tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3961830165582505050..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Reasonable Doubt About the ResurrectionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28405942796758204002010-07-10T17:10:53.222-04:002010-07-10T17:10:53.222-04:00"I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psycho..."I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.”"<br /><br />This sounds believable. But it doesn't prove a thing. The internet is also loaded with testimonials by people who sincerely feel they were saved by faith in Buddha, Muhammed and the sweat bath ritual.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06347636433492765064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64944310731813098022007-04-14T07:04:00.000-04:002007-04-14T07:04:00.000-04:00About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – fo...About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].<BR/><BR/>Peace Be With You<BR/>MickyMickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10640944264646960474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68043284810725773502007-04-11T07:10:00.000-04:002007-04-11T07:10:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,First off I want to apologize if any c...Hi One Wave,<BR/>First off I want to apologize if any case you find the tone of my comments curt. I try not to, but the rushed method I use to write them kind of makes them choppy and obviously cut and pasted.<BR/><BR/>anyway...<BR/> I'm willing to give you up to 65 yrs for peter because wikipedia says so. ;-), I'm going to get my subscription to brittanica back so I have a way to corroborate.<BR/><BR/> but if Mark wrote his Gospel from memory of what peter said, marks gospel is the least flattering and missing some stuff that appear in the other gospels. After doing a little more research, I can't find any relationships that would make the other possibilities you mentioned in your earlier comments more plausible. <BR/><BR/> and the Carbon dating, as I understand it, would not be very useful for this kind of work. From what i understand Textual criticism is more useful, and wikipedia notes some ways that Mark and Matthew were dated. i wouldn't have thought they used carbon dating anyway. I always hear about carbon dating in relation archeology, anthropology, earth sciences etc.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46395260354634177442007-04-10T11:01:00.000-04:002007-04-10T11:01:00.000-04:00oops again, Livy was 76 years :)oops again, Livy was 76 years :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66571904185085464192007-04-10T10:23:00.000-04:002007-04-10T10:23:00.000-04:00Nice rebuttal!Please, give me a chance to look thi...Nice rebuttal!<BR/>Please, give me a chance to look this over and check back.<BR/>thanks, I hope everything is going ok for you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67434570429763420962007-04-10T04:00:00.000-04:002007-04-10T04:00:00.000-04:00Oops, I was wrong about the +or- 40 years, C14 can...Oops, I was wrong about the +or- 40 years, C14 can vary more than that...take a look at this discussion:<BR/><BR/>http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-132852.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4102833586922007522007-04-10T03:54:00.000-04:002007-04-10T03:54:00.000-04:00Hi again Lee,I just spent half an hour responding ...Hi again Lee,<BR/>I just spent half an hour responding with my points and somehow lost it. I'm using someone else's computer so I think I pushed the wrong button on the mouse, never used one like this before. <BR/><BR/>Anyway,<BR/>My main two points were dating and life span.<BR/><BR/>There are many examples of long life in ancient Rome. I'm listing only names and ages this time to save on time but you can look them up if you like.<BR/><BR/>Lucius Livius Andronicus: around 60-80 years<BR/><BR/>Cicero: around 63 years<BR/><BR/>Josephus: around 63 years<BR/><BR/>Livy: around 7 years<BR/><BR/>Polybius: around 80 years<BR/><BR/>etc.... the stats you gave are based on a mean, not a median, life span. I can get you a reference to this later or you can google "ancient roman life span" and find a site that opens to a chart which explains how those numbers originated. Basically, the high infant mortality rate is figured in which brings the life expectancy down considerably.<BR/><BR/>Ah, here it is: (thank goodness for cookies)<BR/><BR/>http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html<BR/><BR/>Dating:<BR/>The accuracy of C14 dating is not accuracy in terms of a day and a year. Accuracy in terms of C14 dating is give or take up to about 40 years. I'll have to search for this again and give you the site or you can see if you can look into it yourself. For Christians or otherwise to claim that the scriptures were written during an exact Gregorian calendar year is misleading.<BR/><BR/>http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html<BR/><BR/>go to the bottom of the page and read about the accuracy of c14 dating if you are interested.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry I have to cut this short but I will be reading what you say. It's very interesting.<BR/><BR/>And, thank you for your kind wishes toward us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73997006432602349832007-04-08T14:26:00.000-04:002007-04-08T14:26:00.000-04:00Hey One Wave,No Problem, we can agree to disagree....Hey One Wave,<BR/>No Problem, we can agree to disagree.<BR/>And there will be plenty of time for you to refute me! All my arguments boil down to two or three things so if you stick around and get to know me you can seize the opportunity!<BR/>Good luck with whatever it is you are dealing with!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4432950820994462072007-04-08T12:58:00.000-04:002007-04-08T12:58:00.000-04:00Lee, I won't be able to continue this for now. We...Lee, I won't be able to continue this for now. We've had a crisis this weekend and I won't have free access to a computer for I'm not sure how long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53317026419156658072007-04-06T00:09:00.000-04:002007-04-06T00:09:00.000-04:00.....and for what reason should I believe that?.....and for what reason should I believe that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35301527999463846882007-04-05T16:52:00.000-04:002007-04-05T16:52:00.000-04:00As I wrote on anothe post before it was deleted:1 ...As I wrote on anothe post before it was deleted:<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 1:18<BR/><BR/>"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64072425540131141612007-04-05T12:28:00.000-04:002007-04-05T12:28:00.000-04:00You too! I hope you all have a happy easter. Catc...You too! <BR/>I hope you all have a happy easter. Catch an easter sunrise service for me. I used to like those.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63496516609126728942007-04-05T11:48:00.000-04:002007-04-05T11:48:00.000-04:00Hi Lee,I can't do justice to your post until next ...Hi Lee,<BR/>I can't do justice to your post until next week.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for clarifying your definition of folklore, that helps to know where you are coming from.<BR/><BR/>Hope you enjoy your weekend!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77067260264715795522007-04-05T02:53:00.000-04:002007-04-05T02:53:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,I realized that there is some wiggle r...Hi One Wave,<BR/>I realized that there is some wiggle room in the definition of 'folklore' so I will tighten up my claim.<BR/><BR/>I claim that the facts make the explanation that it is a type of fiction based in a historical setting more plausible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14680818198993135562007-04-05T00:12:00.000-04:002007-04-05T00:12:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,My Presumptions:* Jesus didn't use tee...Hi One Wave,<BR/><BR/>My Presumptions:<BR/>* Jesus didn't use teenagers as disciples <BR/>* he was crucified around 30ce<BR/>* Scholarship is more accurate and useful than tradition<BR/>* that we both agree that Wikipedia is useful for information in this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened<BR/> Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important<BR/> Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.<BR/><BR/><I> Laying this wide open from what I have learned, the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are traditionally accepted as the authors of the books that bear their names but the books themselves do not name an author.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Scholarship does not accept them as being the original authors. What does it mean to traditionally accept something? <BR/>Here is the definition of Tradition from The American Heritage Dictionary:<BR/><BR/>tra·di·tion (trə-dĭsh'ən) pronunciation<BR/>n.<BR/><BR/> 1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.<BR/> 2.<BR/> 1. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.<BR/> 2. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See synonyms at heritage.<BR/> 3. A body of unwritten religious precepts.<BR/> 4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices.<BR/> 5. Law. Transfer of property to another.<BR/><BR/>I don't see anywhere in the any mention of anything that would make me feel better about the accuracy or verifiability of a fact, or even a compelling reason to continue it.<BR/>Traditions like traditional medicine have been abandoned for the most part for scientifically developed medicine and practice.<BR/>In fact I don't think you would go for a traditional approach to treating your headaches or cancer would you?<BR/><BR/>Academics and scholars look for evidence and corroboration, they spend a lot of time and effort and get paid for research. There is a presumption that what they are doing is useful and worthy of a paycheck. They have peers that review, who are also experts and when there is a consensus, that is as good as it gets until new information come along to challenge the consensus.<BR/><BR/>I disagree because peer reviewed research is more likely to be accurate than oral tradition or any kind of tradition <BR/></B><BR/><I><BR/>According to a man named Papias who is dated to about 125 A.D., Mark recorded Peter's eyewitness testimony. <BR/></I><BR/><B><BR/>* According to scholarship, Peter would have had to have been roughly 50-60 assuming Jesus didn't use teenagers as disciples and that he was crucified around 30ce. <BR/>* Mark is not mentioned anywhere that I can find as being an apostle. Prior to the wide use of sewage systems the average life expectancy was 20 - 35 years<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy<BR/>* Why didn't Jesus tell us how to make sewers? But I'll save that for my article on why it is likely that jesus wasn't god.<BR/><BR/>I disagree because Mark was not an apostle and Peter is unlikely to have been alive in 65ce <BR/></B><BR/><I><BR/>Papias also credits Matthew with writing down teachings of Jesus. <BR/></I><BR/><B><BR/>If that is the case, then Mathew should have been eighty something when he wrote his gospel. Not likely. And his contains more of Mark than the others.<BR/></B><BR/><I><BR/>Irenaeus also wrote, in about 180 A.D. that Matthew wrote his gospel to the Hebrews, in thier language, while in Rome when Peter and Paul were preaching there. <BR/></I><BR/><B><BR/>If this was the case then Peter and Paul would have had to have been 60 - 80 years old. Pretty spry old men, wouldn't you say? <BR/>Not likely. And do you think that Peter corrected Paul on how many of the apostles he appeared to after the resurrection?<BR/></B><BR/><I><BR/>He also wrote that Mark was a disciple of, and interpreter for Peter and that Mark wrote down Peter's teaching. </I><BR/><B>I won't commit to that but I don't have anyway to dispute it and I don't see it as relevant in challenging my rebuttal.</B><BR/><I><BR/>He also wrote that Luke recorded Paul's preaching and mentions John writing his gospel as well. (Ireneaus,Adversus haereses)</I><BR/><B>Luke was not an apostle, Paul would have had to have been older than about 70 if we assume the John wrote his in the lower portion of his timeframe. <BR/>Not Likely.</B><BR/><I><BR/> The fact that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew is disputed with many saying that his Greek Gospel would have been a translation of the Aramaic or that there was no mention of a Hebrew text. Wikepedia has some information on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew</I><BR/><B>I won't commit to that but I don't have anyway to dispute it and I don't see it as relevant in challenging my rebuttal.</B><BR/><BR/><I> It is generally thought that Matthew and Luke did copy portions of Mark. In Lee Strobel's book, A Case For Christ, he presents the opinion of Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D.. Mr. Blomberg's opinion is that it is possible, because Peter was one of the three closest disciples of Jesus, that Matthew may have wanted to make sure his facts lined up with Mark's and then change or add anything that was more accurate coming from Peter who would have been Mark's source. Luke may have done the same thing. This is certainly plausible in light of the culture and the times. These men were friends, there would not have been any pride of ownership over the gospel story and they would have wanted to be as accurate as possible whiles still giving their own perspective. Especially considering that none of them were especially educated except for Luke, possibly.</I><BR/><B>If you want me to accept that possibilities are fair game, then you must accept the possibility that they are wrong, which nullifies your proposition. Therefore your proposition is irrelevant, because it refutes itself.<BR/>I don't accept possibilities, I accept probability, any you should to.<BR/>Their scenario ignores the fact of the wide disparity in their ages.<BR/>I really don't want to graph them all out, but I encourage you to so to support your claim.<BR/>If they were friends, then they should have all had the same story wouldn't you think? <BR/>On this point I appeal to the precedent of the 'group report' or the 'research paper' that are published in peer reviewed journals.<BR/></B><BR/><I><BR/> If you read the opening of Luke, he says he is recording what was handed down by witnesses and that he investigated everything. Which would be a good reason to test his account against Matthew's.<BR/><BR/> I think that any similarities between the resurrection and the account of Daniel are just similarities. Holes in the ground with a stone over them were most likely common, and all throughout scripture many people in government positions persecuted God's people.</I><BR/><B><BR/>I don't think your assessment is in line with a consensus of Experts. <BR/>I'll go with the experts.<BR/></B><BR/> <I> I don't know about Tim Callahan's assessment of Daniel, I would have to research the history of Daniel.<BR/><BR/> Oral tradition: I'm sure you already know this and I don't mean to be redundant, but there are to this day, Jews who have memorized large portions of the O.T.. Some Rabbis, in those times, would memorize the whole thing, word for word. There are other people groups who do the same thing, it's worth a little looking into.</I><BR/><B><BR/>I don't dispute that at all. I know that I have memorized things sometimes accurately, sometimes not. I also know that research into memory shows that it is not reliable. Remember the 'supressed memory' phenomena a decade or so ago, when all of a sudden there was a rash of sexual abuse? Have you looked into research about how easy it is to plant memories that the subject will stubbornly defend at the end of the experiment? Do you recognize that one persons memory is not as useful in testimony as two exactly because it is fallible?<BR/>the following is the description of folklore from wikipedia, notice the term 'oral tradition'.<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore<BR/><BR/>folklore<BR/>For the Nelly Furtado album, see Folklore (album).<BR/><BR/>Folklore is the body of expressive culture, including tales, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, material culture, and so forth, common to a particular population, comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group. It is also the set of practices through which those expressive genres are shared. The academic and usually ethnographic study of folklore is sometimes called folkloristics.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/><I> In conclusion:<BR/><BR/> Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened<BR/> Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important<BR/> Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.<BR/><BR/> Counter: The Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts by Peter and Matthew. Luke and Matthew could possibly have copied portions of Mark in order to ensure accuracy. It is plausible that oral tradition can be reliable if it is possible for people to memorize stories and events accurately and pass them down.<BR/></I><BR/> <BR/><B>I refute this by asserting <BR/>* their ages make it unlikely, that it was first hand testimony.<BR/>* If they were working together they would likely be more similar, and I use the precedent of the 'group report' or the 'research paper' that are published in peer reviewed journals. And it is based on a possibility so it refutes itself.<BR/>* your argument for oral tradition depends on memory which has been shown to be unreliable and easy to manipulate.<BR/>* your argument depends on oral tradition, which is a characteristic of folklore<BR/><BR/>I claim that the facts make the explanation of folklore more plausible</B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20455627571551085262007-04-04T21:19:00.000-04:002007-04-04T21:19:00.000-04:00Okay, right. Time to take your meds now.Okay, right. Time to take your meds now.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30756260290827775182007-04-04T19:23:00.000-04:002007-04-04T19:23:00.000-04:00This is not my home, and I am no longer living."Fo...This is not my home, and I am no longer living.<BR/><BR/>"For it is I who no longer live, but Jesus Christ in me!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70684339600859599272007-04-04T19:00:00.000-04:002007-04-04T19:00:00.000-04:00Who here "hates" you Anonymous? I don't. And I p...Who here "hates" you Anonymous? I don't. And I perfectly accept that you're going nowhere, especially because Christ will never return. Yep, we're stuck with you. But you know what? You're stuck with us too!Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12983733807027583372007-04-04T18:11:00.000-04:002007-04-04T18:11:00.000-04:00Welcome to faith, hate us all you want but we're g...Welcome to faith, hate us all you want but we're going nowhere until Christ returns. No matter what I say, you will never believe because an Athiest provides physical evidence, as if saying.<BR/>"If there is some great God out there, come to ME so that I can believe."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85182361982584458632007-04-04T15:36:00.000-04:002007-04-04T15:36:00.000-04:00Tommy,1) Do you think it could be possible that Je...Tommy,<BR/>1) Do you think it could be possible that Jesus also spoke these same things to his disciples in private and/or that He did it more than once? The crowds that Jesus preached to were described as being large, sometimes thousands of people. If that's the case it would make sense that there could have been scribes sent by the pharisees to record what He said or that there were others who wrote it down. Remember that when Rome was sacked, a lot of books and records were burned. <BR/><BR/>2) Is it possible that because Matthew was a disciple, he would have heard Jesus relay his own story? Is it possible that the magi were still in town when they had the dream and they alerted Joseph and Mary possible danger? And that God confirmed this to Joseph in a dream also? According the account of Mary's revelation to Joseph that she was pregnant, Joseph did not seem ready to believe strange things readily.<BR/><BR/>3) In the Bible I have in front of me, which is the New American Standard, it is stated this way:<BR/>Luke 1:41 "And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spririt." I hope this doesn't sound self gratifying because I can experience this and you can't, but I have been pregnant 5 times and there is a difference between being kicked and a baby responding to stimulus. One time, when I was about 7 months pregnant, my husband and I went to a bar/restaurant that was playing very loud music and I had to leave because our baby was reacting so strongly...more than kicking. So I wonder if John leaping was that kind of response, a powerful moving of his whole body??<BR/><BR/>4) I don't know about this myself, but do we have reliable records of any well known person's childhood from that time period? Alexander the Great seems to have a little of his childhood woven in his story but it doesn't stand out as having a lot of detailed descriptions. They didn't keep baby books but Mary did "treasure these things in her heart" and relay the most unique events she could remember. As a mother or father I think it would be safe to say we don't remember a lot of details from our children's youngest years unless we write it down. The things we do remember would be big moments. Another thought is that because Jesus was considered illegitimate by the Jewish community, there was probably some shunning and the family would maybe not have been as socially involved as others.??<BR/>And why interview when there was his childhood was not in question? People were focused on larger issues.<BR/><BR/><BR/>5) I would point out here that it was the eyewitnesses who went and told the outlying regions about what had happened. Jesus said that a prophet is not welcome in his home town. What do you think it means that there was greater acceptance in outlying areas, if that is the case? Do you think it's possible that there was a greater threat of being persecuted close to home?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19795236940777315722007-04-04T13:14:00.000-04:002007-04-04T13:14:00.000-04:00Counter-rebuttal:Unfortunately, I am doing this on...Counter-rebuttal:<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I am doing this on my lunchbreak at work from memory, so I apologize in advance for any errors.<BR/><BR/>1. Memorizing texts is one thing. Memorizing a lengthy sermon that was, to our knowledge, given only once, is another thing all together. This is the Sermon on the Mount I am talking about. There are other extended dialogues in the Gospels that are too lengthy and detailed to recall from memory years later.<BR/><BR/>2. How did Matthew get the story from the point of view from the three magi from the east? We're talking at least 40 years after their alleged journey to pay homage to the baby Jesus. For instance, it says in Matthew that an angel appeared to them and told them not to go back to Herod but to take another route home. How could the author of Matthew possibly have obtained this information. And if he by some miracle tracked down one of the actual magi, it follows that he should have been able to provide us with more information about them such as who they were and precisely where they came from.<BR/><BR/>3. There's the mentionin in Luke of fetus John the Baptist "leaping for joy" in his mother's womb as she comes near the pregnant Mary carrying fetus Jesus. On what basis does Luke distinguish between a fetus literally leaping for joy inside a womb (assuming such a thing is even physically possible) and a fetus child kicking in the mother's womb, which happens to pregnant women in the later stages of pregnancy all of the time?<BR/><BR/>4. Since it is believed that Mary lived for some years after the death of Jesus, why don't we have more about Jesus before he began preaching? I mean, if we are to believe that Matthew was able to find out what the guards outside of Jesus tomb spoke to one another in a hushed, private conversation, it should have been a relatively easy thing to interview the neighbors of the parents of Jesus in the Galilee to find out more about him before he took up preaching.<BR/><BR/>5. It is very telling that Christianity met with greater success outside of Galilee and Judea than within it. Since these are the regions where Jesus allegedly preached, healed, drove out demons, walked on water, and rose from the dead, and where dead saints supposedly walked around Jerusalem amid a great darkness and tremor, then Jesus and his followers should have had greater success in their native land. Instead, the religion catches on with greater success in places where there were no alleged eyewitnesses to Jesus. Of were the early Christians in Judea suffer the fate of pop metal bands like Quiet Riot, which still managed to sell out stadiums in Japan while being relegated to playing in bars in America?<BR/><BR/>My break is up now, so I have to cut this short, but I wanted to throw some questions out there for you all to chew on.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65767217007129811502007-04-04T12:05:00.000-04:002007-04-04T12:05:00.000-04:00Thank you Lee and Prup for welcoming me to a serio...Thank you Lee and Prup for welcoming me to a serious discussion of the resurrection. <BR/><BR/>I have been examining my motives in this and want to be clear that I do not intend to debate. I've been there, done that, and seen that it doesn't go anywhere because at some point there is an impass. My intention is to dig and learn and discuss for the sake of exploring viewpoints. <BR/><BR/>Instead of setting forth a formal counter rebuttal all at once, I am going to have to do my best with one point at a time.<BR/><BR/>Thank you Lee for not giving up on me, I was not trying to make you chase down rabbit trails and I'm sorry if you feel that it's been a waste of your time. Personally I like to examine both sides of an issue so I was throwing out things for you to examine on your own w/o my opinions about them.<BR/><BR/>All that said I'll get to business and keep to the form.<BR/><BR/>Point 1<BR/><BR/>Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened<BR/>Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important<BR/>Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.<BR/><BR/>Laying this wide open from what I have learned, the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are traditionally accepted as the authors of the books that bear their names but the books themselves do not name an author. According to a man named Papias who is dated to about 125 A.D., Mark recorded Peter's eyewitness testimony. Papias also credits Matthew with writing down teachings of Jesus. Irenaeus also wrote, in about 180 A.D. that Matthew wrote his gospel to the Hebrews, in thier language, while in Rome when Peter and Paul were preaching there. He also wrote that Mark was a disciple of, and interpreter for Peter and that Mark wrote down Peter's teaching. He also wrote that Luke recorded Paul's preaching and mentions John writing his gospel as well. (Ireneaus,Adversus haereses) <BR/>The fact that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew is disputed with many saying that his Greek Gospel would have been a translation of the Aramaic or that there was no mention of a Hebrew text. Wikepedia has some information on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew<BR/><BR/>It is generally thought that Matthew and Luke did copy portions of Mark. In Lee Strobel's book, A Case For Christ, he presents the opinion of Craig L. Blomberg, PH.D.. Mr. Blomberg's opinion is that it is possible, because Peter was one of the three closest disciples of Jesus, that Matthew may have wanted to make sure his facts lined up with Mark's and then change or add anything that was more accurate coming from Peter who would have been Mark's source. Luke may have done the same thing. This is certainly plausible in light of the culture and the times. These men were friends, there would not have been any pride of ownership over the gospel story and they would have wanted to be as accurate as possible whiles still giving their own perspective. Especially considering that none of them were especially educated except for Luke, possibly.<BR/><BR/>If you read the opening of Luke, he says he is recording what was handed down by witnesses and that he investigated everything. Which would be a good reason to test his account against Matthew's.<BR/><BR/>I think that any similarities between the resurrection and the account of Daniel are just similarities. Holes in the ground with a stone over them were most likely common, and all throughout scripture many people in government positions persecuted God's people.<BR/><BR/>I don't know about Tim Callahan's assessment of Daniel, I would have to research the history of Daniel.<BR/><BR/>Oral tradition: I'm sure you already know this and I don't mean to be redundant, but there are to this day, Jews who have memorized large portions of the O.T.. Some Rabbis, in those times, would memorize the whole thing, word for word. There are other people groups who do the same thing, it's worth a little looking into.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion:<BR/><BR/>Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened<BR/>Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important<BR/>Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.<BR/><BR/>Counter: The Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts by Peter and Matthew. Luke and Matthew could possibly have copied portions of Mark in order to ensure accuracy. It is plausible that oral tradition can be reliable if it is possible for people to memorize stories and events accurately and pass them down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24273815568821377112007-04-04T10:51:00.000-04:002007-04-04T10:51:00.000-04:00And would a powerful and intelligent being capable...And would a powerful and intelligent being capable of creating the entire infinite universe and everything in it really require humans to kill animals to please him?<BR/><BR/>The Bible betrays the very small mindedness and parochialism of the people who wrote it.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69268808991466157442007-04-04T10:27:00.000-04:002007-04-04T10:27:00.000-04:00Looks like you missed the point...No, you missed t...<I>Looks like you missed the point...</I><BR/><BR/>No, you missed the point. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then why did he set humans up in a crooked game where he knew the evil outcome? Why did he put the apple and the serpent in the garden with people who didn't know right and wrong? Why did he then decide to punish people who weren't even born at the time of this error? Why did he then decide that, to make things more fair, he would stop appearing to people at all and make them essentially choose the correct religion by lottery? Why did he make it to where he would have to kill Jesus? Why didn't he do it sooner, so more people could be saved? Why didn't he do it later, so the miracle would be recorded and accessible to the masses? Why doesn't he come back and set the record straight?<BR/><BR/>Either God is stupid, impotent, evil, or non-existent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71720209722487493332007-04-03T23:51:00.000-04:002007-04-03T23:51:00.000-04:00No, you don't get the point, which is that Jesus d...No, you don't get the point, which is that Jesus did not die for ANYBODY and there is no God watching over us looking to judge us.<BR/><BR/>You people have so warped your minds into thinking we are "steeped in sin" and that the wrath of some supreme being hangs over us like some sword of Damocles.<BR/><BR/>Just lead a life adhering to simple virtues. Do not harm others. Don't spend more than you earn. Don't be a slave to conspicuous consumption. Be a good parent to your children and a good son or daugher to your parents. Stand for justice, fairness and equality. What more is needed than that?Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.com