel

* II Thessalonians August - December, A.D. 54 Ephesus, Asia

* Gospel of Matthew May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 Jerusalem, Israel

* Philemon ~A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* II Timothy ~ October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* Ephesians October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* Philippians February - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* I Peter March - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Gospel of Mark June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* II Peter June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Acts of the Apostles July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Hebrews July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* I John (severed intro) August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia

* Gospel of John August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia

* 2,3 John A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 Ephesus, Asia

There's more...

Cole said...

Hi MMM!

Long time no see!

I think you are correct. The entire "so called" evangelical Christian community are religious "Sons Of Hell." I'm glad you have pointed this truth out to me so that I can now grow in my spiritual walk with my Higher Power that I choose to call God. I can't believe that I was in the "Family of Satan" for so long. Here I was thinking I was one of God's children not knowing I was one of Satan's relatives. Not any more!

Thanks again for all your help and insight on these matters.

No more religion for me!

Hope all is well with you and your retirement.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

(JESUS) Mark 14:36: "And He was saying, "Abba! Father" (very uncommon usage)
(PAUL) Gal 4.6: "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!""
(PAUL) Rom 8.15: "you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

(JESUS) Luke 10.21f: ""I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.
(PAUL) I Cor 1-2 (various verses): "hidden things" (2.7), "the wise" (1.19), "the understanding" (1.19), "God has revealed" (2.10), "to infants" (3.1), "God was pleased" (1.21)

(JESUS) ark 14:22-23: "And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." 23 And when He had taken a cup, and given thanks, He gave it to them; and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
(PAUL) I Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." [the whole thing!]

(JESUS) Luke 10.7: "And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
(PAUL) I Cor 9.14: "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. "
(PAUL) I Tim 5.18: "For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

Go to Christian Think Tank for Much More on this

There's more...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

You said regarding Paul, which is another of your many unfounded fantasies turned down for YEARS:Paul has no first hand knowledge about Jesus as he (being from Asia-Minor) never heard or saw the earthly Jesus. According to Paul’s own letters (and the highly unhistorical Book of Acts), Paul was given to visions not unlike the young Joseph Smith who saw the resurrected Jesus himself and founded Mormonism based on that experience.

Paul CLEARLY and without doubt taught a PHYSICAL resurrection not a mere spiritual one, but you're confused by his doscourse on the spiritual body...that's sad...you studied for 6 whole years and had no clue as to what you were studying and or reading...

That fact of what Paul referenced is not only plainly translated, the meaning comes across clear in every language...If Christ be not RAISED

Here's more specific examples:

(JESUS) Luke 6.27-28: "Love your enemies...bless those who curse you"
(JESUS) Matt 5.24: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(PAUL) Romans 12.14: "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse"

(JESUS) Mark 7:15: "there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
(PAUL) Romans 14:14: " I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is profane in itself"

(JESUS) Matt 17:20: "if you have faith...you will say to this mountain, 'Move'..."
(PAUL) I Cor 13.2: "if I have all faith so as to move mountains..."

(JESUS) Matt 19.21: "If you would be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor..."
(PAUL) I Cor 13.3: "if I give away all my possessions..." (contra Rabbinical advice! Cf. b. Ketubot 50a and Mishnah Arakin 8.4)

(JESUS) Matt 24.43: "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
(PAUL) I Thess 5:2,4: "For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night...But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief;

(JESUS) Mark 9.50: "live at peace with one another" (verb forms are absolutely identical)
(PAUL) I Thess 5.13: "live at peace among yourselves"

(JESUS) Mark 4.22: "For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it should come to light.
(PAUL) I Cor 4.5: "who will bring to light the secrets of darkness and will make public the purposes of the heart"
(PAUL) Rom 2.16: "God judges the secrets of people, according to my gospel through Jesus Christ"
(PAUL) I Cor 14.25: "The secrets of his heart are made public"

there's more...

John W. Loftus said...

Hey District Harvey, when do you date John 8:1-11, or the ending chapter?

When do you date Mark 16:9ff?

And have you read any introduction to the New Testament published by Anchor Books, Cambridge, Yale, or Fortress Press? How about Bart Ehrman's Introduction, or those written by Ralph Martin, or L. Michael White?

Have you read Burton Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament?"

I know you haven't. I just know you haven't. Read them and then compare the data and do more thorough research on this, okay?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

You said regarding evidence and testimony of teh bible:"Face the facts Harvey, no lawyer would let you testify under oath if your facts of truth and historical proofs were like the Bible!"

What you don't know is that there is a standard for this sort of thing called that the US calls the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 [16]. Guess what? The TESTIMONY of the bible meets that standard because it is an ancient document. Have you heard of Dr. Simon Greenleaf? The Simon Greenleaf who's works are in part THE standard for evidence even for the US Supreme Court right now TODAY???

Of course you don't because you don't care about evidence, what heresay really is and what;s it's not and how valid the testimony of the biblical writers really is when it comes to supporting FACTS and factual events of history.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

John,

you accept the latest and weakest brand of scholarship on the issue...I don't!

There is no need to accept both late dating or the chronology that you accept to support your critical thoughts on the narratives.

As proof, the scholars you name are mostly apostates...(I didn't get past Ehrman...BUT...) Apostates can't tell me a THING!

Liberal scholars such as the ones that you and Carrier rely on are JUNK! there are adequate and supportable arguments for early dating...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Owlmirror,

Says this:"There's a contradiction about Jesus being God:"

This is one of the most supportable FACTS of the NT narrative and is not in dispute by any writer. In fact the critics even claim that the believers in the early church held as much about Jesus...they though he was God...ever read Pliny??? 110 AD...they sand songs and prayed to him "as if" he were a god??? he understood what the believers thought...

Aside from all that EVERY book of the NT is filled with this...it comes across as doxologies, parallel sayings, equivalencies to OT texts, inclusios and a whole host of other literary techniques that these "supposedly" unlearned followers and writers about Jesus used...not to mention the principle of 'sonship' equated essence and nature...Jesus called God HIS Father not A FATHER he was the first among Jews to do such...GOd was not "like as a Father" to him he was HIS Father therefore indicating sharing of nature and essence...put 2 and 2 together...if God is eternal as was clearly taught within the OT then whoever shared the nature would have to be the same...NEXT!!!

Biblical difficulty: "record Jesus as saying "God, God, why have you abandoned me?". If Jesus was God, he could not actually speak of abandoning himself, therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that he wasn't God. The fact that Luke and John remove this line suggests that this contradiction with having a divine nature made them uncomfortable."

Who said the line was there to begin with??? Do you have an earlier manuscript so that we can confirm this little caveat that has been, according to you, REMIOVED??? I don't think so...

Jesus had a dual nature...man/God equalling a theanthropic being...that was a concept thorougghly taught within scripture as well but I see you missed that class too...This is the only way Jesus can tell Caiphas that he will see him (Dan. 7:14) coming to judge him later...That's why Caiphas tore his robe, he understood jesus claim to be not simply messiah, but also God...

Biblical difficulty:"And there's also a contradiction with Jesus having been born of a virgin, since the two dates proclaimed in Matthew and Luke differ by ten years,"

WHAT??? Where's the date listed??? Surrounding names etc are exactly the same...what are you reading???

Further archaeologist TRAINED to view the evidence and certainly knowing the narratives come to a far vastly different conclusion than armchair QB's like us...they even leave atheism because of it...Sir William Ramsay anyone???

Just in case you're scared to read it:

"Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. (150 A.D.). He set out to prove it. However, after thorough research, he changed his mind. He became a firm defender for the mid-first century authorship of Acts."

It concludes:

"Sir William Ramsay wrote of Luke: "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."...The Bible is to be trusted as an authentic Book of antiquity. Archaeology supports and confirms facts as stated in the Bible."

The thing about it is that NOTHING has changed since he lived and wrote...it's only gottne better for Christianity with every find.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hey Cole! Great to see you here!

Laura said...

Objection. Speculation and hearsay.

Owlmirror said...

«"[Jesus is God] is one of the most supportable FACTS of the NT narrative and is not in dispute by any writer.

Obviously false, twice over. It's not a fact anywhere at all in the NT narrative, and the history of Christianity is filled with disputes by many many many writers over the issue.

«"ever read Pliny??? 110 AD...they sand songs and prayed to him "as if" he were a god???

Even if this twice-removed report of their beliefs is correct -- which is debatable -- one report does not cover all of Christianity. And it certainly does not address the contradiction in the texts of Mark and Matthew.

Mark also speaks of the Father knowing things that the Son does not -- another example of Jesus not being the same as God.

«"Aside from all that EVERY book of the NT is filled with this

Every book of the NT is unclear on the matter.

«"it comes across as doxologies, parallel sayings, equivalencies to OT texts, inclusios and a whole host of other literary techniques that these "supposedly" unlearned followers and writers about Jesus used...not to mention the principle of 'sonship' equated essence and nature

Only because the Western Church that you follow like a good little baa-sheep said so. Why do you think the Nicene Creed lays all of that out? Because of all the religious disagreements and disputes that existed before the Church in Rome twisted arms, silenced dissenters, and got its way by collusion with temporal political power. You can make religious doctrine say anything you want if you can burn any writings that are in opposition, and kill those that wrote them.

«"Jesus called God HIS Father not A FATHER

You mean the Lord's Prayer and Matthew 23:9 don't exist? Nice example of you contradicting the bible.

«"GOd was not "like as a Father" to him he was HIS Father

And what exactly that meant, even given the latter synoptics and John, was unclear in the NT itself.

«"if God is eternal as was clearly taught within the OT then whoever shared the nature would have to be the same

Not necessarily.

~~~ continuation follows ~~~

Owlmirror said...

~~~ continued from previous ~~~

«"Who said the line was there to begin with?

Mark and Matthew. They don't count?

«"Jesus had a dual nature...man/God equalling a theanthropic being...that was a concept thorougghly taught within scripture

If it had been so "thoroughly taught", then the Nicene Creed -- and all of the other theological arguments about Jesus' nature -- would not have been necessary.

«"This is the only way Jesus can tell Caiphas that he will see him (Dan. 7:14) coming to judge him later...

Not necessarily.

«"WHAT??? Where's the date listed???

You really don't know this?

Matthew puts Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, so that's the very latest date that Jesus could have been born -- by that account.

Luke puts Jesus' birth during the census of Quirinius, which took place nearly a decade afterward in 6 or 7 CE, which makes that the earliest date that Jesus could have been born -- by that account.

About ten years' difference.

«""Sir William Ramsay wrote of Luke: "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

LOL. Luke was a moron of a historian who said stupid things like that the census meant that people had to go back to where they were born, even though the whole point of the census was for the tax rolls of where people were living and working.

And Sir William Ramsay was a moron about history if he really wrote that Luke had any worth as a historian.

«"The thing about it is that NOTHING has changed since he lived and wrote...it's only gottne better for Christianity with every find.

Yeah, right. Victory is around the corner -- or maybe the one after that -- or the one after that--

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Response to MMM:

Your 'god' was never anything more than a literary creature, deaf and mute --- an idol. And of course, you are cooperating with stigmatizing any other form of communication God can make, so to hear from Him in any other way would mean you are deluded. // Since you do hold the biblical texts as sole evidence of the divine, then this one should be good --- "the word became flesh".

Reply: Your god (God), MMM, is really a product of pantheism and not the Bible.

First, your talk out both sides of your mouth: 1. By claiming my belief in the Bible was literalistic: 2. Than only to reverse yourself and quote the Gospel of John chapter 1 to prove the logos became flesh. MMM, when you ride the fence, you are going to get shot from both sides!

Your view of the Bible has more in common with that of the Jew Philo and his later allegorical Christians of Alexandria Egypt (not to mention Gnosticism)
than with what became orthodox Christianity based on the literalistic apologetics of Palestine, Asia-Minor and Rome.

If you what to push a god of nature, then I have no problem with your apologetics. If, on the other hand , you come here to push Jesus and his God, then your only matrix is the Bible, period!

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Harvey:

I have a response to your comments coming.

Until then, I let you know about my very religious 74 year old Christian neighbor who was walking by this evening and stopped to talk. (He knows nothing about my atheistic stand on god and the Bible.) So he started to talk about the world we live in today and how it’s becoming more godless all the time and that people just don’t care about what God wants or what the Bible says anymore.

His proof was that Americans have replaced a good God fearing president, George W. Bush, with “a nigger in the White House!”

According to my good Christian neighbor (who is in church every time the doors are open and is a deacon), godless atheists and false Christians are fulfilling Biblical prophesy as the United States races towards the end times. He, again, pointed to the fact that a nigger is living in the White with his whole family!

As he walked away, he said: “Be sure to go to church tomorrow!”

So how about you Harvey? Do you think your brother in Christ is right about atheists are running the country since we have “a nigger in the White House”?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

You asked:"So how about you Harvey? Do you think your brother in Christ is right about atheists are running the country since we have “a nigger in the White House”?"

Harry, you know it's our history that gives me the opportunity to understand you. I think you may relish the fact that someone gives you an opportunity to voice your opinion covertly using them as cover for your sentiments, but I digress.

To the point of your commentary, you act as if atheism comes close to stamping out racism...It doesn't stamp out homosexuality, greed, lust, desire for attention or anything else that can be named, so I can't understand your objective here other than to use what you feel is your standard of morality to judge this man and or my response to him.

First, because I have capacity to forgive solely given my by Christ, and happen to think that racists like that are hilarious, I don't hold charge to the man for his statements. He's silly, misinformed and probably racist at heart, but his ultimate judgement is not mine but God's. He probably wouldn't be my choice for US Race Relations committee in DC, but what they hey???

To the conclusion of whatever point you were trying to make, I think the best thing to realize is that Christ hasn't called us to be automatons which is something I believe fundamental and radical atheists such as yourself need in your life in order for anything to male sense and for you to have some sort of purpose. If everything was exactly the same, and there was no variance between the actions of people and their confessions 100% of the time, you could make sense of everything Christian, but since there will always be freewill, and variance between confession and possession I think things like that damages your conscience and mind against Christianity. To me that is called weakness because one has nothing to do with the other. His actions have nothing to do with a God who has called him to higher and better values than he displays, but for you it's some sort of linchpin and nail in an imaginary Christian coffin.

You can't seem to grab hold of the fact that many will confess Christ but not possess him and will display lives inconsistent at times with his call...

I feel sorry for the man, but I also feel sorry for you, probably more so than him. Probably because IF he has a heart for God, he's got time to get it right and he well may do so, but you reject God and continue to do so with every thought of mind and heart, and bolster up horrible arguments like those on this site and at the end of the day, you're slightly more hopeless than the most staunch racist who claims to be a Christian.

In short, I can laugh at the racist, like I did at the racist portrayed in the movie 'The Blind Side' who called Michael Orr a "big black bear"...because racists really don't know how stupid they sound I laughed like crazy...but in your case...you THINK you're saying something of value, that's no laughing matter!

Thanks for asking though. I knew I could count on you if noone else!

BobCMU76 said...

You have your C Street Christians, who picture themselves as elect and entitled.

And you have your Sojourner Christians, who picture themselves as conscience and duty bound to be instruments of divine Grace and social justice.

Which does Matthew 25 and countless other reputed teachings of Jesus count as sheep, and as goats.

C-street "Christians" are not Christians. George Bush sort of aspired to be a Christian, but listened to the wrong crowd -- the unilateralists. To the extent he recognized their ways as error, God blessed us through the man.

But Carter, Clinton, and Obama follow a version of Christianity I recognize as an example I try to follow in my own walk.

The N-word --- of all things. It's like the exorcised spirit possessing the herd of swine -- as Christianity ceased to engage curious minds, who found greater satistfaction in the empirical than the speculative --- it seems to have landed upon the incurious, and their namesake, Incurious George XLIII.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Harvey:

As to your comments about Q and the later additions of the birth and passion / resurrection narrative, I would suggest people with your type of NEVER study at Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, Sanford, UC Berkeley, Columbia, Chicago, Notre Dame, Union Seminary, or any seminary associated with the Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, United Methodist, American Baptist as no graduate student would ever earn a degree from the preceding schools who held a mind set like yours!

Now tell the above schools their scholarship “…FAILS as real scholarship and succeeds as the trash…”!

I would hope you would stay with Bob Jones University, Liberty University or some Bible College. I would highly suggest a correspondence Bible school course for anyone with your views.

As far as your list of letters / books and their dates go, your earliest dated proof texts (Jude A.D. 47 and James A.D. 47) are still 17 year post-crucifixion and have no resurrection accounts of Jesus in them.

As to your source for dating Luke to about “A.D. 50”, you must be quoting from your Bible school correspondence home study guide.
I never even heard that early date given at Bob Jones.

I would suggest you earn a doctorate in Bible from Luther Rice Seminary in Fla. That’s more your speed and mind set.

And again, in all the references you quoted above, you only have the Bible a source. The Bible proves itself! Now that's real objectivity!

Hey Harvey: The Bible said it, you believe it and that settles it! No wait, for you: The Bible said it, that settles it…you don’t need to believe it!

Hey, it’s the Bible!

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Harvey,

As to your two comments posted above as to what Paul knew about the life of Jesus, you are not comparing apples and oranges! You missed my real first point which was my second comment under this post: I clearly stated that you must use the Bible to prove the Bible! So for, in all the three comments back to me , you have clearly succeeded in only doing just that.

And as far as Josephus goes, the best modern studies point to the fact that the discussion about Jesus in the Testimonium are inconclusive at best.

I discussed this in several emails with one of the foremost scholars on Josephus today: SteveMason.

nearenough said...

There is no evidence that "Jesus" was dead. I am talking in terms of forensic (scientific) evidence. First, the body in question was not properly identified (physical characteristics, fingerprints, clothing, jewelry, deformities, injuries, DNA....) and second, there was no diagnosis of death substantiated by physical findings (low body temperature, lack of pulse or heartbeat, cesation of breathing, absent reflexes, rigor mortis, livor mortis....not to mention other technological tests that could have been done, but weren't, due to the primitive state of the culture -- but "God" could have created such instruments, after all he did create the Universe! No?)

So the question cannot even be answered. But I will submit a number anyway: zero (0).

Jim said...

Harry, you have won the argument hands down. Dist Sup Harvey is getting angry and upset with you which means that deep down he know he has lost the argument.
He now just needs time to digest it all, as he is not very far away from beginning to "see the light" to coin a phrase!

Harvey : Just keep repeating: 'The Bible is not proof" "the Bible is not proof" "The Bible is not proof"............

goprairie said...

Oh, and Hatefilled Harvey, you are right about ONE thing: Atheism does not come close to attemping to 'stamp out homosexuality'. Rather, atheism frees us to ACCEPT homosexuality. Atheism does and should free us from the false bonds of a creepy Bible that tells us there is something wrong with it. Atheism frees us to see that it is a natural variant of human sexuality that harms no one and atheism frees us to treat homeosexuals as people and to give them equal rights as humans. I wish your BIBLE would somehow stop you from hating certain people for stupid reasons but it will not. Your Bible give you justification to treat people unfairly and that proves your Bible is rubbish, written by hating men like you. Atheism frees us to stop such hate, just as atheism frees people to stop many nasty practices based on religion.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Thanks Jim!

Harvey:
As far as people who make a damn good living off Christianity, lets just take one famous family, the Grahams.

Back in the late 80’s, Billy Graham announced his retirement in several years. When asked if his son Franklin would take over, Billy Graham said “No“, but God alone would choose the next evangelist to take over his evangelistic ministry.

Well, God did choose and is still choosing its leaders as the history proves:

1. William Franklin "Billy" Graham, Jr., President and Founder of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

2. William Franklin Graham III He is the president and CEO of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and the international Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse.

3. William Franklin Graham IV He is the assistant director of the Billy Graham Training Center at The Cove and associate evangelist of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Know what Harvey?

I’ll make a prophetic statement: When he’s old enough, Franklin Graham’s grandson (Billy Graham’s great grand son) William Franklin Graham V will be God’s pick for the Graham Evangelistic Corporation.

I could do the same with over a dozen other evangelistic family run ministries:

Charles Stanley, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch (Trinity Broadcasting), Kenneth Copeland, and more (see my post of about 20 evangelistic families doing the same thing here at DC a year ago).

PS:
Harvey, my good old Christian neighbor was right, atheists did put a "nigger in the White House"! I, and all my local and national Secular Humanist Atheists voted for Obama!

Breckmin said...

The problem is that being 100% certain of reality is independent from reality itself.

It is the nature of facts and truth to be in and of themselves dogmatic with respect to reality. All we can do is attempt to align
ourselve "with that reality" and with the omniscient Mind of God (clearly "mind" of God is anthropomorphic here - God's Omniscience is more accurate in the English).

It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ either rose from the dead or whether He somehow did not rise from the dead. God's omniscience
determines factual reality and all we can do is attempt to align ourselves with that historical truth.

You can't go back and change history...all you can do is ask God to lead you to the truth of history regarding His Holy Son.

Question everything - especially history..but beware of historical
inductions which are post 19th Century.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Jim,

Harry, you have won the argument hands down.

What planet are you on? Better yet, put down that crack and go to a rehab...with statements like that you're obviously high...Harry hasn't done anything but play the race card...what kind of argument is that???

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

Can't use the bible to prove the bible???...OK, then you can't use a dictionary to prove the meaning of words right??? I mean that's the same lame and silly logic you use...

Listen, with EXPERTS, not "ex-drips" who have conclusively proved that evidence, manuscript, archaeological and others clearly and demonstrably PROVE biblical accuracy, Miller handles you and all your lame cronies objections with FACTS partner...Your ranting only sounds like a whining hyena. Get real and stay focused which I see is not one of your finer points...

By the way can you communicate? You said, I would suggest people with your type of NEVER study at Oxford,...

My type of "never" what???"

So far as degrees are concerned, if you have a degree, (which hopefully the mail order company went out of business that you ordered it from) you certainly don't represent it well, so I see no advantage to gain by following your line of argumentation and besides, you don't know how many degrees I have or where they are from if there are any...Now wouldn't that make your day if my only education was only, let's say, 4th grade??? I mean you've been handled and I haven't even argued any of my positions in an indepth manner, I've just skirted over the top and you continue to say the same thing over 9As I see Jim can't read either) and then introduce another of your lame rants on Josephus saying the testimonium is inconclusive; but to date, you've never addressed the James passage at all, nor cleared up your BLATANT errors on the Testimonium and want us to believe that you're actually delivering something of value that a liberal scholar at best has authenticated???...You're done like a holiday turkey Harry...DONE!

Let me ask you this Harry...are you an undercover atheist/racist? I think you hate that a black man puts you to shame in open discussion while not even delving deeply into the topic at hand...

You love Bob Jones don't ya??? You believed bob Jones didn't ya?? That is BEFORE he recanted his position, you were already sold weren't ya???

I'd just like to know. These johnny come latelys on this board don't know your backwards scholarship and silly assertions like I do...you're a pretty easy and predictable read because almost without question you're sloppy, and wrong about most issues.

Q: How do I know Harry is wrong about something???

A:If Harry is writing about sometyhing it's bound to be filled with errors!

It's like a man on an insurance exam that stated that only drinks when he smokes...but he's a 36 pack per day chain smoker!

Anyway, since you don't like any alternate dating (TRUE dating until liberals like you cry and whine to change the dates because you can't handle the truth), J P Holding has address most of your dismal and lacking errors of so called scholarship in his article HERE.

So Harry, unless you actually have something to add to the argument???

LOL!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Goprarie,

you said:Oh, and Hatefilled Harvey,

First of all, what kind of hate meter are you using??? One of those tied on your head backwards??? I haven't used any hat filled words neither have a repeated CONSISTENTLY any hate filled words calling the president of the United States a nigger...But YOU'RE the moral police now right???

Let's get to the real...how can you, and atheist judge ANYTHIGN that I can say or do...where's your moral standard??? Where's the community that maintains this standard and better yet why haven't they straightened you out and asked you to tell Harry how stupid he is??? ooh i forgot You don't have a moral standard other than what you THINK is right which changes according to the wind blowing in the right direction....GO FIGURE????

Here's another example, you said: Rather, atheism frees us to ACCEPT homosexuality.

Then why not accept polygamy or polyamory? Why not accept necrophilia, or pedophilia? Why not fight for those sexual preferences Gorprarie? People don't want to be left out and they want their freedom too right??? Fight for them? Why only fight for someone who has a same sex attraction??? What is that a bias??? What is that...freedom??? What kind of freedom?

I want to know why you don't fight for all sexual minorities? Why do you single out homosexuals??? Are you trying to say something with your endorsement of that particular lifestyle or what??? Be honest!!!

Uopi said:"Atheism frees us to stop such hate, just as atheism frees people to stop many nasty practices based on religion."

Well then stop hating on pedophiles, bigamists, necrophiliacs, and all other sexual deviants...You acceptance is only MADE UP and in your mind like all other godless thoughts...totally fictitious and only right to YOU!

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Breckmin:

Everything boils down to if where the New Testament is true or not. Since neither Q or the Saying Source has no Birth Narrative, no Passion Narrative, no Resurrection Narrative and no Ascension Narrative, we must ask the most basic and most logical question as to just why did it take 40 years for Mark to record the event?

What is plainly evident is the fact that the resurrection of Jesus was in the making for 40 years and proven by the fact that none of the original apostles left any text (except 1 Peter with its vague comments) of what miracle they all saw “After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” Acts 1:3.

So with all these proofs, why did it take Acts 32 years (based on a conservative date) to record these “ many convincing proofs that he was alive”?

While Fundamentalist Christianity is condemned and atheists are often condemned for reading the Bible like a Fundamentalist, the only foundational proof for anything Christianity claims as truth is the Bible itself.

What does this all mean? The Bible is God for Jesus without which Jesus’ life has no meaning!

goprairie said...

Harvey:
Your slippery slope argument has been used before and doesn't work. It is creepy that YOU have linked all those things in YOUR head. Read some science: Some anthropology, some sociology, some psychology, some science about how the brain works. Read some actual history about peoples from different places around the globe and thru time. Then you will see that ethics have little need for your Bible, are based on evoloution, are shared by people with various or even no religion, by guiding principles that have nothing to do with a god figure, and are in fact corrupted by the things written in your Bible to cause LESS morality in people guided by it. Ethics are instinctive is all animals including human. As for the community, community that overrides instintive ethics is less moral. Hint to you: Instinctive ethics are much more compassionate and kind than Christian ethics as practiced by extremists like you.
There's a reason most compassionate cultures accept homosexuality and not the creepy things you thought up and that has to do with how homosexuality causes no harm to society or individuals and the sick things you thought up do. Duh. Poeple untwisted by Bible creepiness kknow that. Instinctively.
And as for Harry, he is winning by huge margins and everyone watching sees that except you. Objectivity is not a strong point of those whose brains have been warped by belief in a myth system as weird as yours and a book with as many contraditcions and falsehoods as the one you defend and claim to live by. You spew anger and nastiness and everyone reading sees that. Why don't you? Harry wins on logical points and cool.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Goprarie,

I'll have mercy on you because if you can't see Jesus you certainly can't discern truth of an argument...

So far as morality is concerned there is NO empirical evidence to support evolutionary morality or genetic morality. Doesn't exist plain and simple. You can't produce it, atheists can't produce it in debates, the argument only displays the faith of materialistic believers such as yourself. As stated there is no empirical evidence for evolutionary morality.

To the point of your commentary, you AVOID any parts of my argument, writing off substance with , "I don't believe you" while saying that I'm narrow. What an argument!

Still haven't asked why you believe you should support homosexuality, while excluding other sexual preferences. Why exclude pedophilia which has a history probably as far back as homosexuality. Why not defend necrophilia, bigamy, polyamory and the list goes on?

You answer with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo...answer the question!

Then, look at Harry's arguments for a second...

So far we've discussed Q, which doesn't exist, has never existed and is a bad argument by all accounts and most scholars who speak on the subject destroy the many myths and fantasies surrounding the imaginary document. Yet Harry and you continue to believe in the imaginary. Isn't that something???I've presented solid evidence in support of my position, Harry has only asserted and got mad at the real evidence. Who has won that?...ME!

So far we've discussed, dating of the texts which Harry constructs off of his mythological and imaginary Q. Harry claims late dating with NO supporting evidence only his conjectures based on liberal scholarship and an imaginary document...I present facts with support of archaeologists and professionals within the field who have examined the evidence. Neither of you have even bothered to defend your position. Who won that argument?...ME!

So far Harry has complained that Christians such as Franklin Graham get rich off of preaching honorariums. I say SO WHAT? What does that have to do with anything that is being talked about? Who cares??? Not me.

So far Harry, while standing behind a supposed encounter with a Christian, has claimed that that the President, a BLACK MAN, is a nigger. i think the real "nigger" has revealed himself by even bringing up the commentary which added NOTHING to the value of the conversation. I further think that Harry has more of a psychological problem that originally believed.

In short there is nothing that Harry has stated NOR YOU that is supported by evidence, whereas there is significant evidence in support of what I've said.

Based on supportable arguments, who wins??? I see who whines, but that's not winning. In short you neither have nor do you offer any substantive arguments.

Jim said...

"What planet are you on? Better yet, put down that crack and go to a rehab...with statements like that you're obviously high...Harry hasn't done anything but play the race card...what kind of argument is that???

Harvey, I don't take this personally. Just pointing out to other readers which one of us is full of hate and ad hominem attacks!
You weren't very nice to Harry either.
How can you even begin to compare the Bible with the dictionary? Apples and oranges. Oh, maybe it's because they are both books?

zenmite said...

"So far as morality is concerned there is NO empirical evidence to support evolutionary morality or genetic morality. Doesn't exist plain and simple."

“Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book “Good Natured.” Biologists ignored this possibility for many years, believing that because natural selection was cruel and pitiless it could only produce people with the same qualities. But this is a fallacy, in Dr. de Waal’s view. Natural selection favors organisms that survive and reproduce, by whatever means. And it has provided people, he writes in “Primates and Philosophers,” with “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interests of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”

Steven Pinker (2002, 2003; Wright, 2002) and others (e.g., Wright, 1994; Katz, 2000) have argued persuasively for the evolutionary basis of our moral sense – the gradual, if accidental, development of moral responses and reasoning that provided net survival benefits and so persisted as human characteristics. Moral judgment and reasoning may just be one of our innate mental faculties, even if many of the specifics are subject to variation and change.

No empirical evidence? Don't you read any books besides the bible?

lisha said...

In my frame of reference I know Jesus did arise 100% certain,and i believe my frame of reference is same as the frame of reference of my Creator God.
I have lived as an ardent atheist (born in Hindu family) during my undergrad,then became an agnostic now I am a Christian and that too a fanatic one,and will be one for eternity and i am 100% sure about it.
One can choose to follow God or not He has given free will,He never imposes any of us to follow.Those who would love to spent eternity with Him and His idea of perfection will be with Him.Other's who don't bother about Him will get spend time without His presence.
I am very happy that God is exactly the way He is,that is perfect and has no room for imperfection.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Zenmite,

What scientist have discovered is that altered brain functions produce certain neurological responses. Tweak A and this results in action B. This same concept has been transferred to the study of the origins of morality. This is nothing new and has been done over and over including regarding morality. MIT was the latest to do this under Dr. Liane Young.

The fact is that there is a difference between tweaking existing moral actions and discovering where moral actiosn come from.

As I said, there continues to be NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that states where morality comes from. the field of neurobiology attempts to explian it but the arguments are deductive NOT empirical.

Now, do YOU read anything other than dogma that undergirds your presuppositions? That's what needs to be asked.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

What is plainly evident is the fact that the resurrection of Jesus was in the making for 40 years and proven by the fact that none of the original apostles left any text (except the late1 Peter with its vague comments) of what miracle they all saw!

So with all these proofs (“After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” Acts 1:3), why did it take Acts 32 years (based on a conservative date) to record these “ many convincing proofs that he was alive”?

Wake up Harvey! The fact that Jesus’ own self taught eye witnessed apostles left us nothing (expect late and questionable 1 Peter), not to mention all the people he healed and brought back from the dead (Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25), the nagging question remains:

If we even credit just 10% of those who saw and experienced the miracles of Jesus the ability to read and write, and even if I accept your crazy early dating of 17, PLEASE TELL ME just why it took 17 years for anything to mention the miraculous life of Jesus (God's very Messiah)to be even recorded?!!

Just could it have been that the generation who really knew the truth about Jesus needed to have died off so the lies about this little know and failed messiah could be spread with out a reality check?


Yet, by comparison, we have Philo, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls all written by the very people and at the very time they support and all these texts are written during the time of Jesus!

But as far as Jesus goes, the New Testament authors needed 30 - 40 years (Mark) and still couldn’t get their lies straight!

zenmite said...

"Now, do YOU read anything other than dogma that undergirds your presuppositions? That's what needs to be asked."

Does the Bible count?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harry wrote, "Wake up Harvey! The fact that Jesus’ own self taught eye witnessed apostles left us nothing (expect late and questionable 1 Peter),"

It appears as "nothing" to you, because your standard for proof is based on literary works rather than spiritual. Faith does not appease the demands for instant gratification as we oftentimes seek.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

BTW, so far as neurobiological morality is concerned, I've had an article prepared on 'The Myth Of Magnet Morality' for quite some time and released it today.

As I stated, most of these sort of studies only attempt to manipulate moral sense which is something that any chemical can do. These sort of things say NOTHING about where moral values come from, only how they can be altered. To say on top of that that morality is a product of neurobiological functions is significant, but destroys freewill in the process and opens up the awkward can of judging the actions of others based on a possible 'handicap'.

At either rate, it's one of the worst possible arguments for morality in my opinion and has many far reaching implications.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Then GoPrairie writes, "Ethics are instinctive is all animals including human"

If this is so, then I am wondering why there are posts on this site filing complaints of cruelty amidst the inhabitants of the animal kingdom?

GP also wrote, "Then you will see that ethics have little need for your Bible, are based on evoloution,"

Just a friendly awareness alert here, but evolution teaches survival of the fittest and natural selection --- not very compassionate if you are the one being marginalized as unsuitable for a sustainable population.
Good luck with that.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Harvey, as to my knowledge, all you references from "Miller" accept the Saying Source “Q”. And most of your cited scholars are Old Testament / Hebrew Bible Scholars not New Testament!

Secondly, this is how plainly dumb ass stupid you are: You claim I bitch about Obama and go without my way to call him “a nigger in the White House” (a reference by your 74 year old white Christian brother), yet I voted for Obama and still support him!

Just who did you vote for Harvey? John McCain of the Christian Republican Party? Hey Harvey, when all else fails, play the race card!

As to you claim that one can use a dictionary to prove words: Dictionaries are revised several times a decade and are not historically infallible while your Bible was last up dated with the full and total truth 2,000 years ago (mistake and all).

As far as you "James" reference in Josephus goes, give me a reference from either Louise Feldman or Steve Mason that it has not been rejected as an interpolation!

Now as for as you and your divine healings go at your church, give me a major new paper or network news story that backs this up. Prove it with facts!

If Holding is current Biblical scholarship, PLEASE show me where any of his books have been reviewed in a major scholarly journal like the Journal of Biblical Literature or Novum Testamentum, Revue Biblique!

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

MMM:

You have more with Edgar Cayce and religious mystics than what is being discussed here!

I'm never sure as to just where you are coming from.

zenmite said...

"Just a friendly awareness alert here, but evolution teaches survival of the fittest and natural selection --- not very compassionate if you are the one being marginalized as unsuitable for a sustainable population.
Good luck with that."


Evolution is not an 'ought' or system of morality in competition with religions. It simply explains 'how' living beings became the way they are.

The United States became what it is today via slavery, women as second-class citizens and stealing land from Mexico and subjugating native americans. That is a description of some of 'how' the u.s. became what it is. It is not a prescription for future actions or standards by which to judge what the u.s. 'should' do in the future.

Atoms join together via unfeeling chemical processes to form molecules too. Atomic theory does not provide an ethical blueprint even though it does explain how things are put together.

Even though evolution can provide good answers for how morality (and other human / animal traits) may have come about, it does not suggest how we 'should' behave, only how life has unfolded.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Harvey,

If the Bible is not full of hate and bigotry (as goprairie says), than just why is the Bible not the poster child of the KKK! Why is the cross burnt at their rallies?

Secondly, why is Bible quoted (especially the New Testament) by two comments John has banded from DC and the reason why all comments must be moderated: Leonardo and Dirty Harry who continually quote the Bible to attack Jews, gays, Moslems and any one else who they deem as non-Christian?

Cole said...

"It appears as "nothing" to you, because your standard for proof is based on literary works rather than spiritual."

Hi MMM!

I agree. The so called proof is in the spiritual or changed lives. Not in arguing over doctrine like the "Religious Sons of Hell" (modern Christians) do. I use to argue over doctrine thinking I was right all the time trying to force the narrowmindedness of my doctrine on others. It was all fear based for me. I was a real sicko. Not that I'm perfect today. But I'm getting better.

goprairie said...

Harvey: I don't waste time on arguing with those who play old cards over and over and never learn. So cut with the insults that I won't belabor your pointless points. There are basic ethics such as not killing except to eat and defend family and turf that are shared by dogs and chimps and humans. Civilizations that never heard of Jesus or your God or your Bible still held these basic ethics. These are instinctive, because the individuals that felt them were the ones to do the best in their environment.
MMM: The tooth and claw survival of the fittest is an outdated way of looking at evolution. Read something current on it such as Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is True.
Gays deserve equal rights. Any hate talk generated by your Bible or your mouth or your hand that calls it sin or sick puts the blood of any harmed on your hand and on the hands of your 'God'. It is wrong, immoral, and unethical to propogate hate toward homosexuals for any reason.

Cole said...

Not only that MMM, but I see the whole idea of trying to force others to believe in God through logic as being misguided. For one thing it doesn't take into consideration the weaknesses of the evidence and arguments as well as the limitations of knowledge itself. I'm no longer driven by fear in trying to control others to see "Ultimate Issues" the way I see them. I feel alot better now that I'm no longer a "Religious Son Of Hell" (Evangelical Christian)

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

To MMM:

Please tell me (Ms. Christian mystic), just how do you get a doctrine of salvation without the Bible? Why are you a follower of Jesus as the Messiah and how do you even know about a Messiah? How do you know all religions are not equally true? Please tell me which denomination you are a member of? Please!

To Harvey:

With Obama being pro-choice (Pro abortion as you call it), based on my last debate with you here at DC over pro-choice, I would be highly surprised if you voted for him!

I would be totally for outlawing abortions in most cases if all anti-abortion churches were required, under Federal law, to take in and raise all unwanted births until the age of 18 providing them with medical care, food, clothing and getting them to and from school (or even home schooling them).

But all you pro life Christians want to do is force an unwanted child into an environment that does not want it and on to the government: Now you raise it as our churches sure don’t have that kind of money or love!

I would highly suggest you see the movie Precious (if you have not already done so):

“In 1987, obese, illiterate, 16-year-old Claireece "Precious" Jones lives in the ghetto of Harlem with her dysfunctional and abusive mother, Mary. She has been impregnated twice by her father, Carl, and suffers long term physical, sexual, and mental abuse from her unemployed mother. The family resides in a Section 8 tenement and subsists on welfare. Her first child, known only as "Lil Mongo", has Down syndrome and is being cared for by Precious' grandmother.”

Harvey, where is your miracle God working in cases like this?

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

To Harvey Part 2:

For argument sake, lets even say Jesus himself wrote an autobiography and we have it verbatim totally unchanged today. What the hell good is it if none of the promises work!

Let say you win your argument hands down; that the Gospels are the day by day actual accounts of the very life of Jesus - Virgin Birth, miracles, resurrection and ascension - the whole nine yards as true!

Now you would be faced with just why do these "true promises" of Jesus don’t work for all the sick and dying believers crying out to God and Jesus daily and for the last 2,000 years (except only in your controlled church’s environment)?

For example, why did Ruth Graham Bell (Billy Graham’s wife) suffer like hell before she died? I believe she had 4 hip replacement operations. Did she nor Bill have enough faith? Was it God’s will that Jesus promises not apply in this case?

So Harvey, your task is two fold: You must not only save the Bible, but you must explain why none to the promises of Jesus (From his second coming to his healing miracles) work today!

Face it Harvey, you have a car without a motor that you claim can win any stockcar race! Although you argue and debate anyone who questions it's ability to run, your stockcar remains silent and motionless and so does your God!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

This is for you from you and to you:"Secondly, this is how plainly dumb ass stupid you are:

Words from Harry to Harry, but YET, I'm the one with hatefilled words...Now who's ranting and getting angry Harry??? Who is it? You can't make a point without ad homienm can you? It only takes a few lines because you're BLIND in your SIN and you can't even see the door. That is what total depravity looks and sounds like Harry...like you. you're th PROOF that God is real and the bible is right...thousands of years removed from the authors writing and penning of the script, you have EXACTLY what they say you have, no self-control, hatred, jealously, variance, strife and anger WITH sin...how can you escape Harry? Who shall deliver you from you if not Jesus?

BTW who I voted for is another one of those little things that I'm not compelled to tell you...so please eat that up and I hope it burns you even more than you've displayed so far...

goprairie said...

"Christian love" sure does look . . . different sometimes. Harry, aren't you just overWHELMED by the love? I know I am.
What was it Jesus said? "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." I bet Harvey knows what chapter and verse that comes from. Harry, I guess all those suffering and dying people who are asking, begging, pleading for Jesus to end their suffering, to heal them, to help them, just don't know that Jesus's real name is. Guess they must be saying it wrong, cuz Jesus ain't no liar and the Good Book is a literal story of what the good and perfect Jesus promised. Right?

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Yes Harvey, please tell us how a loving and kind Jesus started a ministry which only lasted 1-3 years at the most in which love was king. He had soooo much love for the Romans and everyone he met, they nailed him to a cross as a word of thanks! Duh, get real!

Facts prove that Jesus was no lover of mankind, but an apocalyptic Jew who hated gentiles. Hell was his verbal weapon of choice and his mindset was taken from Intertestamental literature about the reign of God over the Jewish new earth to come.

If you think that ancient literature with appreciations for today makes it true, then all the gods who in inspired Babylonian Wisdom literature are just as true as your Christian God!

Want some proof then read their wisdom: Babylonian Wisdom Literature and Babylonian Oracle Questions by G.W Lambert.

PS: It’s too bad McCain lost (Not). Christianity has ruined the Republican Party!
Obama Rules!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

You said:"As far as you "James" reference in Josephus goes, give me a reference from either Louise Feldman or Steve Mason that it has not been rejected as an interpolation!"

Are these the only men that have acess to the texts in the world? is their word gold to you? Why do you idolize them as if they are the only scholars worth accepting regarding teh subject? Once again you only show you complete and abject lunacy. In fact here is what Feldman says by way of another scolar whom you know nothing about named Dr. Paul Maier:

"Josephus' second reference to Jesus in connection with the death of his half-brother James (20:200) shows no tampering whatever and is present in all Josephus manuscripts. Had there been Christian interpolation, more material would doubtless have been presented than this brief, passing notice. James would likely have been wreathed in laudatory language and styled "the brother of the Lord," as the New Testament defines him, rather than, as Josephus, "the brother of Jesus." Nor could the New Testatment have served as Josephus' source since it provides no detail on James' death. For Josephus to further define Jesus as the one "who was called the Christos" was both credible and necessary in view of the twenty other Jesuses he cites in his works. In fact, the very high priest who succeeded Ananus, who instigated the death of James, was Jesus, son of Damnaeus. Accordingly, most scholars concur with ranking Josephus authority Louis H. Feldman in his notation in the Loeb edition of Josephus: "...few have doubted the genuineness of the passage [20:200] on James" (Louis H. Feldman, tr., Josephus, IX [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965] 496).

['few' With the exception of certainly the NON-SCHOLAR Harry Mccall] back to the commentary:

The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages. He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatment portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans. That is found HERE.

there's more...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

Back to substantive issues...well at kleast those that are substantive to you...

You said:As to you claim that one can use a dictionary to prove words: Dictionaries are revised several times a decade and are not historically infallible while your Bible was last up dated with the full and total truth 2,000 years ago (mistake and all).

Here is a classic example of one of your many logical fallacies. Cross categorical confusion at it's best. You mix the critique of scripture with the concept of infallibility. Is infallibility of scripture the reason why it can't be critiqued? In fact what does one have to do with the other when you're talking about about history?

This is a backwards statement and one that has no bearing or adds no value to anythign that is said on the subject.

What we were talkign about was your statement, You can't use the bible to prove the bible"

That is a logically inconsistent and incoherrant statemnt with no bearing of truth. Just as a dictionary is a repository of the subject matter that it contains and can be examined for enlightment on that subject matter, the bible is also. FURTHER, the bible has been PROVEN to be historically accurate as confirmend by leading archaeologists and historical critics. there is no reason except for a radically held presupposition to discount the bible in matters of history. You can use the bible to prove both hitory and other parts of narratives that is contained withion it just liek you can use an enclyclopedia or dictionary to confirm or affirm certain facts regarding the subject matter that they contain. Your opposition to this is RIDICULOUS and only shows and further displays your unsustainable bias.

there's more...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

Still there are others. How about the late Dr. F.F. Bruce, one of the greatest literary historians of the NT:

We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.~ [F.F.Bruce 'Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament'(1974) ppg. 32 + 65]

yet another;

"Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing."(Luke T. Johnson, 'The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).

You provide 2 authors who you say uphold your claim regarding Josephus and Jesus and the deauthentication of josephus even mentioning Jesus. I have taken one of your scholars, proved you a LIAR, and added 3 more scholars to support my arguments...

Who's said this?"Secondly, this is how plainly dumb ass stupid you are:"

Now, who has this statement that you made been PROVEN to be about??? Certainly not me!

If you weren't so blind in your hatred, you may be some good to something. I don't know what or who, but ridding yourself of hatred would be a good thing!

there's more...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

The man so much fun to DEBUNK!!!

you said:Now as for as you and your divine healings go at your church, give me a major new paper or network news story that backs this up. Prove it with facts!

Done that already. NEWS reported Darrel Hines of Milwaukee Wisconsin was DEAD...not NEAR DEAD. DEAD over 45 minutes UNTIL he was prayed for by his mother and called back to life...Newspaper confirmed third part witnesses DR. verified...that's just ONE...there was another gentleman who spoke at our national meeting last November...SAME THING Harry...in addition I had a serious medical condition from the ages 12 to 15 should have DIED as a result Harry...I'm 45 now and I remember the minute I was healed!

Not to mention the medically diagnosed cancer that disappeared DR. CONFIRMED in one of our members.

If you're ignorant to these sort of things...I DON'T CARE. This tag wasn't supposed to be about such things. Get the records for yourself, I've already seen them and was living when it happened.

Let's move on to your other more radically pathetic arguments shall we???

Regarding the movie 'Precious' you said:"Harvey, where is your miracle God working in cases like this?"

Once again Harry, you're outta your league. you fail to even understand the meaning of the movie by a supposed Christian author. te point to Precious's life was the presence and power of God through all that she had to experience. the move did not display God's absence, it displayed God's PRESENCE in the midst of situations that were intended to and should have crushed and killed Precious.

God was present and precious later was greater than anything that could be imagined, not because of chance or luck, it was because of God! God and HIS plan for her was greater than circumstance that could have crushed her and that should have crushed her and made her existence miserable. IT DIDN'T and she SURVIVED because of God!

Like I said, you can't see the forest for looking at the trees...that's sad. that's what I mean by blind hatred.

So now, when all else fails, let;s switch to the problem of evil argument...surely you'll win with that one right???

Nope. Certainly won't! This isn't problematic at all. Job investigated it long before you and with much more wisdom and fact. In addition if all that we have is this world, I'd probably be the mess that you are...but I have a hope and an assurance BEYOND this and a down payment by the demonstrable proof of an empty tomb and solid testimony regarding it's authenticity.

Isn't that funny how the conversation comes right back to what we were supposed to be talking about in this thread anyway???

I'm 100% CONFIDENT that Jesus rose!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

BTW Harry, and I'm finished here,

you saidLeonardo and Dirty Harry who continually quote the Bible to attack Jews, gays, Moslems and any one else who they deem as non-Christian?

I don't know how or why they started but I'm glad to receive their emails...they're comical at times especially regarding you.

What they see about you is what I see. A person who is condescending and can't take the heat that he dishes out...you have no room to call anyone names. Your cheering section is what it is and I expect as much.

Your 6 years of trying to learn the bible and subsequent 14 (or so)of rejecting it, has not equipped you to deal with YOU. YOU, not the bible, are your own biggest hindrance as I see it. Effort is there, but totally misdirected.

Later Harry...it's been real as always!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

One more thing, for all the newbies in this post in the comments section, Harry's arguments regarding Josephus were handled quite adequately.

That particular set of commentors presented more scholars and corrected Harry's use of the one he tried to use. Basically, it was discovered that even Feldman, Harry's best support, doesn't agree with Harry's basic premise that the Josephus passage is an interpolation. He only agrees that it is a partial interpolation and is recoverable.

This is why I have no sympaty for Harry and why he calls me dumb-LOL!!!

Thanks for reminding me about this Harry, I wanted to do some further research and it jogged my memory to go over this again.

TC said...

Wow, what were those disciples thinking, if they had just gotten out their laptops and tape recorders and knocked out the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament while everything was fresh on their mind, we wouldn't have anything to discuss. Oh wait, they didn't have those things. Come on, put yourself in their shoes, do you think you could have done it any better or any sooner. By the way, I believe my number is 100, to answer the original question.

Cole said...

Hi MMM,

One of the things that bothers me the most is how I use to defend the "Religious Sons Of Hell" (Evangelical Christian) doctrines like "Substitutionary Atonement" where God the Father had to appease His wrath by spilling the blood of His Son Jesus Christ. I didn't realize how crazy I sounded when I argued for such things. I was told that if I didn't believe such things then I was going to suffer forever in hell and I believed it. Thank God I'm now being set free from those "teachings of demons." I was one narrow minded, egotistical, know it all, evangelical Christian. I thought I had all the answers and if you disagreed with me you was going to suffer forever in the lake of fire.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harry wrote, "I'm never sure as to just where you are coming from."

I wouldn't want to incite any insecurities here - my motivation is not unkind.

You also queried, "Please tell me (Ms. Christian mystic), just how do you get a doctrine of salvation without the Bible?"

So, for you, salvation was a doctrine?? I experience salvation has a process. But I do recognize that some ppl have more comfort relating to theology and doctrine and literature than they do God. So be it.

Take care,
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

goPrairie writes, "MMM: The tooth and claw survival of the fittest is an outdated way of looking at evolution. Read something current on it such as Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is True. "

I don't argue about the process of progressive developement within living organisms. However, I disagree with you that the development of lovgingkindness (you say 'ethics') is intrinsic to a process in which fallibility/vulnerability is a qualifier for elimination in living organisms.

Nonetheless, take care,
3M

Cole said...

Hi MMM!

Let me know if I'm getting off track here. You know I've been diagnosed with Schizo-Affective disorder. I'm not like the "normal" person who makes sense all the time. My mind also races sometimes. It's doing okay now though.

Cole said...

Hi MMM,

I'll be alright as long as I take my medicine. I went a whole two years one time without taking my medicine. I was sitting in church watching everybody dance arround and praise God and I had a vision of people being tormented in hell while all this was going on. Babies were being raped and their heads were getting bashed in. People were screaming in pain while God's children worshiped Him. My mind was racing a hundred miles an hour. I couldn't move. I was paralized in fear. It felt like a big claw was pressing down on my head. That's when I started taking my medicine again. I came to realize that the doctrine of eternal concious punishment was a "Religious Son Of Hell" (Christian) doctrine and not a Godly one. It completely terrified me.

Anthony said...

Cole: I've been diagnosed with Schizo-Affective disorder.

Cole, I have someone close in my life who also has the same diagnosis, but unfortunately they refuse to believe it. We'll call this person Lee (since the name is gender neutral). Lee finally came to grips with the bipolar aspect of their condition. Fortunately Lee does take the required meds and is usually fine.

You definitely have my sympathies my friend.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Cole! You wrote, "Let me know if I'm getting off track here. You know I've been diagnosed with Schizo-Affective disorder. I'm not like the "normal" person who makes sense all the time. My mind also races sometimes. It's doing okay now though."

Cole, you owe me no apologies, that is for certain, but thank you for your thoughtfulness and for speaking candidly! I feel protective of you revealing personal details in a public forum, but overall, after visiting here for several years, I feel that the majority of ppl here, whether they say they believe in God or not, do understand that human vulnerability ought not be a cause to judge harshly or condemn. To me, that is an expression of faith.

Take care, Cole! The best to you,

3M

Chuck O'Connor said...

I think the comments on this post could lead to an interesting subject as to how relgious cognitive bias leads to dishonest mania (e.g. Harvey).

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Harvey:

Josephus scholar Steve Mason referred me this this major work on Josephus.

Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, by Alice Whealey (Peter Lang Publishing, NY 2003).

The Testimonium Flavianum, a brief passage in Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus (37 - ca. 100 AD), is widely considered the only extant evidence besides the Bible of the historicity of Jesus Christ.

In the sixteenth century the authenticity of this passage was challenged by scholars, launching a controversy that has still not been resolved. this passage and the long-standing debate over its authenticity.

From the Conclusion p. 203

Harvey, please note! “The Testimonium Flavianum …is widely considered the only extant evidence besides the Bible of the historicity of Jesus Christ.

The Testimonium Flavianum from Antiquitates Iudaicae 18: 63-64 AND NOT the section on James Antiquitates Iudaicae 20:200!

So now, as far as using the Bible to prove the Bible, just were do we have any historical references to Jesus outside of this highly questioned passage by Josephus?

Pliny the Younger dealt with Christians in Asia Minor and NOT with Jesus!

Yet, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus was so famous that “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” John 21: 25.

So just where are all these thing that prove the life of Jesus and a live filled with miracles at that?

Now Harvey, you only have the Bible to prove the Bible is true just as Mormons use the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon is true.

You and Josephus Smith have one thing in common: Bibles that are self proving!

goprairie said...

MMM:
I will try this one more time: Your model of evolution is based on the quaint old fashioned notion of 'survival of the fittest' wherein the less fit are killed by the more fit and eliminated. A very dramatic model for TV filming as the jaguar runs down the gazelle. But not how evolution really worked, for the most part.
The true mode of evolution is reproduction. The ones most successful at reproduction were the ones to put more of their kind into the next generation. Most fish and insects do it by making so many young that only a few have to survive. They reproduce and move on to leave the young to fend for themselves. We don't regard that as very 'ethical' but it works. Mammals have fewer young but feed and shelter and defend them. So the ones that are better cared for make it into the next generation to reproduce themselves. So the ones that are INSTINCTIVELY better caregivers are more successful reproducers. And as mammals lived in packs, it behooved them to care for each other since a weak one not cared for was attractive to predators and so on. Behaviors that we consider ethical are behaviors that lead to most successful reproduction AND most successful survival of the young to reproductive age AND survival of others in the community to contribute to the maturation of the young. That is how 'caring' and 'loving' and 'sharing' behaviors evolved.
Seriously, you (everyone)should read some modern literature on this and learn about how evolution really works and how behaviors are really shaped. There is so much good information out there that one need not live in ignorance of modern versions of the theory.

Harry H. McCall, CET said...

Hi MMM:

I just realized you are a theist, but not an orthodox Christian (That is, you have no need of a Biblical plan salvation as typically found in Gospel tracts).

Sorry about Stereo Typing you.

John’s DC is about the Bible and the claims of eternal salvation and eternal damnation. In this sense, we are geared up to deal with the likes of Harvey and not you.

The fact that you are not affiliated with a main line Christian denomination makes you hard to nail down and you are able to define what you believe as you go. You have more in common with Process Theology as defined by Alfred North Whitehead and John B. Cobb.

Peace Out and my apologies MMM!
Harry

TC said...

What are your thoughts on Don Piper's book, "90 Minutes in Heaven"? He was killed in a car crash and was dead for 90 minutes and writes about his experiences in Heaven.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

GP writes,
"So the ones that are INSTINCTIVELY better caregivers are more successful reproducers."

I agree that the process of natural selection exists. However, Jesus said it was not a demonstration of faith to care only for those that we deem easy to love or most likely to succeed at reproduction or within our own pack-- but faith is shaped in loving what God loves which is all people (but not all ppl love Him back because faith upsets territorial instincts) -- a major difference between natural instinct and divine intuition.

"And as mammals lived in packs, it behooved them to care for each other since a weak one not cared for was attractive to predators and so on."

Again, territorial nature is not the same as the divine. Some animals within a pack are selected for neglect because they are sensed to be weak and unfit for survival.

" Behaviors that we consider ethical are behaviors that lead to most successful reproduction AND most successful survival of the young to reproductive age AND survival of others in the community to contribute to the maturation of the young."

One word --- eugenics. Which, BTW, is antithetical to faith. Sounds good on paper, but ultimately, ppl play 'god' and traits get stigmatized and selected and labeled as worthy of elimination. I don't agree with the process -- there is a purpose of shaping humane hearts in the care of ppl that we might otherwise reject.

Also, Jesus has a courageous love of ppl, not concerned about creating a polite facade in order to retrieve and save those who did not possess the ability to be nurturing or caring or tender.

By faith, there is another option for living that exists outside the realm of pack mentality.
Take care,
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Harry ---

Thanks for the apology and the analysis. You wrote, "I just realized you are a theist, but not an orthodox Christian (That is, you have no need of a Biblical plan salvation as typically found in Gospel tracts)."

My turn to apologize here --- I dont' want to leave you guessing, but I love Jesus. The Bible does serve as a testament to His existence, but alone, it cannot provide salvation. It can inspire and provoke, but God never intended for us to relate solely to Him as a literary figure or theological or philosophical endeavor.

Also, I respect Harvey -- he has much more insight on the matters that are of concern to you. I disagree with the villainous characterizations that are projected on him -- I see him as a person who does care about sharing some very good news with you.

It can be a challenge conversing here, but I think you guys are worth it.

Take care,
3M

zenmite said...

"What are your thoughts on Don Piper's book, "90 Minutes in Heaven"? He was killed in a car crash and was dead for 90 minutes and writes about his experiences in Heaven."

People suffering from hypoxia have all sorts of amazing visions, some heavenly and some hellish. What people actually experience in an nde is at least partially based upon their religious culture and expectations. Thus, hindus tend to experience hindu heavens, buddhists experience buddhist heavens or bardos and christians experience some version of the christian heaven.

When my dad was dying of cancer he experienced being in an airport. Does this mean that we go to a cosmic airport when we die? Small children tend to see their living playmates and friends instead of dead loved-ones. Anyone who's taken any of the strong hallucinogenics (lsd, psilocybin,etc) should not be overly impressed by nde experiences.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

BTW GP, I wanted to add one more thing and that is this -- even though you pay lip service and give the appearance of caring for those who espouse homosexuality, by your double standards, they would be eliminated because of (let's see, how did you word it?)their lack of ethical behavior -- these are your own words, GP --- "Behaviors that we consider ethical are behaviors that lead to most successful reproduction".

At any rate, anyone who desires caring and tender intimacy can find it by faith.

3M

goprairie said...

MMM: Yep, played the old eugenics card, still showing your elegant ignorance of evolution. You are wasting my time. READ SOME CURRENT BOOKS. Why are you so threatened by instinctive morality shaped by evolution? Deny the science, but that does not change it. And cut with the 'lip service' accusation. A person does not have to reporduce themselves to contribute to a stable and thriving community. A homosexual might not reproduce but they would certainly be available to provide for the tribe as hunters and gatherers and makers of shelter and even specifically to care for the young of others, just as those beyond reproductive age would, so they contributed to the overall success of those in the tribe reproducing. The fact that homosexuality persists in the human species in spite of the decreased likelihood of the specific individuals to reproduce suggests that it is a natural normal variant of human behavior. I am not going to answer to any more insulting arguments until YOU do some reading.

TC said...

to zenmite:
I agree with most of what you say. But I would hardly consider this a "near death experience". For 90 minutes the man was without a heartbeat or oxygen. He was dead. He is fully recovered mentally, although the wreck left him with a bit of a limp. Which has to be considered remarkable, considering brain damage occurs after about 5 minutes. At the scene of the crash, there were no attempts to revive because he was so badly mangled.

zenmite said...

TC, I couldn't comment any further unless I read the book, and I haven't. But I've never heard of anyone returning to consciousness from confirmed brain-death. These types of stories are very common in the east concerning someone being reincarnated. It is all anecdotal, like seeing ghosts or being abducted by aliens.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

To GP,

Well, as usual, you are definitely the superior person here -- you will probably ask the scientific community to create a genetic ppo that eliminates the likes of myself and others you deem inferior. However, I'm starting to feel protective of you --- being pompous just leaves you more vulnerable.

At any rate, I've grown quite fond of you and your spirited little rebukes. I hope to hear back from you soon.

Please take care (and I do mean that sincerely!),
3M

Cole said...

MMM,

No need to feel protective of me. I'm just getting brutaly honest here. I have to thank you and John and everybody else here for planting the seeds in my head. I was living blindly and in denial. I was so afraid of going to hell that I had to be right about every little doctrine.

Cole said...

MMM,

It hit me one time when I was blogging here at D.C. under the name "Calvin." When the post about Cho came up. He had that gun pointed at the camera. He was in such rage because people picked on him because he was different. Well, that's how I was treated growing up. I was different. Everybody did their own thing while I sat on the side and isolated. I could relate to Cho. I caught a little glimpse of it in that moment. But I just shook it off and kept preaching about hell.

Abdul Asad عبد الأسد said...

The certainties of faith in Christ only come when the Holy Spirit lives inside of you after you decide to bow your knee to Christ's Lordship. After I became a Christian, the Holy Spirit gave me the internal surety of things like the resurrection and the divinity of Christ. However, I should also note that Christianity is not merely "blind" faith, as the historical evidences for things like the resurrection were never even questioned outside of super-skeptical circles full of conspiracy theorists like certain unnamed bloggers!...

Brap Gronk said...

"But I would hardly consider this a "near death experience". For 90 minutes the man was without a heartbeat or oxygen. He was dead."

I must have missed that part of the book where the paramedics connected all that medical monitoring equipment to him and kept an eye on him for 90 minutes, periodically checking for breathing or a pulse. I thought they left him for dead after a quick check, then moved on to the more obvious survivors. His vital signs possibly made him seem dead at one point, but it might be a stretch to say his vitals were gone for 90 minutes.

goprairie said...

Excellent - she plays the 'protective' card - Please, stop being predictable and catch up on your reading.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

:-)

3M

Cole said...

Not only that but there were also times when I would be so angry with people that I would just sit and meditate on what I thought God was going to do to them in hell because they mistreated me. I would get pleasure out of it until I had that experience that I described to you above about Hell. I was one sick person.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Thx Cole -- appreciate your candidness ---

Cole said...

No problem MMM! Thanks for all of your help in all these things. I will never go back to the God of Evangelical Christianity. Especialy the egotistical maniac of Calvinism. I think that religion has maybe played a big role in my diagnosis of mental illness. If not then it definitely hasn't helped anything. I use to tell myself that it did because I wanted it so bad to be true. The God of evangelical Christianity isn't my God anymore.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

hi Cole -- I think the thing that infects people is moral conceitedness and that can transcend the boundaries of secular or religious practices, and not just Christians or evangelicals. That is the thing that I oppose. At any rate, I happen to know that forgiveness nullifies the power of others to continue hurting you, so I hope that you will not harbor hard feelings towards those who are still perishing in that pattern. Maybe someday you can be an influence in helping someone understand what it is like to be set free.

May God bless,
3M

Cole said...

Hi MMM,

I've forgiven all my abusers. But I'm not going to keep placing myself back in harms way. I think that for me religion can be dangerous. ESPECIALLY the evil God of Calvinism. I hope I can be of some influnce on helping others who struggle from these things as well. But then again I can't change anybody but me. I can only help those who want to be helped. I'm not completely free from my disease and I never will be. But I've made alot of progress lately.

Good talking to you!

Cole said...

John,

This is all starting to make sense. I could be wrong but in your new book "The Christian Delusion" in the chapter The Bible and modern scholarship, Paul Tobin states:

"The Bible is filled with so many diametrically opposite viewpoints that if they were present in a human being we would probably label that person as bipolar or, even worse schizophrenic."

No wonder I'm so messed up. Moreover, my intense fear of hell in trying to be right all the time could explain the anxiety and racing thoughts in me wanting to be right all the time. I try to force my beliefs onto others because I'm afraid of them going to hell as well.

This is great stuff!

Cole said...

Thank You to MMM, and everybody else. I'm free. It was the Bible that caused my mental illness. I love you Jennifer. Ilove you MMM. See you two lovely ladies soon.

BobCMU76 said...

Cole -- sorry to intrude here. We really don't know each other. You first came to my attention when John started bragging about deconverting you. I saw your posts that led up to that, too.

There are so many things that cannot be known or controlled, that twist our lives this way and that. Much of what this whole arguement is about is how we approach those things. Is there an intelligence behind them? A willful pursuit of some object by some being, to whom we are inconsequential? The blundering of impersonal forces toward some outcome in which forces are entirely inertial, like the motion of planets? Willful or inertial? God or science?

Or, as Christians insist, divine will is not insensitive to our needs, but clothes the lily and guides the sparrow and gets enraged when we touch our private parts and carries us when the only footprints we see are his.

I'm sure these three ways of regarding what I call the Divine just scratch the surface of what might be, and what men have decided together in faith communities about the nature of the Divine.

What makes us sick is -- in the face of so much of the unknowable -- is the fear that our safety and prosperity depends on how correct we are in our understanding of it. That fear is nowhere worse than within Calvinism, where "right doctrine" is what God cares about more than right action. Oddly, that notion of theirs is based on a 180 degree wrong reading of Romans chapter 3 -- which actually condemns contentment with an intellectual grasp of God's nature and imperatives. You are right to back away.

For me, another ex-Calvinist, another person with mental illness, and another person overly anxious about the safety of my person and psyche and tenuous welcome in a mostly hostile world --- I take great comfort in a central doctrine of Calvinism, which I cling to, perhaps against reason....

IT'S ALL UP TO GOD!!

Me being right or wrong about the truth does not change what the truth is.

It does matter, of course. To the extent we can predict what will be, we can adapt to it. To the extent we can alter our milieu, we can shape it to protect and enrich us -- what protection and enrichment entail is a whole other avenue of inquiry.

But science seems a far more reliable set of tools to see where the universe is going and how we can alter it and ourselves to get along as best we can.

Basically, I believe in God, but I don't believe in prayer. And if the first thing we say about God is that he's invisible, but made all that is visible -- I think we get along a whole lot better dealing with the tangible than the apocalyptic. You and me especially, with our special challenges.

Cole said...

Bob,

Thanks for the help but I don't understand what you're talking about. All I know is what I've experienced and how the Bible and it's teachings have affected me. If they don't do that to you that's great. About truth. Let me tell you a story. I got into a debate with the astrophycisist Hugh Ross over the phone about the age of the universe, epistemology, science and everything. I thought I had it all figured out. I started preaching and telling him that he was wrong about his theory of time and everything else. Well, when I hung up the phone my mind was racing a hundred miles an hour. I was up for three days pondering everything I said to him on the phone. I walked over to the radio and turned it on. It seemed as though I had started a revival. People on the radio were repeating everthing I was saying. They were singing and laughing. My grandma called me up on the radio and told me George Bush was worried about the time. So, I started thinking that this thing has gotten all the way to George Bush. Pretty soon the Government was comming after me. I thought that scientists were in a big conspiracy and that they were building the tower of babel because they were foundationalists in their epistemology. I thought the end of the world was near and that God was about to pour out His wrath on the planet. I laid down and closed my eyes and two beams of light shot down and formed a dot in the middle of my forhead. I called my mom telling her that the end of the world was here and that she needed to come get me because the government was comming after me. She took me to the hospital and they gave me medication and diagnosed me. The Bible and it's teachings have caused me to go insane. It only happens when I get into Biblical issues. I was afraid of going to hell.

BobCMU76 said...

Cole -- I don't have visions and voices. Yours sound pretty extreme. But I've been called skitzo all my life, and have come to realize my troubles are closer to autism. The thoughts I shared are what help me keep on pushing though the big bad forces out there. I don't experience them with either the specificity or ferocity you describe. More foreboding -- things sensed in peripheral vision that aren't there when you turn to look at them.

Perhaps the fact that I experience my fears in this way has led to the kind of agnostic thinking I just shared. It's bought a measure of -- I guess you could call it incuriousity -- about the phantoms I sense but never see. But I'll flatter myself by saying I'm agnostic -- not incurious. Because if I really had stopped caring, I'd have quit visiting sites like this.

Your Biblical understanding appears to be far more sophisticated than mine. Any epistemology based on propositional symbolic revelation -- that the Bible conveys in language what the Creator would have us know in distinct grammatical units subject to manipulation by syllogism and other such formalism -- any such epistemology violates what the Bible say about itself, about God, and about the nature of knowledge. So when I've tried to fathom the theology of VanTil or his more extreme progeny (Gary North comes to mind) -- I think them profane to the point of blasphemy, and -- whether they can win arguments within the formalisms they construct or not -- that it is them busily building Babel.

No -- my epistemological foundation is premised upon the axiom that Jesus' parables are not so much symbolic allegory as appeals to an understanding of God predicated upon an understanding of ourselves... What Hans Buber might call I/Thou.

Cole said...

Hey Bob,

I'm not sure which epistemological thingy I hold to now or yours. That's just what I was thinking at the time. I've forgotten alot of things about epistemology and the Bible. I've even left out some things from my story because it's not all clear to me. But that's the basics of what happened. All I know is that I'm not all there mentally and what I was diagnosed as. When I put it together with what I read in John's book it all makes sense to me. Maybe it's all wrong though. I know I do alot better when I'm on my medicine and when I don't debate and argue about the Bible. I can't make sense out of it. So if you say the Bible teaches this or that then that's fine. I reject the Bible. It's done nothing but cause me confusion and insanity. I can't figure it out and I'm done trying.

Anyway, good talking to you.

BobCMU76 said...

My pleasure, Cole.

It was 30 years ago for me since I took it all waaaaay to seriously, as if in jeopardy of my life. I've still an axe to grind with the Calvinists and the C-street "Christians." Sorry to shove that all at you.

I put John's book on my Bookmooch wishlist ages ago, along with like 100 others who want to read it. I don't think anybody has offered a copy yet. If I'm buying a book, I'd go for Franky Schaffer's Patience with God, if only because it looks like the kind of book that share's my own bias. That's also on my wishlist.

I've read Dawkins and Ehrman and a few other books that challenge my biases one way, and McDowell and Geisner and VanTil and Daddy Schaeffer and a few others that challenge them the other way. My biases shift this way and that, but I'm pretty fixed on two points....

It's crazy thinking for sane people to try to think that God creates catastophe and windfall in ways large and small (from Katrina and Tsunami to lost car keys and lottery results) and speculate (as some do endlessly) what his motices might be. I just finished reading Ruth Graham's book Broken Heart in every Pew and all I saw was crazy thinking. I'd go truly nuts trying to think like that. I don't ever want to feel my well being would depend on trying to. Why are so many convinced that theirs does?

And the second thing -- I can maybe think my way into getting through life more comfortably -- but I'll never think my way to earning God's favor -- to imagine such is Calvinist crazy thinking -- thinking that makes sane people crazy, and so much the more, vulnerable people.

John W. Loftus said...

For people who are still subscribed to this discussion I've finally posted a response, written by Valerie Tarico. Check it out.

Cole said...

John,

Just so you know I've been taking my meds and I'm doing fine. Hope I didn't scare anyone.

TC said...

To Brad:
I figured someone would bring that up. But, if you would have read the book, you would have seen the pictures and noticed how demolished the car. Also, consider the lawsuits that could come from medical professionals, such as the EMT's, neglecting a patient because they thought he was a "goner". We have to assume that there were several people that checked him for vitals. Also, the former vietnam combat medic that checked him for vitals as well before praying for him. You can obviously believe what you want. But I trust the people on the scene, the witnesses, that said he was dead.

johnthomas didymus said...

a wholly naturalistic and historically consistent explanation which beats christian apologists hands down has been proposed by me. A christian friend to whom i recently explained my theory to was so upset that she stopped calling me(after several weeks of unrelenting harassment)to "accept Christ into my life."