NationStates Jolt Archive

Josh McDowell is one of the most famous modern Christian apologists today. Suppossedly he was an Atheist who converted to Christianity after attempting to prove that Jesus was false. He has managed to amass a small fortune writing paperback Christian apologetics and inspirational books

I'll post a short article up here by McDowell titled, "Evidence for the Resurrection" where he makes an argument for, yes, the evidence for the resurrection. Please read it, grade it, and let us know if you think the resurrection really happened or not.

Also tell us why you graded it as you did and what problems or merits you saw in it.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

I'll post my full analysis of this article up soon.

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/

It's self explanatory really.

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/

It's self explanatory really.

Lmao :D

Josh McDowell is one of the most famous modern Christian apologists today. Suppossedly he was an Atheist who converted to Christianity after attempting to prove that Jesus was false. He has managed to amass a small fortune writing paperback Christian apologetics and inspirational books

I'll post a short article up here by McDowell titled, "Evidence for the Resurrection" where he makes an argument for, yes, the evidence for the resurrection. Please read it, grade it, and let us know if you think the resurrection really happened or not.

Also tell us why you graded it as you did and what problems or merits you saw in it.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

I'll post my full analysis of this article up soon.

He's trying to prove the resurrection occurred, and to do that, in my view, you need to disprove that it didn't happen. Which he doesn't do. He quotes many professors in support of his argument, but not once does he quote an alternative argument then proceed to disprove that argument. I was taught to do that in history lessons from the age of 11. It's a fairly well written article, but it's let down by its narrow view. I graded it D.

Yes, there seems to be evidence for the resurrection, but it's all circumstantial. He apparently appeared to his disciples, but not to anyone else. Frankly, I don't believe the words of a group of people who thought he was the son of God.

Didn't convince me I'm afraid.

Elvis however, I'm sure I saw him in the milkbar on the corner, just the other day. :)

]-snip-[/I] Frankly, I don't believe the words of a group of people who thought he was the son of God.

Pretty good way to garner belief though...

Yes, there seems to be evidence for the resurrection, but it's all circumstantial. He apparently appeared to his disciples, but not to anyone else. Frankly, I don't believe the words of a group of people who thought he was the son of God.
That's strange. I would have thought it easier to call someone the Son of God than it would be to say he died and came back to life again. After all, depending on your perspective of what God is, that human beings can be called his children is not necessarily so unheard of, but the other aspect, that contrary to all previous experience people can be dead and buried for two days before reviving, is a lot more difficult to justify.

That's strange. I would have thought it easier to call someone the Son of God than it would be to say he died and came back to life again. After all, depending on your perspective of what God is, that human beings can be called his children is not necessarily so unheard of, but the other aspect, that contrary to all previous experience people can be dead and buried for two days before reviving, is a lot more difficult to justify.
But they literally believed he was the son of God, not just from the perspective that 'we are all God's children'.

The only people who saw Jesus after his supposed resurrection were those who literally believed the above. If they're going to believe that, it's not so much of a step believing that he came back to life.

Personally, I think it was most likely that Jesus went into a shock-induced coma on the cross, then regained consciousness a few days later. As to the whole business of the stone across the tomb etc., that's just an example of a story being exaggerated as it was passed around by word of mouth.

Its reliance on the New Testament accounts is begging the question really, he presumes the accuracy of the NT when this is what he is meant to be proving.

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

Please note that he mentions no contemporary Bible scholars, those mentioned were writing before the beginning of true 'critical scholarship'. William Ramsay died in 1916, William F. Albright in 1970. Apologetics have no hesitation is presenting out-dated appeals to authority, especially if no current scholar will support their views.

As his evidence hinges on the reliability of the New Testament we can then discard his attempts to prove the Ressurection.

Jesus? No. Now Josh McDowell may have risen from the dead. Jury's still out on that one.

While most of the article feels copied from a fax direct from the Vatican, I've taken the liberty of quoting the article for this reason:
He apparently appeared to his disciples, but not to anyone else.
HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection. ...
I don't know if everyone knows that Saul of Tarsus, later Paul, referred to by me as Saul-Paul, but his job was murdering Christians. It didn't really have any problems with as it was his job in the service of the Roman Empire. He wasn't all that convicted towards the Roman gods either, so that doesn't make him some kind of religious nut. Then Jesus appears to him while he's going down the road, and - look out! - he's a hardcore believer. He later did the most work for the early Christian church.

Thus, Jesus did appear to at least of the someone else, other than believers.

While most of the article feels copied from a fax direct from the Vatican, I've taken the liberty of quoting the article for this reason:


I don't know if everyone knows that Saul of Tarsus, later Paul, referred to by me as Saul-Paul, but his job was murdering Christians. It didn't really have any problems with as it was his job in the service of the Roman Empire. He wasn't all that convicted towards the Roman gods either, so that doesn't make him some kind of religious nut. Then Jesus appears to him while he's going down the road, and - look out! - he's a hardcore believer. He later did the most work for the early Christian church.

Thus, Jesus did appear to at least of the someone else, other than believers.
I meant physically seeing, not seeing in a vision.

I meant physically seeing, not seeing in a vision.

Weren't there five-hundred roman soldiers in the Biblical account as well?

Weren't there five-hundred roman soldiers in the Biblical account as well?
I don't know, were there? And since when has the NT been a reliable source of information?

I meant physically seeing, not seeing in a vision.
You want the, "Touch my bloody wounds you faithless swine!" appearance. Its rather funny, as no-one else needed that as bad as the apostles. The remaining followers, especially the women, had more balls than those boys and didn't go underground. They were afraid of being crucified, stoned ( with rocks ) - you get the picture - and needed some heavy pep-talk from the Coach to make it through the last quarter.
Weren't there five-hundred roman soldiers in the Biblical account as well?
Which Bible? Book? Chapter? I don't know either, look it up.

I don't know, were there? And since when has the NT been a reliable source of information?

I'm not saying that it is, and if you look at my first post I explicitly attack the idea. However, you are attacking the story in terms of the account presented by the NT.

I was wrong however, the five-hundred seem to have been Christians: 1 Corinthians 15:6.

You want the, "Touch my bloody wounds you faithless swine!" appearance. Its rather funny, as no-one else needed that as bad as the apostles. The remaining followers, especially the women, had more balls than those boys and didn't go underground. They were afraid of being crucified, stoned ( with rocks ) - you get the picture - and needed some heavy pep-talk from the Coach to make it through the last quarter.
Indeed.
Though if it were me, I'd need more than "Touch my bloody wounds!" - just because he's got nail wounds in his wrists and heels, doesn't mean he's been dead.

I'm not saying that it is, and if you look at my first post I explicitly attack the idea. However, you are attacking the story in terms of the account presented by the NT.

I was wrong however, the five-hundred seem to have been Christians: 1 Corinthians 15:6.
This is Corinthians 15:4-8 (for anyone who was wondering).
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

Ok, I stand corrected. Even so, as Christians, they would surely believe that Christ was the son of God. Which makes that passage unreliable.
The problem I have with the NT, and the Bible as a whole, is that it was written by people who truly believed, and as such it's not an objective account of events.

Thus, Jesus did appear to at least of the someone else, other than believers.

No, 'cause that story is told by Paul, so a believer, so, you cannot trust 100% in it, he was a preacher triying to convert people. :sniper:

This is Corinthians 15:4-8 (for anyone who was wondering).
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

Ok, I stand corrected. Even so, as Christians, they would surely believe that Christ was the son of God. Which makes that passage unreliable.
The problem I have with the NT, and the Bible as a whole, is that it was written by people who truly believed, and as such it's not an objective account of events.

My objection is that it was written long after the events by non-eyewitnesses. I also object to the complete absense of historical record of New Testament events, my favourite being Matthew 28:

The Death of Jesus
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[d]
47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."

48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So, we've got an eclipse, an earthquake, and a zombie invasion yet nobody thought to mention it (including the other Apostles)? It all seems a little far fetched to me.

This is Corinthians 15:4-8 (for anyone who was wondering).
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5 that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.

Ok, I stand corrected. Even so, as Christians, they would surely believe that Christ was the son of God. Which makes that passage unreliable.
The problem I have with the NT, and the Bible as a whole, is that it was written by people who truly believed, and as such it's not an objective account of events.

A brief scan of Internet Infidels reveals that apparently there's actually some contention as whether 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is a later interpolation, here's (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html) a very scholarly article on the subject, I don't have time to read it all right now but it seems very good.

He has managed to amass a small fortune writing paperback Christian apologetics and inspirational books
Stop right there. He doesn't really believe. He saw an opportunity to make a lot of money and snatched it. Therefore we can toss out anything he says as pure garbage. QED.

But they literally believed he was the son of God, not just from the perspective that 'we are all God's children'.
The difference is entirely semantical, surely? When a man comes over to sort out your waterworks, it is entirely reasonable to refer to him as "the plumber", regardless of the fact that he is quite clearly not the only plumber in existence.

Believing his claims and understanding what the claims mean are two different processes. People back then had a specific idea of what God was. They interpreted Jesus's claims in the light of that idea. Had they been in India at the same time, for instance, people would have just said "Yes, you are the son of the Brahman". The blatant obviousness of his claims in their eyes wouldn't stop people believing them.

My personal opinion on the matter is that Jesus was fully human with an enlightened sense of understanding as to what God was (that those who followed him never really quite grasped) that allowed him to truthfully claim to be a/the son of God. Did Jesus resurrect from the dead? No. The Jesus that the apostles followed never really died, even though the physical human was dead and buried.

In manys a sense, Jesus is another victim of personal perception. To everyone he met, there were two Jesus-es; the man standing in front of them and the idea of the man that people generated in their minds. As Jesus the human travelled, Jesus the idea spread and grew, particularly within his direct followers. Even after the death of the man, the idea remained burned within the minds of people. And all it took to spark a revival of the idea was the uncertainty of the state of the man. The removal of the body from the tomb, by whatever sources, was itself enough to cause the Jesus that society itself had formed to take a renewed shape within people.

So what happened to it? I've no idea. But perhaps someone else took it. There are a number of possible candidates. In particular, I look at non-Jewish religious groups or political movements within Jerusalem. There is at least some evidence that such groups did exist and were forced to operate secretively under the almost dictatorial governance of the temples. The revival of Jesus if publicly acknowledged would be a crushing blow to the Jewish temples and the first step towards a possible breakdown of religious oppression.

For instance, look historically at the Hellenist spiritualists. Not long after the life and death of Jesus came the Jewish-Roman war. It was sparked by a Hellenist group defacing a synagogue and the lack of intervention of the Roman Guard sympathetic to their cause. This inevitably resulted in the removal of the temples from power.

Here, not only do we have a motive, but also a method. As later events demonstrated, there were many within the Roman Army who were willing to step aside and let damage be done to the temples by these separatist groups. For a group of fellow religious men with people on the inside, a simple grave robbery would be an easy task if the guards were willing to turn the other way. Even moving the rock would not be difficult if a large group of people can help.

What, then, in this scenario, would happen to the body of Jesus? And this is yet more conjecture, but I suggest here that one more prophecy of Jesus would be inacted.

They threw him into Gehenna. Or, as it has come to be known, Hell. There to burn up among the city's garbage, and all of the other executed criminals.

Proof? He gave me a t-shirt that says, "My savior came back from the dead and all I got was this rotten t-shirt." How's that for proof? :p

Also tell us why you graded it as you did and what problems or merits you saw in it.

Problem: he uses the thing he tries to prove (the contents of the new testament) as proof itself.

No, 'cause that story is told by Paul, so a believer, so, you cannot trust 100% in it, he was a preacher triying to convert people.
Saul-Paul's conversion would be like Hitler converting to Judaism, then going door-to-door Jehovas Witness style.
I'm sure you have slightly better grip on that concept now.

Saul-Paul's conversion would be like Hitler converting to Judaism, then going door-to-door Jehovas Witness style.
I'm sure you have slightly better grip on that concept now.
Not really. It'd be more like Hitler converting to Judaism then preaching the removal and execution of all Christians. Not much has really changed in terms of his attitude; it's simply a matter of who you're currently siding with.

Not really.
I couldn't think of anything better.
Saul-Paul remained militiant after his conversion? I didn't think he called for the execuation of Romans, just merely the removal and end to oppression.

I couldn't think of anything better.
Saul-Paul remained militiant after his conversion? I didn't think he called for the execuation of Romans, just merely the removal and end to oppression.
He certainly had no love lost on the Jews. The ferocity with which he attacks his former fellows is astoundingly similar to the way he treated Christians. What's more, I don't think his notion of God ever really changes. There are many telltale signs throughout the epistles that seem to suggest that he has used Jesus as a way of verifying beliefs he already had as opposed to seeing in him a source of new wisdom and truth.

Jesus was a retarded fraud. he did not comme back from the dead because thats impossible, and there is god.

Jesus was a retarded fraud. he did not comme back from the dead because thats impossible, and there is god.

What a well reasoned argument.

There's as much evidence of Jesus's resurrection as there is for King Arthur pulling the sword from the stone.

There's as much evidence of Jesus's resurrection as there is for King Arthur pulling the sword from the stone.

but did disney ever make an amusing cartoon about it?

Josh McDowell is one of the most famous modern Christian apologists today. Suppossedly he was an Atheist who converted to Christianity after attempting to prove that Jesus was false. He has managed to amass a small fortune writing paperback Christian apologetics and inspirational books

I'll post a short article up here by McDowell titled, "Evidence for the Resurrection" where he makes an argument for, yes, the evidence for the resurrection. Please read it, grade it, and let us know if you think the resurrection really happened or not.

Also tell us why you graded it as you did and what problems or merits you saw in it.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

I'll post my full analysis of this article up soon.

I've considered that avenue before... the 'pretending to convert' thing... but I'm too honest.

After I discovered this flimflam artist, I kind of wished I hadn't been.

Well, you don't need to get too far into the 'chain of logic' claimed, before you start finding flaws - indeed, before he even begins his little sermon, he says:

"How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?"

The answer of course, is a resounding 'yes'... because there are dozens of ways we can explain 'an empty tomb' by natural means.

Not least being, no body was ever placed in the tomb. Or, of course, they went looking in the WRONG tomb.

We have yet to find a tomb that reliably claims to have held Jesus... and we'd likely have no way to verify such a claim, anyway.

I meant physically seeing, not seeing in a vision.

he was seen by several people, including Doubting Thomas:


Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A 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!" 27Then 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."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

he was seen by several people, including Doubting Thomas:

I fear that "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true" is not really a convincing path of reasoning...

he was seen by several people, including Doubting Thomas:


Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A 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!" 27Then 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."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Photographs? Film footage?

Accounts written at or near the time by independent, contemporary, LOCAL witnesses?

Anything at all in the Roman history of THAT time (not a hundred years later)?

Or - is ALL your evidence for this going to be from one set of books, written by a loose affiliation of partisans?

he was seen by several people, including Doubting Thomas:


Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A 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!" 27Then 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."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Wasn't Thomas one of the disciples? I'm fairly sure I said (or at least meant) apart from the disciples.

but did disney ever make an amusing cartoon about it?
Out of what? The resurrection or King Arthur? I've seen a Disney cartoon of the latter, but it wasn't funny.

well we'll all find out, won't we?

doubt away, at your own peril...

Photographs? Film footage?

Accounts written at or near the time by independent, contemporary, LOCAL witnesses?

Anything at all in the Roman history of THAT time (not a hundred years later)?

Or - is ALL your evidence for this going to be from one set of books, written by a loose affiliation of partisans?

four first-hand accounts all pretty much saying the same thing...

well we'll all find out, won't we?

doubt away, at your own peril...

We already DID find out.

Jesus is not messiah, because he failed to meet the most basic requirements OF messiah (like, being conceived in the normal biological way... or being heir to David's throne).

Thus - any stories you may have found that rely on this 'messianic' property MUST be wrong.

Which means, of course, that the Hebrews were right, and you are an idolator, and you WILL pay for your sins.

four first-hand accounts all pretty much saying the same thing...

Poppycock.

Show me even ONE confirmed firsthand account.

four first-hand accounts all pretty much saying the same thing...

amazing what happens when you have a couple people copy the same older works nearly word for word, isn't it?

evidence that any of them (including the q document) were first-hand accounts?

We already DID find out.

Jesus is not messiah, because he failed to meet the most basic requirements OF messiah (like, being conceived in the normal biological way... or being heir to David's throne).

Thus - any stories you may have found that rely on this 'messianic' property MUST be wrong.

Which means, of course, that the Hebrews were right, and you are an idolator, and you WILL pay for your sins.

hmmm... the Hebrews missed their Messiah... shall I pull up ALL the prophecies Jesus fulfilled?

---

Matt, Mark, Luke, John... you know, those guys...

No, 'cause that story is told by Paul, so a believer, so, you cannot trust 100% in it, he was a preacher triying to convert people. :sniper:

good job! you've caught on to the Christian conspiracy!

we all know that Jesus didn't get ressurrected, his "followers" just told people that, but luckily you've cracked the case and now we see his followers were LYING! to people, just because they wanted them to be nicer to people, and care for the poor and injured and make the world a better place.

those tricky bastards!

hmmm... the Hebrews missed their Messiah... shall I pull up ALL the prophecies Jesus fulfilled?

---

Matt, Mark, Luke, John... you know, those guys...

Maybe you should list 'all the prophecies' Jesus fulfilled.

I'm quite an avid student of theology, and - one of the first things you notice (if you actually look) is that Jesus 'fulfills' a lot of things that are NOT prophecies, or anything to do with Messiah.

I notice you didn't address the 'not being heir to David' thing.... one of the family trees listed in the New Testament makes him heir of Nathan instead, and the other travels through Jeconiah (who's seed can never sit on the throne of David).

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all first hand witnesses were they?

(I'll just get you to confirm you honestly believe that, before I embarrass you).

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.



...virgin birth foretold in the Old Testament. Apparently you'd overlooked it.

four first-hand accounts all pretty much saying the same thing...

btw, you have read the accounts in question, right?

btw, you have read the accounts in question, right?

yes

i had a couple of problems with the article.

ill start with the questions im too lazy to look up.

1) he says that jesus' body was properly prepared with 100 lbs of spices and stuff. does it say this in the bible? i thought that the reason the women came back 3 days later was to give him a proper preparation.

2) didnt saul see jesus AFTER the 40 days when jesus walked on the earth after the resurrection? if so it doesnt count as proof.

his source for 500 people seeing jesus after resurrection all come from the same source. there arent 500 seperate accounts of witnesses.

there are no roman records of broken seals and dead guys coming back to life. i think it would have made at least a small fuss for a soldier to be scared off duty by an angel (why would the tomb be guarded at all?) once the guard is gone ANYTHING could have happened to the body, there was no one there to prevent it.

THE GRAVE CLOTHES TELL A TALE...
does this mean that jesus came to life and didnt sit up, toss off his wrapping and walk away? how did he get out of the shroud without moving it? was he moved by transporter or something? that seems suspicious to me, not convincing.

using internal evidence from the bible to prove the resurrection seems a bit silly. there may be details are wrong or misleading. something may be lost in translation. without evidence from ANY other source, its all just...well...apologetics not proof.

i'm still waiting to be embarrassed

ahh, well, back to work. You guys have fun convincing yourselves that Jesus isn't the Son of God. (i see a lot of deathbed confessions in the future)

;)

yes

are you sure?

Luke 1:1-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-4;&version=31;)

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

so what was that about the gospel of luke being a first hand account?

Maybe you should list 'all the prophecies' Jesus fulfilled.

I'm quite an avid student of theology, and - one of the first things you notice (if you actually look) is that Jesus 'fulfills' a lot of things that are NOT prophecies, or anything to do with Messiah.

I notice you didn't address the 'not being heir to David' thing.... one of the family trees listed in the New Testament makes him heir of Nathan instead, and the other travels through Jeconiah (who's seed can never sit on the throne of David).

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all first hand witnesses were they?

(I'll just get you to confirm you honestly believe that, before I embarrass you).

Jesus is the Root and the Offspring of David (or calls himself such, anyway)

This is his genealogy:

Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

...virgin birth foretold in the Old Testament. Apparently you'd overlooked it.

Can you read Hebrew?

The reason I ask, is that, first and foremost, the Hebrew says 'young woman'.

Virgin is never mentioned in the Hebrew.

(I've checked this with five different sources, some of which are available online - The 'ArtScroll Tanach, The Jerusalem Bible, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (you can find that one online, I believe), The Judaica Press Tanach, and the Soncino Press Tanach).

You can do this yourself - find yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and look up 'almah' (written as ha'almah in the text... where 'ha' means 'the').

Clearly, 'almah' means 'young women' or 'maiden'.

Further - it is implicit in the text, because of the fact that 'almah' is shown as ha'almah... that it is a specific woman being discussed, by Isaiah, WITH KIng Ahaz. It is clear that this 'young woman' is someone both figures know.

Note also, the Hebrew COULD have read 'Betulah'... which WOULD have signified a literal 'virgin'.

It is, perhaps, further worthy of notice that the use of 'harah' in the passage, is PRESENT tense. This is not prophetic, this is describing a current event... literally 'the young woman is already pregnant'.

Further - after we are told that the young woman is pregnant - we are told that the Kings of two enemy nations will die before the child reaches the age of maturity. Second Kings 15:29-30 and Second Kings 16:9 show that this 'prophecy' IS fulfilled.

Again - if one has a basic understanding of Hebrew... you can actually do a basic comparison of Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 16:11. You'll notice that the 'prophecy' of Ishmael's birth is almost identical to the Isaiah passage in construction.

are you sure?

Luke 1:1-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:1-4;&version=31;)

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

so what was that about the gospel of luke being a first hand account?

right, my bad.

three then.

Luke is more or less in line with the other three... same basic message.

four first-hand accounts all pretty much saying the same thing...

1. The Gospels aren't first hand accounts.
2. They actually disagree a fair bit:

Mark:
-Empty tomb found by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
-Tomb was already open.
-They found a young man in a white robe in the tomb, who told them Jesus had risen.
-No mention of guards.
According to the NIV the most accurate manuscripts end here.
-Jesus appears to Mary Magdelen.
-Jesus appears to two of the disciples.
-Jesus appears to all of the discples, none of them deny him after they meet him.

Matthew:
-Empty tomb found by Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary', presumably mother of James.
-There was then an earthquake and an angel of lightning descended to open the tomb, terrifying the guards.
-The women meet Jesus immediately after this.
-The disciples meet Jesus near a mountain and some doubted (more than one apparently) even after meeting him.

Luke:
-Empty tomb found by Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and 'the others with them'.
-Tomb was already open.
-Two angels of lightning speak to them and explain why Jesus was crucified.
-Peter investigates the tomb (why isn't this mentioned in Mark? Supposedly Mark was Peter's scribe.)
-No mention of guards.
-Jesus appears to two of the disciples.
-Jesus appears immediately to all of the disciples after those two return, none doubt after they meet him.

John:
-Empty tomb discovered by Mary Magdalene.
-She finds the tomb empty and immediately returns to Peter and another disciple without meeting Jesus or any angels.
-Peter and the other disciple (and possibly Mary) go to the tomb but encounter nothing except empty grave-clothes.
-Jesus and two angels appear to Mary outside the tomb.
-No mention of guards.
-Jesus appears to the disciples but not Thomas.
-Thomas doubts their story, a week later Jesus appears to all of the disciples, including Thomas.
-There is an account of Jesus meeting several disciples while fishing and selecting Peter to lead the church.

I compiled this comparison in a hurry so if I made any mistakes please let me know.

i'm still waiting to be embarrassed

ahh, well, back to work. You guys have fun convincing yourselves that Jesus isn't the Son of God. (i see a lot of deathbed confessions in the future)

;)

I already finished my work for the day, but I have other things to take care of. I'm not going to apologise for the time I took making sure my refutation of your post was correct. Apparently, you could have saved yourself some blushes, if you'd troubled to do the same.

Can you read Hebrew?

The reason I ask, is that, first and foremost, the Hebrew says 'young woman'.

Virgin is never mentioned in the Hebrew.

(I've checked this with five different sources, some of which are available online - The 'ArtScroll Tanach, The Jerusalem Bible, JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (you can find that one online, I believe), The Judaica Press Tanach, and the Soncino Press Tanach).

You can do this yourself - find yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and look up 'almah' (written as ha'almah in the text... where 'ha' means 'the').

Clearly, 'almah' means 'young women' or 'maiden'.

Further - it is implicit in the text, because of the fact that 'almah' is shown as ha'almah... that it is a specific woman being discussed, by Isaiah, WITH KIng Ahaz. It is clear that this 'young woman' is someone both figures know.

Note also, the Hebrew COULD have read 'Betulah'... which WOULD have signified a literal 'virgin'.

It is, perhaps, further worthy of notice that the use of 'harah' in the passage, is PRESENT tense. This is not prophetic, this is describing a current event... literally 'the young woman is already pregnant'.

Further - after we are told that the young woman is pregnant - we are told that the Kings of two enemy nations will die before the child reaches the age of maturity. Second Kings 15:29-30 and Second Kings 16:9 show that this 'prophecy' IS fulfilled.

Again - if one has a basic understanding of Hebrew... you can actually do a basic comparison of Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 16:11. You'll notice that the 'prophecy' of Ishmael's birth is almost identical to the Isaiah passage in construction.

thank you for that information. I see you've been met with Isaiah 7:14 before.

do you know hebrew off the top of your head?

i've heard some words/phrases that I think are Hebrew and was wondering what they meant (have a general idea about some):

Adonai

El elyonnah adonai

El (or Er or Em) konkannah adonai

El shaddai


any info would be appreciated.

well we'll all find out, won't we?

doubt away, at your own peril...

And then find out that only the mormons had it right ?

I already finished my work for the day, but I have other things to take care of. I'm not going to apologise for the time I took making sure my refutation of your post was correct. Apparently, you could have saved yourself some blushes, if you'd troubled to do the same.

i can't blush, literally

hehe

seriously, then the question is begged... is there a word for "virgin" in Hebrew?

Do Zondervan have a different source for that passage in Isaiah?

And then find out that only the mormons had it right ?

yeah, hehe

I actually went out with a Mormon girl for a while. She referred to herself as a Christian... in some ways they are, I suppose.

Actually, its quite likely that the bible is heavily mistransalated. The only one I know is that the word angelos means messenger, not woman/man in a white dress and wings. I'm sure there are plenty of others, and some much more important.

right, my bad.

three then.

Luke is more or less in line with the other three... same basic message.

Luke was an "attendant of Paul" according to Irenaeus... he also says Mark was a "disciple of Peter".

Papias mentioned that there were (at least) two Johns, "John the apostle" and "John the Elder". Papias does not clarify WHICH John he believed wrote the Gospel. Other sources list a third 'John'... being "John the Evangelist".

So - TWO of the Gospel writers were definitely NOT 'first hand witnesses', and one is unlikely to have been.

This leaves ONLY Matthew... and Papias suggests that what WE call the Gospel of Matthew, was not likely to have actually been his own text. Indeed, Papias suggests that there WAS a text written by Matthew - which would have been the document called 'ta logia' - and that the Gospel attributed to both Matthew AND Mark were derived from it.

So - we have two confirmed 'false witnesses', one suspect witness (due to the age John would have had to have been to write his texts), and one secondary source PERHAPS based-on the work of a witness.


You might also know - or be interested to know - that other, later writers, have been LESS charitable than Papias.

Many now believe that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are both derived from an earlier scripture (which is called 'Q', in the trade), which may have been written by neither... since the author of that document is unknown.

1. The Gospels aren't first hand accounts.
2. They actually disagree a fair bit:

Mark:
-Empty tomb found by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
-Tomb was already open.
-They found a young man in a white robe in the tomb, who told them Jesus had risen.
-No mention of guards.
According to the NIV the most accurate manuscripts end here.
-Jesus appears to Mary Magdelen.
-Jesus appears to two of the disciples.
-Jesus appears to all of the discples, none of them deny him after they meet him.

Matthew:
-Empty tomb found by Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary', presumably mother of James.
-There was then an earthquake and an angel of lightning descended to open the tomb, terrifying the guards.
-The women meet Jesus immediately after this.
-The disciples meet Jesus near a mountain and some doubted (more than one apparently) even after meeting him.

Luke:
-Empty tomb found by Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and 'the others with them'.
-Tomb was already open.
-Two angels of lightning speak to them and explain why Jesus was crucified.
-Peter investigates the tomb (why isn't this mentioned in Mark? Supposedly Mark was Peter's scribe.)
-No mention of guards.
-Jesus appears to two of the disciples.
-Jesus appears immediately to all of the disciples after those two return, none doubt after they meet him.

John:
-Empty tomb discovered by Mary Magdalene.
-She finds the tomb empty and immediately returns to Peter and another disciple without meeting Jesus or any angels.
-Peter and the other disciple (and possibly Mary) go to the tomb but encounter nothing except empty grave-clothes.
-Jesus and two angels appear to Mary outside the tomb.
-No mention of guards.
-Jesus appears to the disciples but not Thomas.
-Thomas doubts their story, a week later Jesus appears to all of the disciples, including Thomas.
-There is an account of Jesus meeting several disciples while fishing and selecting Peter to lead the church.

I compiled this comparison in a hurry so if I made any mistakes please let me know.

I won't check... I know tht there are some differences.

What might help to account for the differences is that the gospels were actually written at different times... whether you believe that they were written a hundred years after Jesus or 15 (earliest projection I've seen is 45AD for one of the gospels... I forget which) years...

If four of us saw an event (or heard of one) that happened today... and we wrote about it 15 years from now... we might get the main event right, but the details would likely differ a bit.

And as Mies van der Rohe (sp?) once said, "God is in the details."

hehe

Jesus is the Root and the Offspring of David (or calls himself such, anyway)

This is his genealogy:

Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

You need to re-read your scripture, my friend.

That geneology MAY follow the line of David, but it also passes through Jeconiah.

"As I live, says the LORD, if you, Coniah (Jeconiah), son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, are a signet ring on my right hand, I will snatch you from it. I will deliver you into the hands of those who seek your life; the hands of those whom you fear; the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and the Chaldeans. I will cast you out, you and the mother who bore you, into a different land from the one you were born in; and there you shall die. Neither of them shall come back to the land for which they yearn. Is this man Coniah (Jeconiah) a vessel despised, to be broken up, an instrument that no one wants? Why are he and his descendants cast out? why thrown into a land they know not? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD-- Thus says the LORD: Write this man down as one childless, who will never thrive in his lifetime! No descendant of his shall achieve a seat on the throne of David as ruler again over Judah. "

If you follow that lineage - Jesus can NEVER sit on the throne of David...

You need to re-read your scripture, my friend.

That geneology MAY follow the line of David, but it also passes through Jeconiah.



If you follow that lineage - Jesus can NEVER sit on the throne of David...

By blood, anyway, he was descended from David.

somethig i've always been somewhat curious about...

How did Israel and Judah come to be seperate? That whole area was once Israel (Jacob = Israel, I remember that).... and then became split somehow.

if there's a quick explanation, would you mind offering it?

thank you for that information. I see you've been met with Isaiah 7:14 before.

do you know hebrew off the top of your head?

i've heard some words/phrases that I think are Hebrew and was wondering what they meant (have a general idea about some):

Adonai

El elyonnah adonai

El (or Er or Em) konkannah adonai

El shaddai


any info would be appreciated.


Adonai basically means 'Lord' or 'Ruler'; elyonah basically means something like 'loftiest of all offerings' and 'el' is usually taken to mean 'god'... so 'el elyonah adonai' would maybe translate to something akin to 'the highest offering to (or of) (lord) god'; Shaddai means roughly 'almighty'... so 'el shaddai' would be 'god almighty'.

The 'konkannah' one, I'm not too sure, it might just be the transliteration... 'kannah' would be the 'root' or 'stock' of a tree... so 'el kannah adonia' might mean something like the 'root of lord god'.

i can't blush, literally

hehe

seriously, then the question is begged... is there a word for "virgin" in Hebrew?

Do Zondervan have a different source for that passage in Isaiah?

If you looked all the way through the post I made - I believe I pointed out that 'betulah' (I'm approximating... I don't have a Hebrew-capable keyboard) would have been much, MUCH closer to 'virgin'.

Adonai basically means 'Lord' or 'Ruler'; elyonah basically means something like 'loftiest of all offerings' and 'el' is usually taken to mean 'god'... so 'el elyonah adonai' would maybe translate to something akin to 'the highest offering to (or of) (lord) god'; Shaddai means roughly 'almighty'... so 'el shaddai' would be 'god almighty'.

The 'konkannah' one, I'm not too sure, it might just be the transliteration... 'kannah' would be the 'root' or 'stock' of a tree... so 'el kannah adonia' might mean something like the 'root of lord god'.

thank you

moral of the last 30 (or whatever) posts:

if you can't beat them... learn from them. hehe

If you looked all the way through the post I made - I believe I pointed out that 'betulah' (I'm approximating... I don't have a Hebrew-capable keyboard) would have been much, MUCH closer to 'virgin'.

okay

is there any chance that the name "Petula" or "Petulah" is a modern bastardization of Betulah?

(Petulas -- or Petulae, I guess -- are blushing 'round the sphere as we speak)

I won't check... I know tht there are some differences.

What might help to account for the differences is that the gospels were actually written at different times... whether you believe that they were written a hundred years after Jesus or 15 (earliest projection I've seen is 45AD for one of the gospels... I forget which) years...

If four of us saw an event (or heard of one) that happened today... and we wrote about it 15 years from now... we might get the main event right, but the details would likely differ a bit.

And as Mies van der Rohe (sp?) once said, "God is in the details."

hehe

Well I'm glad you admit that the Gospels are the works of man, not divinely inspired or 'god-breathed'. That's a good start.

However, where does Matthew's earthquake come from? I'm pretty sure I'd remember an earthquake and an angel descending from heaven to open the tomb, yet none of the other accounts mention this.

Besides, the idea of the differences being a lapse in memory doesn't make sense. Surely you would agree that Peter would best remember his own actions? Why then does he get no mention in Mark, the gospel he dictated? And why are his actions mentioned by other disciples in great detail? If he performed them then why doesn't he report it? If he didn't then where did the story come from?

In 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul claims that Jesus appeared to over five-hundred people, why do none of the Gospels report this?

Your dating is out by a fair way. The general consensus is that Mark was written first between 65 and 80AD, Matthew was probably next at around 70 to 80AD, Luke came next at about 80 to 90AD and John was written last between 90 and 110AD. I must stress that this is in no way indisputed, there is a lot of debate concerning the order in which the were written. No reputable scholar would date any of the Gospels anywhere before 50AD, only a few morally bankrupt apologetics would try to claim such an early dating. It should also be noted that the majority of scholars agree that the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

By blood, anyway, he was descended from David.

Not at all - the geneology that runs through Jeconiah centres on David... but disallows Jesus from ever sitting on the Throne of David.

The OTHER geneology skips Jeconiah (although, somehow, includes his children?)... but skips David... following the Nathan branch instead.

Either Jesus IS David's heir (in which case, he is cursed never to sit on the throne), or he is Nathan's heir (and thus, fails to be a branch of David).

It's irreconcilable... and that's far from the only reason why Jesus is NOT 'messiah'.

He uses the bible as evidence...that should explain the problem. The bible is NOT a primary source, it is secondary, meaning the person who wrote it down wasn't really there and didn't really see anything.
I'm going to laugh if we are finally able to travel back in time to that era only to find out that all these stories are like a round robin story. It gets passed around from person to person and each one adds more to it. LOL AND it was started as fiction. LMAO!!!
As a side note, I DO beleive in God but not the bible.

Well I'm glad you admit that the Gospels are the works of man, not divinely inspired or 'god-breathed'. That's a good start.

However, where does Matthew's earthquake come from? I'm pretty sure I'd remember an earthquake and an angel descending from heaven to open the tomb, yet none of the other accounts mention this.

Besides, the idea of the differences being a lapse in memory doesn't make sense. Surely you would agree that Peter would best remember his own actions? Why then does he get no mention in Mark, the gospel he dictated? And why are his actions mentioned by other disciples in great detail? If he performed them then why doesn't he report it? If he didn't then where did the story come from?

In 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul claims that Jesus appeared to over five-hundred people, why do none of the Gospels report this?

Your dating is out by a fair way. The general consensus is that Mark was written first between 65 and 80AD, Matthew was probably next at around 70 to 80AD, Luke came next at about 80 to 90AD and John was written last between 90 and 110AD. I must stress that this is in no way indisputed, there is a lot of debate concerning the order in which the were written. No reputable scholar would date any of the Gospels anywhere before 50AD, only a few morally bankrupt apologetics would try to claim such an early dating. It should also be noted that the majority of scholars agree that the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Why would the gospels' being inspired by God be a function of their publishing date?

If God is eternal, things could be God-breathed/divinely inspired no matter the date on which they're written. (unless I read your point incorrectly, which is entirely possible)

somethig i've always been somewhat curious about...

How did Israel and Judah come to be seperate? That whole area was once Israel (Jacob = Israel, I remember that).... and then became split somehow.

if there's a quick explanation, would you mind offering it?

Quickest explanation would be the revolt of the northern tribes (under the exiled Jeroboam) forming the Kingdom of Israel, around the capital of Samaria.

Rehoboam retained control of the other tribes (Benjamin, Judah, Simeon), and the state of Judah, based around Jerusalem.

The cause of the rebellion seems to have been a combination of unrest between tribes, the animosity between Jeroboam and Rehoboam, and... perhaps most importantly... high taxation.

okay

is there any chance that the name "Petula" or "Petulah" is a modern bastardization of Betulah?

(Petulas -- or Petulae, I guess -- are blushing 'round the sphere as we speak)

Possible, but unlikely... because 'petula' fits the 'profile' for a latin name, not a Hebrew one.

Why would the gospels' being inspired by God be a function of their publishing date?

If God is eternal, things could be God-breathed/divinely inspired no matter the date on which they're written. (unless I read your point incorrectly, which is entirely possible)

Slightly. My point was that if they were divinely inspired then there wouldn't be innaccuracies and contradictions. As you say, God is eternal and not prone to amnesia.

somethig i've always been somewhat curious about...

How did Israel and Judah come to be seperate? That whole area was once Israel (Jacob = Israel, I remember that).... and then became split somehow.

if there's a quick explanation, would you mind offering it?The archaelogical one is that they were always two kingdoms and they came to maturity at different times. Israel reached city-state status much earlier than Judah did, and when Judah reached that status, they used Israel as a foil around which to unite their people. Josiah was the king then, and the priesthood built up the stories of the faithful vs. the unfaithful kingdoms to make the Judeans feel morally superior. Think of King David as the Judean version of Pepin and Solomon as Charlemagne and you get the idea--some factual kings on which to base legendary acts.

Funny how the objections are the same ones that have been used since the beginning. Wrong tomb, don't believe the believers, text is unreliable, translation unreliable, testimony is not evidence, same stuff for two thousand years...

And for all those years, the same answers and refutations have been given for those objections, but no one wants to believe the answers or refutations...

So I guess it all comes down to who do you want to believe?

The writers of the NT, or the skeptics?

I myself am a skeptical believer. But I am convinced by the evidence, and the answers and refutations make sense to me.

And yes, testimony is evidence.

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...
That's about as stupid a comment as I've ever read around here, and that's saying something. Books on science are based on far more than belief and testimony--they're based on observation combined with repeated experimentation and discussions of method.

Funny how the objections are the same ones that have been used since the beginning. Wrong tomb, don't believe the believers, text is unreliable, translation unreliable, testimony is not evidence, same stuff for two thousand years...

And for all those years, the same answers and refutations have been given for those objections, but no one wants to believe the answers or refutations...

So I guess it all comes down to who do you want to believe?

The writers of the NT, or the skeptics?

I myself am a skeptical believer. But I am convinced by the evidence, and the answers and refutations make sense to me.

And yes, testimony is evidence.

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...

Generally speaking it's not a case of 'don't believe the believers' as you put it so simplistically, it's a recognition that the people who wrote the books weren't witnesses to any of the events they describe. Please don't poison the well.

Not at all - the geneology that runs through Jeconiah centres on David... but disallows Jesus from ever sitting on the Throne of David.

The OTHER geneology skips Jeconiah (although, somehow, includes his children?)... but skips David... following the Nathan branch instead.

Either Jesus IS David's heir (in which case, he is cursed never to sit on the throne), or he is Nathan's heir (and thus, fails to be a branch of David).

It's irreconcilable... and that's far from the only reason why Jesus is NOT 'messiah'.

Does the OT scruipture say that Messiah must be eligible for rule... or simply that he must be a descendant of David?

Is it that specific?

The archaelogical one is that they were always two kingdoms and they came to maturity at different times. Israel reached city-state status much earlier than Judah did, and when Judah reached that status, they used Israel as a foil around which to unite their people. Josiah was the king then, and the priesthood built up the stories of the faithful vs. the unfaithful kingdoms to make the Judeans feel morally superior. Think of King David as the Judean version of Pepin and Solomon as Charlemagne and you get the idea--some factual kings on which to base legendary acts.

danke, mijnheer (might have just butchered both German and Dutch)

The archaelogical one is that they were always two kingdoms and they came to maturity at different times. Israel reached city-state status much earlier than Judah did, and when Judah reached that status, they used Israel as a foil around which to unite their people. Josiah was the king then, and the priesthood built up the stories of the faithful vs. the unfaithful kingdoms to make the Judeans feel morally superior. Think of King David as the Judean version of Pepin and Solomon as Charlemagne and you get the idea--some factual kings on which to base legendary acts.
oh thanks, now i can feel stupid about 2 different historical eras

david and solomon were in 2 different kingdoms?

charelmagne ive heard of ....

isnt pepin the skunk who gets mistaken for a cat in the cartoons....

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...
yeah but most old science and biology books DO contain errors. we learn new things all the time.

the difference is that when we make a new discovery about evolution no one claims it must be false because it isnt mentioned in "origin of the species". we debate the evidence and come to a new understanding of the truth.

oh thanks, now i can feel stupid about 2 different historical eras

david and solomon were in 2 different kingdoms?

charelmagne ive heard of ....

isnt pepin the skunk who gets mistaken for a cat in the cartoons....

Solomon is the famous rich dude who wrote (or starred in, at least) Song of Solomon (AKA Song of Songs).

Charlemagne was Holy Roman Emperor, King of France and/or King of Franks (can't remember if they were literally referring to themselves as "France" yet).... reputed to be one of the best rulers of the Middle Ages.

Pepin I (and maybe II, I forget) was, I believe, one of the nearly immediate progenitors of Charlemagne.

another was Charles "The Hammer" Martel (what a kick-ass name).

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...

If there had only been ONE researcher making claims you would be quite right. Fortunately science gets peer reviewed, and the conclusions must be based on verifiable/repeatable observations/calculations.

oh thanks, now i can feel stupid about 2 different historical eras

david and solomon were in 2 different kingdoms?

charelmagne ive heard of ....

isnt pepin the skunk who gets mistaken for a cat in the cartoons....
Solomon was David's son and heir, and was the king during the golden age of Judah, and it was his son who was responsible for the schism, according to the Bible. It's not an exact analogy, because in the Bible, David was the warrior king and Solomon was the wise and peaceful one, while both Pepin and Charlemagne were warriors, but in the essentials--the fact that David and Solomon were used by future generations as legends and founder figures around which to build a national identity, just as Pepin and Charlemagne were--the analogy works.

Oh yeah--Pepin was Charlemagne's dad, and one of the first kings of Gaul, and Charlemagne had a weak heir too.

Does the OT scruipture say that Messiah must be eligible for rule... or simply that he must be a descendant of David?

Is it that specific?

Depends rather on what you are willing to accept:

Isaiah 9:5-6 " For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David's throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this! "

Luke 1:31-3 "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

If you believe both of those passages refer to Messiah, then you have to accept that Messiah must sit on David's throne.

Funny how the objections are the same ones that have been used since the beginning. Wrong tomb, don't believe the believers, text is unreliable, translation unreliable, testimony is not evidence, same stuff for two thousand years...

And for all those years, the same answers and refutations have been given for those objections, but no one wants to believe the answers or refutations...
I've yet to hear an answer or refutation to my earlier supposition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10743919&postcount=23) which seems considerably more likely than the revival of the dead.

And yes, testimony is evidence.

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...

No one said to "throw out all books by true believers". However, if the ONLY evidence you have, is from a biased source, then you SHOULD treat that evidence as MUCH less than totally reliable, because of the subjectivity, if nothing else.

If you believe both of those passages refer to Messiah, then you have to accept that Messiah must sit on David's throne.
There are many ways to come to sit on a throne. Inheritance through birth is one. Supplanting the true heir through trickery and public acknowledgement is another.

There are many ways to come to sit on a throne. Inheritance through birth is one. Supplanting the true heir through trickery and public acknowledgement is another.

I can go looking for it if I must, but I believe the scripture also says that it will ALWAYS be David's seed that will be found on his throne.

(Not as grotesquely masturbational as that sounds).

Historical Jesus debates always seem a bit silly to me.

For me, I simply see the historical Jesus as a person who may or may not have actually existed. The mythical Jesus, the one Christians believe in, does not require Factual Jesus to have existed; all that is required is the faith of the flock.

I believe the truth of this statement: my mom is the best mom ever.
I do not believe it is a FACTUAL statement. The fact that it is not a factual statement does not make it any less true.

Jesus, the myth, can still save your soul even if the whole story was made up by a bunch of crazy jewish guys. Factual Jesus can never do that.

That's about as stupid a comment as I've ever read around here, and that's saying something. Books on science are based on far more than belief and testimony--they're based on observation combined with repeated experimentation and discussions of method.

But those observations and experiments were performed by true believers, and thus are unreliable.

There is the false assumption that scientists are unlike all other forms of human life, and never have any agendas, never bend the truth, never do anything for money, and are always correct.

There is the false assumption that scientists are unlike all other forms of human life, and never have any agendas, never bend the truth, never do anything for money, and are always correct.

Absolute bullshit. What do you think a peer-review process is actually about? Scientists bitch like fuck about each others credability and the validity of each others work. I did it 4 times today.

Generally speaking it's not a case of 'don't believe the believers' as you put it so simplistically, it's a recognition that the people who wrote the books weren't witnesses to any of the events they describe. Please don't poison the well.

Sorry, could have sworn that I read a post saying essentially that believers are unreliable or unbelievable.

Also, if we throw out writers who didn't witness the events they describe, there go all the biographies...

But those observations and experiments were performed by true believers, and thus are unreliable.I take it back. This is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums.

There is the false assumption that scientists are unlike all other forms of human life, and never have any agendas, never bend the truth, never do anything for money, and are always correct.
What you're really saying here is that there's a massive conspiracy among people who study science to withhold the truth about the natural world from the rest of us ignorant folk. Gee--like it's all that fucking difficult to test the basic assumptions of science on your own. :rolleyes:

There's a huge gulf between belief in something and the understanding of a process--I suggest you inform yourself of the difference, and quick, before you stop believing in gravity and walk off the edge of a tall building.

If there had only been ONE researcher making claims you would be quite right. Fortunately science gets peer reviewed, and the conclusions must be based on verifiable/repeatable observations/calculations.

Like the cloning claims of the South Korean scientist?

That is only the most recent that comes to mind, but I'm certain there must be other claims that were not peer reviewed or verified or repeated before publishing...

I've yet to hear an answer or refutation to my earlier supposition (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10743919&postcount=23) which seems considerably more likely than the revival of the dead.

Given God, how could revival of the dead be unlikely?

And how many people have you met who existed as a physical person standing there shaking your hand and simultaneously existed as an idea in your head?

And resurrection sounds unlikely?

Your Hellenist conspiracy is interesting. Don't think that I've heard that one before.

Time for some research.

if you read any of the hebrew storys there were many people who claimed to be the son of god.15 before the story jesus that we know now. the whole story of mary and joseph is bullshit to me. come on chicks lie all the time. she had relations with a roman soldier PANTHROS. but back in the days if you were caught cheating on your spouse you would be stoned to death. (just like in that fucking stone age country of afgahnistan and that whole region.)but back to my rambling for mary to not lose face with her comunity she made up a story of how an angel came to her and said she would have the son of god. all ready in her village people knew mary as a slut. she had one son previous jesus out of wed-lock.only reason joseph took her in was because he was old and horny.....

And how many people have you met who existed as a physical person standing there shaking your hand and simultaneously existed as an idea in your head?
Every single one of them. When I meet a person, I cannot possibly know all of him or her. Instead, what I do know is condensed into an internal simplification of the other's "self", and it is this idea to which I largely relate rather than the physical construct that stands in front of me. This is not a unique trait on my part; everyone does it. It's the only way people can really relate on a personal level.
Given God, how could revival of the dead be unlikely?
There is an understanding gap here as to what God is, I suspect, that may perhaps largely blur the point I was trying to make. I'm thinking of God in a primarily pantheistic sense, as may have been suggested by my reference to Jesus in Hinduism. Such a being does not directly alter the physical construction of things save through the help of other natural processes. God makes plants grow and die, people heal themselves and ecosystems thrive; he does not rain down fire and brimstone just because people are being amoral.

In that sense, the liklihood of the revival of the dead through God and the natural liklihood of the revival of the dead are to me the same. And I don't know about you, but so far I have seen little evidence of people coming back to life through their own power in nature.

On the other hand, yes, if you believe God is an outside personality with omnipotent influence, then the revival of the dead is not unlikely. It is also not unlikely that black is white, or that the sky can at any moment become sea, for at a whim these things can be so.
Your Hellenist conspiracy is interesting. Don't think that I've heard that one before.
I'm sure it's been mentioned before. I've just never seen a convincing refutation of it. You're welcome to point me to one, though as I say, it's merely the more likely of the possible suppositions and just conjecture.

Like the cloning claims of the South Korean scientist?

That is only the most recent that comes to mind, but I'm certain there must be other claims that were not peer reviewed or verified or repeated before publishing...

gee did you miss the part where no one believes it NOW?

it was shown to be a lie and people stopped believing it. thats what science IS. if it were religion, there would still be people believing that that korean doctor was just misunderstood and that he cloned through a miracle of god.

I take it back. This is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums.


What you're really saying here is that there's a massive conspiracy among people who study science to withhold the truth about the natural world from the rest of us ignorant folk. Gee--like it's all that fucking difficult to test the basic assumptions of science on your own. :rolleyes:

There's a huge gulf between belief in something and the understanding of a process--I suggest you inform yourself of the difference, and quick, before you stop believing in gravity and walk off the edge of a tall building.

LOL.

No conspiracy, just the public and the media putting scientists on a pedestal.

gee did you miss the part where no one believes it NOW?

it was shown to be a lie and people stopped believing it. thats what science IS. if it were religion, there would still be people believing that that korean doctor was just misunderstood and that he cloned through a miracle of god.

My point was, how did it get published in the first place? Where was the peer review then? I thought that all papers were peer reviewed [u]before[/b] being published. At least that's what is said when papers disputing the flavor of the day are rejected out of hand (try disputing global warming (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220), for instance)...

My point was, how did it get published in the first place? Where was the peer review then? I thought that all papers were peer reviewed [u]before[/b] being published. At least that's what is said when papers disputing the flavor of the day are rejected out of hand (try disputing global warming (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220), for instance)...
pfffft thats what the free flow of ideas is all about. people think things up. they get shot down. they think up something else maybe that turns out to be true. science is all about figuring out how stuff is wrong.

when someone produces a paper, well researched and with the correct statistical analysis, that proves that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant, scientists wil be crawling all over it to prove it wrong. if it cant be proved wrong, they will end up accepting it.

thats science. there are people out there aching to make their professional reputation by proving some commonly accepted theory is wrong and there are even more out there who would love to make THEIR reputation by proving those same guys wrong wrong wrong. no one gets anywhere in science by kissing ass.

But those observations and experiments were performed by true believers, and thus are unreliable.

There is the false assumption that scientists are unlike all other forms of human life, and never have any agendas, never bend the truth, never do anything for money, and are always correct.

There just isn't the 'passion' required to make (many) True Believers, in science... and, if they were an issue, they would be countered by the peer-review process.

Of course - there IS 'corruption' of conscience in science, just as there is anywhere else... which is why 'scientists' that work for the oil industry consistently deny the harmful effects of fossil fuels on the environment.

But - you actually make your OWN point here... THOSE scienctists SHOULD NOT be believed unless the weight of evidence reasonably supports their arguments... certainly not JUST because they 'say so'.

And yet, that is the very 'special exception' you plead for the writers of scripture.

Sorry, could have sworn that I read a post saying essentially that believers are unreliable or unbelievable.

Also, if we throw out writers who didn't witness the events they describe, there go all the biographies...

All biographies SHOULD be treated as only as reliable as the evidence supports.

This is basic source analysis stuff.

Given God, how could revival of the dead be unlikely?


Simply, because the vast weight of evidence suggests that people die, and then STAY dead.

Thus, any suggestion that counters that observed mechanism, is going to automatically be 'unlikely'.

Unlikely enough, indeed, that I'm going to want evidence a DAMN SIGHT more 'special' than a few written testimonies by cult members.

Seriously, you'd demand the SAME kind of evidence, if it was someone else's religion, no?

LOL.

No conspiracy, just the public and the media putting scientists on a pedestal.

Have you read Joseph Wood Krutch?

... or are you just a crank?

Disclaimer: I express absolutely no opinion whatsoever on whether the resurrection actually happened or not. I'm also skipping over the trustworthiness of the author of the article. I am only commenting on his arguments in support of his theory about the resurrection. That said:

I gave the article a D.

The author violated basic rules of evidence in making his argument and because of this he both undermined his own credibility and also failed to disprove the scenarios of resurrection skeptics.

1. He used the New Testament to prove the accuracy of the New Testament. This alone would have undermined his entire paper in any peer review or evidentiary review situation. This is what harms his credibility.

2. He says he is relying on eyewitness testimony, but eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Even without any intent to lie whatsoever, they fail to tell the truth accurately. The weakness of the reports is made worse by the fact that the author is actually relying on later accounts written by other people of what eyewitnesses reported to yet other people. This is multiple levels of hearsay, simply not acceptable of proof of anything. ("My dear sir, you mustn't tell us what she told you. It's not evidence."-- Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe ;) )

3. The author also claims that there is a lack of dissent or dispute about the resurrection account, but hasn't this been a bone of contention since the beginning of Christianity, including at the time the story first began circulating?

4. The author declares the NT gospels to be definitive, but haven't we just learned about a Gospel of Judas that contradicts some parts of the official version? And what about all those ancient texts that the compilers of the Bible chose to omit? Many of them also contradict the official version. Clearly, all of the parties have not been heard from.

5. About his 6 Facts, I would point out first of all that the key part of the whole story -- the actual rising -- was not witnessed by anyone and therefore can only be hearsay. This is the insurmountable obstacle for those who try to debunk skeptics. And the author of this article fails to mention it at all. In addition to that, even if we grant all of the claimed facts before and after -- the manner of burial and the condition of the empty tomb -- the skeptical argument that the body could have been stolen is still plausible for two reasons: (1) We have only the NT account for the character of the Roman guards. In reality, Roman soldiers were not famous for their refusal to take bribes. (2) The heavy stone had to be moved into place, so it is easily conceivable that it could have been moved again, especially if the Roman guards were in cahoots. Conspirators could have brought a crew in to do the work. See the entire history of Rome for why this is plausible.

6. The author claims that he has witness accounts by unbelievers, who presumably would have no reason to promote a religion they didn't believe in. But he then admits that "It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers." Well, if they became followers, then they are no longer hostile witnesses, are they? I notice that the only individual "unbeliever" he quotes is Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul, but Saul didn't write his letter urging belief in the resurrection because of the 500 witnesses until after he himself converted and stopped being a hostile witness.

7. The author attempts to discredit the "stolen body" theory by declaring that the disciples would have been in no mood to rob graves. But nobody today is in a position to know what the mood of the disciples was or what they could have been capable of if motivated by their grief and shame to redeem their faith in not only their teacher but also in the movement they would start in his name. Also, there are other parties who could have stolen the body, if it was stolen. The disciples were not the only people who believed Jesus was the messiah.

8. Finally, the author tries to use the disciples' later careers as proof of the factuality of their beliefs. In other words, he tries to use the existence of the religion to prove that the religion's stories are factual. But isn't it just as likely that the disciples were motivated to travel the world, spreading their gospel, because of their faith? Faith does not require proof, does it?

Like the cloning claims of the South Korean scientist?

Did you just use a man whos lies were caught by the peer-review process as an example of how that process doesn't work?

Wow. That's like saying "Cars don't move. Example: that car that drove me here."

Muravyets has most points well covered.

There's one I would like to add:
By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.This is incorrect. There have been archaelogical discoveries that also contradict the New Testament. Particularly the characters Pontius Pilate and King Herod don't seem to lived as they are portrayed in the New Testament, according to the archaelogical discoveries that the argument is based on.

*snip*

Great analysis, thank you. :)

I feel guilty for not keeping up with this thread as much as I should have for starting it. Oops.

Just wanted to comment on a few posts. I'll group the posts together by person:

“I don't know if everyone knows that Saul of Tarsus, later Paul, referred to by me as Saul-Paul, but his job was murdering Christians. It didn't really have any problems with as it was his job in the service of the Roman Empire. He wasn't all that convicted towards the Roman gods either, so that doesn't make him some kind of religious nut. Then Jesus appears to him while he's going down the road, and - look out! - he's a hardcore believer. He later did the most work for the early Christian church.”

“Saul-Paul's conversion would be like Hitler converting to Judaism, then going door-to-door Jehovas Witness style.
I'm sure you have slightly better grip on that concept now.”

There is actually no evidence that Paul killed any Christians. This claim is even inconsistent with many of the other things Paul claims for himself in his epistles. To begin, Paul claimed to be a devout Pharisee. However, by Halacha Paul couldn't go around persecuting Christians, he would be violating the Law. Either he lied about persecuting Christians, he lied about being a devout Pharisee, or he lied about both. There is also no evidence outside of Paul's claim here that Pharisees did persecute Christians during this time period. It seems to me like a lot of Paul's claims about himself were tactics he used to gain support for his amazing conversion when he preached to Goy audiences.

In essence, there is no reason to believe Paul's claims when they are inconsistent with the history and the culture he was from.

"four first-hand accounts all pretty much saying the same thing...”

“hmmm... the Hebrews missed their Messiah... shall I pull up ALL the prophecies Jesus fulfilled?

---

Matt, Mark, Luke, John... you know, those guys...”

“Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

...virgin birth foretold in the Old Testament. Apparently you'd overlooked it.”

These are a few different posts, and Grave already did a good job with explaining why Isaiah 7 isn't about Jesus. I just wanted to comment on a few things, including this.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not in fact firsthand accounts. Not a single Gospel contains the name of the author. Those names are pseudopigraphic - they were the attributed authorship that came much later based on tradition. When you read "Gospel of Luke" on the front of your Bible section, that is not something that occurs in the original text, but rather something that was added to it during canonization.

Because the Gospels are completely anonymous, they can't be said to be first hand accounts of anything.

You also stated that the Jews missed the messiah. This is unscriptural as well. According to Jeremiah 31, when the messiah comes, every single Jew will keep the law and recognize it. Thus, the idea that the Jews missed the messiah (as Christianity teaches) actually contradicts scripture which states that every single Jew will accept the messianic age. Which brings us to Isaiah 7.

To begin, there is not a single messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. Many of the texts that Christians use are not in fact messianic prophecy, but rather simply "proof-texts." Scriptures that were never messianic prophecy that Christians incorporated into the Jesus mythos. Isaiah 7 is a perfect example of a non-messianic proof-text.

Like I said, Grave explained it well. Grave explained why Jesus' lineage is invalid quite well, too. For further reading, I just wanted to post the link to the Isaiah 7 article on my website. I've discussed a few of the more common proof-texts in my articles there. Enjoy.

http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id7.html

“Funny how the objections are the same ones that have been used since the beginning. Wrong tomb, don't believe the believers, text is unreliable, translation unreliable, testimony is not evidence, same stuff for two thousand years...

And for all those years, the same answers and refutations have been given for those objections, but no one wants to believe the answers or refutations...

So I guess it all comes down to who do you want to believe?

The writers of the NT, or the skeptics?

I myself am a skeptical believer. But I am convinced by the evidence, and the answers and refutations make sense to me.

And yes, testimony is evidence.

And if we have to throw out all books by true believers, we can start with all the books on science, including biology and evolution. After all, the writers of those books believed what they were writing, so it must be unreliable...”

“Sorry, could have sworn that I read a post saying essentially that believers are unreliable or unbelievable.

Also, if we throw out writers who didn't witness the events they describe, there go all the biographies...”

If the same objections have been raised since the beginning and they are still being raised today, it is obvious that they havn't been refuted and are still quite valid. Very few people raise the exact same objections once the objections have been soundly defeated. For example, you don't see many people claiming we have a flat earth now that the objections to the round earth in the Church have been defeated.

It isn't that "no one wants to believe them" but rather the fact that no one has been able to refute or answer them. So no, it doesnt "all come down to who you want to believe." Rather, it comes down to where the evidence is, or where the evidence isn't. You still have a choice - you can believe or withhold belief due to lack of evidence, or you can put unfounded faith in religion. It simply isn't an equal choice; one decision is better than the other.

And I'd love to know what evidence, answers, and refutations you have received that would make you believe anything magical in the Gospels is true.

You also stated "testimony is evidence." Sure, it can be. However, since the Gospels are completely anonymous, they are not testimony. Likewise, when Christians say things like "there were 500 witnesses, because the Gospels say so", this is not the testimony of 500 witnesses. If I get called to make a testimony in court, someone can't write a book anonymously about what I suppossedly said, and claim "500 others saw it too" and expect it to count as evidence. That isn't testimony, and neither are the Gospels.

Comparing science texts to the Gospels seems to be the fallacy of questionable analogy, as well. To begin, science books talk about things we can all verify in the natural world. They also name their authors. They go further, to name those who reviewed them (depending on type of review) and researched them. The Gospels don't talk about anything we can verify in the natural world and are completely anonymous. We have no clue how they came to the conclusions they did. Even your assumption that the Gospels were written by "true believers" can't be proven, since they are anonymous. They could have been written by non-believers simply to start a cult. In short, while we know that the people who write science texts today do believe what they write, we can't even claim that the Gospel authors really believed what they wrote since they are totally anonymous.

Like I stated above, the Gospels are not biographies. They are the type of work we refer to as "lives." Mostly fictional accounts of possibly historical figures. And since no authors are named, they can't be said to be the accounts of witnesses either.

I'll give an analysis of this article like I said I would (finally). Everything in quotes is from the article. I'll go through, dispute the points, and then give a summary at the end.

After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. The resurrection doesn't have to be a "wicked, vicious, heartless" hoax, nor does it have to be something that actually happened. There are plenty of alternate explanations, although only one is needed to demonstrate that this is a fallacy. The resurrection could simply have been added to the Jesus mythos because it was a common element in dozens of contemporary pagan religions in the region - such as the cults of Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, and Tammuz.

McDowell's books are full of false dichotomies like this. He says things along the lines of "Jesus was either a lunatic, or God!" Readers who aren't familiar with the fallacy may be fooled into choosing the lesser of the two evils, or what makes more sense, without realizing that there is a world of options that McDowell obscures with this fallacy.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

These "facts" that McDowell states are in fact unverified claims. The very existence of a single "historical Jesus" who the "Jesus of faith" is based upon is in dispute. McDowell simply asserts that the Gospels are true, and uses these assertions to demonstrate that other portions of the Gospels are true (I've noticed a few people in the thread have realized that as well, good job). Besides his "facts" being in dispute, this is also the fallacy of circular reasoning.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

Bruce is one of the common Christian apologist lackeys. Along with a few others (who McDowell quotes later on, surprise surprise), he is one of the pillars of supporting information that Christian apologists rely upon. We can find him cited in Strobel's "Case for Christ" and about any other apologetic work out there. This quote from Bruce seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the works we call lives that were written during this time period, as well.

The fact of the matter is, historical inaccuraces or the accounts of magic and miracles in the works of lives would not have caused the blink of an eye. We find that Josephus, Tacitus, and other reputable historians frequently wove myth into their histories as well. No one sat down and called Tacitus out for writing that Vespasian hung out with the deity Serapis, or that he did miracles left and right. Because historical accuracy did not exist in the fashion we have today, there is no reason to assume that anyone would have said anything about the followers of the new Jesus cult adhering to inaccurate stories.

FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire? I hope I'm not the only one that realizes how totally absurd this is. And there were only punishments of "crucifixion." The type of crucifixion, and there were dozens, was not determined beforehand. Another fact is that crucifixion victims were not put into tombs, but rather their bodies were either left out. Josephus recorded this in his Jewish War, when even the relatives of Jews begged to let them bury their dead, but the Romans would not allow it.

There is no evidence for an imperial seal on the tomb of a crucifixion victim. For one, the tombs of Jews were huge family catacombs. Seals would have been broken constantly to add new bodies. Should we really believe that a Roman pontif put seals on every crucifixion victim's tomb, when he was known to have crucified 500 people in one sitting alone? Just the sheer number of people crucified refutes the notion that they were locked away with special seals, in addition to the impracticality (and near impossibility) of keeping huge family tombs sealed.

FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Even today there is no evidence of an empty tomb. The site of Jesus' tomb today was not recognized as such and did not become a Christian holy place until Constantine made it so. You would think that if such a tomb really existed, it would have been venerated by Christians during the first 300 years of Christianity (it wasnt) and that it would be recognized as Jesus' tomb by archaeology today (it isn't).

McDowell also seems to lie here. The Toledoth Yeshu states that Jesus was buried in a garden, and that his body was dug up and hidden by the apostles. It does not mention an empty tomb. Josephus makes no mention of an empty tomb either. In fact the only passage that is a reference to Jesus' suppossed resurrection is disputed as being an interpolation, and still mentions no empty tomb. So where is this tomb?

FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."

Once again, not only is there a lack of evidence that guards were actually put to watch a tomb, but it is inconsistent with history. Pilate was known to be intolerant and violent. He crucified thousands of people in his short reign, in addition to multiple false messiah figures within the Jewish and Samaritan communities. McDowell claims that a unit of troops was sent to guard this tomb. It would take half of the Roman legion stationed in Judea to guard all of the tombs of crucifixion victims, and even a substantial force to guard just the dangerous rebels that were executed. The whole "crucifixion victim in a tomb" scenario starts to seem more and more like myth, when examined in its historical context.

FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.

The Gospels do not state that the grave clothes were caved in, in the form of a body, like a cocoon. McDowell simply made this up. Does it get any more dishonest than this?

OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time...Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

This is probably one of the most misleading tactics in Christian apologetics. We do not have the account of 500 witnesses. Not a single one of these suppossed 500 witnesses had stated that they have actually witnessed a thing.

Paul, a man who never met Jesus, wrote that over 500 people witnessed the resurrection. One man claiming there were 500 witnesses is not the same as there actually being 500 witnesses. To use a courtroom analogy, if I am put on the stand to testify, I do not count as 500 witnesses if I say "oh yeah, and 500 others saw it too."

Summary:

Because McDowell starts out by asserting that the accounts in the Gospels are "facts", then uses the "facts" that he assumed without verification to prove other things in the Gospels, all conclusions that stem from these premises fall under the fallacy of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning can be used to create an unfalsifiable (and thus logically invalid) situation for any claim. To compound this, he creates a number of false dichotomies (such as the one mentioned above, or the four options he presents about Jesus' body being stolen, swoon, hallucinations, or the wrong tomb) that leave no room for alternate and better explanations for the myth of the resurrection. Nowhere does he address that a man named Jesus may have never been crucified at all, or that the resurrection myth could be based on the identical resurrection myths of pagan deities. Nor does he address that Jesus' body may have been left out for the wild animals, which is more historically consistent with first century Judea than any single claim he made in his article. He does not address the posibility that the Gospels are anything but accurate, and in doing so he fails to realize the historical inaccuraces (some listed above) in the Gospels that surround the resurrection myth.

there are people out there aching to make their professional reputation by proving some commonly accepted theory is wrong and there are even more out there who would love to make THEIR reputation by proving those same guys wrong wrong wrong. no one gets anywhere in science by kissing ass.

The first statement I agree with. That last statement I do not. Wherever you have humans, you have butt kissing, science included.

Within science, scientists are allowed to criticise just about any theory they like, except for evolutionary theory. When it comes to evolutionary theory, there is a whole lotta butt kissing.

Well, that's my impression anyway. We were basically told that we wouldn't pass university science unless we accepted that it was the truth (well, a theory, but a true theory, sort of.....)

I'll give an analysis of this article like I said I would (finally). Everything in quotes is from the article. I'll go through, dispute the points, and then give a summary at the end.



This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy. The resurrection doesn't have to be a "wicked, vicious, heartless" hoax, nor does it have to be something that actually happened. There are plenty of alternate explanations, although only one is needed to demonstrate that this is a fallacy. The resurrection could simply have been added to the Jesus mythos because it was a common element in dozens of contemporary pagan religions in the region - such as the cults of Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, and Tammuz.

His point is that in the context of the claims of Christianity, fantastic claims to the Truth, that Jesus is the Lamb of God given to take away the sins of the world, the one hope of mankind, the only way to God. When you place those claims next to the claims about his death and resurrection, his claims to be God, and to forgive sin, then you have an either or scenario. If one part of the story is false, then it is all false, since you cannot have Jesus claiming to be God, and then not being able to forgive sin.

Demonstrate that one part is false, and the whole thing might turn out to be an invention. And what could be more evil than falseness that presents itself as God? What could do more damage, raise more false hopes, be ultimately more disappointing, than the claim that Jesus makes that we know God if we know him? If Jesus is a fake, then he or his followers (or whoever invented it) has succeeded in misleading more people than any other in history.

When you put together the fact that the claims about Jesus are so fantastic, and the fact that it was either an invention or the truth, then you have such a McDowell scenario.





McDowell's books are full of false dichotomies like this. He says things along the lines of "Jesus was either a lunatic, or God!" Readers who aren't familiar with the fallacy may be fooled into choosing the lesser of the two evils, or what makes more sense, without realizing that there is a world of options that McDowell obscures with this fallacy.


What you seem to be saying is that McDowell's dichotomy only makes sense if the Bible can be accepted as being accurate. (I thought McDowell addressed that point in one of his books.) If the Bible was not accurate, then of course that raises several other options, one being that it was not Jesus who was either liar, lunatic, or lord, but that whoever wrote the accounts were either liars or lunatics. Still a dichotomy, it seems.

The first statement I agree with. That last statement I do not. Wherever you have humans, you have butt kissing, science included.

Within science, scientists are allowed to criticise just about any theory they like, except for evolutionary theory. When it comes to evolutionary theory, there is a whole lotta butt kissing.

Well, that's my impression anyway. We were basically told that we wouldn't pass university science unless we accepted that it was the truth (well, a theory, but a true theory, sort of.....)
you missed the implication of the statment

no one gets anywhere in science by kissing ass

sure there are ass kissers in science. the tobacco companies hire lots of them. but they dont get anywhere IN SCIENCE. no one cites their papers as proof of anything. no one admires them. they win no scientific prizes. they dont become leaders of their fields.

scientists can get places in business, in certain church run colleges, in some nutcase conspiracy theory club, by kissing ass, but they get no where in science unless they do actual kick ass work.

if you could write a scientifically rigorous paper done with proper control groups and statistics that proved some key part of evolution to be wrong you would make a name for yourself. scientists would be all over your work trying to prove it wrong, duplicating your experiements, rerunning the equations. if they cant prove you wrong, they will be forced to incorporate your findings into the theory of evolution.

are you old enough to remember the cold-fusion-in-a-jar guys? they made a big splash with their work, other scientists were all over it. when it couldnt be duplicated, it was discarded. but they were not ignored. they were just shown to be wrong.

you missed the implication of the statment

no one gets anywhere in science by kissing ass

sure there are ass kissers in science. the tobacco companies hire lots of them. but they dont get anywhere IN SCIENCE. no one cites their papers as proof of anything. no one admires them. they win no scientific prizes. they dont become leaders of their fields.

scientists can get places in business, in certain church run colleges, in some nutcase conspiracy theory club, by kissing ass, but they get no where in science unless they do actual kick ass work.

if you could write a scientifically rigorous paper done with proper control groups and statistics that proved some key part of evolution to be wrong you would make a name for yourself. scientists would be all over your work trying to prove it wrong, duplicating your experiements, rerunning the equations. if they cant prove you wrong, they will be forced to incorporate your findings into the theory of evolution.

are you old enough to remember the cold-fusion-in-a-jar guys? they made a big splash with their work, other scientists were all over it. when it couldnt be duplicated, it was discarded. but they were not ignored. they were just shown to be wrong.

But then there are the scientist that are promoting something that cannot be currently found wrong, and regarding evolution, when it makes exciting news, and when it cannot be falsified (like a fossil that looks like a missing link), then you have some serious deviations from your idea of but-kissing free science.

His point is that in the context of the claims of Christianity, fantastic claims to the Truth, that Jesus is the Lamb of God given to take away the sins of the world, the one hope of mankind, the only way to God. When you place those claims next to the claims about his death and resurrection, his claims to be God, and to forgive sin, then you have an either or scenario. If one part of the story is false, then it is all false, since you cannot have Jesus claiming to be God, and then not being able to forgive sin.

Demonstrate that one part is false, and the whole thing might turn out to be an invention. And what could be more evil than falseness that presents itself as God? What could do more damage, raise more false hopes, be ultimately more disappointing, than the claim that Jesus makes that we know God if we know him? If Jesus is a fake, then he or his followers (or whoever invented it) has succeeded in misleading more people than any other in history.

When you put together the fact that the claims about Jesus are so fantastic, and the fact that it was either an invention or the truth, then you have such a McDowell scenario.

What you seem to be saying is that McDowell's dichotomy only makes sense if the Bible can be accepted as being accurate. (I thought McDowell addressed that point in one of his books.) If the Bible was not accurate, then of course that raises several other options, one being that it was not Jesus who was either liar, lunatic, or lord, but that whoever wrote the accounts were either liars or lunatics. Still a dichotomy, it seems.
isnt that a rather dangerous position to take since many parts of the new testament are demonstrably false and many others are inconsistant from one gospel to the other?

But then there are the scientist that are promoting something that cannot be currently found wrong, and regarding evolution, when it makes exciting news, and when it cannot be falsified (like a fossil that looks like a missing link), then you have some serious deviations from your idea of but-kissing free science.
and you dont think that there is ANYONE out there hoping to show that that new fish thing that was just found is NOT the missing link?

But then there are the scientist that are promoting something that cannot be currently found wrong, and regarding evolution, when it makes exciting news, and when it cannot be falsified (like a fossil that looks like a missing link), then you have some serious deviations from your idea of but-kissing free science.Oh, but it can be falsified. All you need to do is find a rabbit the age of a diplocaulus.

and you dont think that there is ANYONE out there hoping to show that that new fish thing that was just found is NOT the missing link?

But just how do you suggest they do that? Extract some DNA from a fossil?

isnt that a rather dangerous position to take since many parts of the new testament are demonstrably false and many others are inconsistant from one gospel to the other?

Dangerous? Perhaps, but it seems any position on the claims of Jesus is dangerous.

I haven't heard about any parts that are demonstrably false. I have heard about inconsistencies, but I have heard some explanations for these, some of which do not require any falsehood.

Oh, but it can be falsified. All you need to do is find a rabbit the age of a diplocaulus.

(Sniggers)

Lack of evidence to the contrary isn't necessarily evidence to support a cause. I'm with the guy who said it's damn hard to believe his diciples, who also thought he was the son of God. Seems like a good reason to fudge the facts a bit on their side to make him look better. If this happened in this world today, what would happen? Almost everyone would think that Jesus and those deciples were a buncha nuts and liars. It's common sence. Just because it happened so damn long ago, and its so widely believed, doesn't mean that its correct. It just means that it COULD be correct, but more probably, its mass dillusion of our population. I never could quite grasp how so many people could be so wrong. That's not necessarily pointing the fingers at Christians as a whole, but also at followers of the other major religions... they all believe they're right, so whatever way the dice rolls, a shitload of people still wrong. How the hell do you know who's right, if anybody?

Nobody does. Thing is, weather your a Christian, Muslum, Jew, scientist, whatever... fact is your probably wrong, so get over it. Your religion sucks (whatever it may be).

Dangerous? Perhaps, but it seems any position on the claims of Jesus is dangerous.

I haven't heard about any parts that are demonstrably false. I have heard about inconsistencies, but I have heard some explanations for these, some of which do not require any falsehood.
im not talking about the ressurrection. that is more a problem of conflicting accounts that means that SOMEONE has to be wrong. *I* dont have a problem with the details being inconsistant but if it has to be totally true or the whole "house of cards" comes tumbling down, you have a problem since that is impossible

im referring to the other end of jesus' life which is an utter and complete fabrication. there was no census, no magi, no star, no slaugher of innocents, none of the associated verifiable details of the story are true. its not unexpected that no one would keep a record of a birth in a stable in bethlehem but a new star in the sky would be noticed and recorded by everyone.

His point is that in the context of the claims of Christianity, fantastic claims to the Truth, that Jesus is the Lamb of God given to take away the sins of the world, the one hope of mankind, the only way to God. When you place those claims next to the claims about his death and resurrection, his claims to be God, and to forgive sin, then you have an either or scenario. If one part of the story is false, then it is all false, since you cannot have Jesus claiming to be God, and then not being able to forgive sin.


On the contrary... the last part you mention is actually evidence that Jesus was NOT god, IF you buy into all that Christian 'blood-washed;vicarious substitution' malarky.

According to common Christian theology - the sacrifices of the Jews could never 'forgive' sin... they could only... postpone it, or appease the vengeance it deserved.

The reason for the NECESSITY for this 'appeasement' is to do with God 'not being able to tolerate' sin.

Those two things assumed, the idea that Jesus could stand to be even NEAR people is preposterous, IF he was 'god'.

Also - the idea that he could forgive sins BEFORE his crucifixion... or even be a conduit TO forgiveness... is similarly preposterous... because the argument is used that the blood at calvary was needed... a vicarious substitution.

Thus - Christian theology fails TWICE on the sin front, IF you accept Jesus as 'god'.

(Not to mention, of course, the fact that Jesus was a good Jewish boy, by all accounts... so would know full well that claiming to be 'god' would be in direct contravention of the earlier 'word of god'.)

McDowell definately seems to be going for the "God of the Gaps" kind of argument here; borrowing a lot from C.S. Lewis in that respect. By saying that "The other things can't possibly have happened, so this one must have", the author is leaving himself wide open to other suggestions, not all of which he can refute. And unless he can refute them all, his point is negated. By the very same abuse of ye olde Occam's Razor, I should be out on the streets preaching the gospel of the Hellenistic Conspiracy.

The point I want to make here is that in cases such as this, the "eliminate the impossible and whatever's left must be correct" style of Holmes-esque analysis doesn't work, primarily because our idea of what is and is not impossible falls to pieces on matters of spirituality. People are willing to believe that since God is, there is very little that is impossible; except that which God doesn't cause. Others do not because they, quite rightly, claim that it is a logical contradiction in causality. And the refutation to that is typically that contradictions are okay through omnipotency.

If the Natural order of things is really disruptable by an omnipotent power then reason will lead us nowhere. If you stick to a process of logical deduction, you will discount that power as a possibility. It's a double edged sword; either way, reason is not a tool to be used in favour of the irrational.

[x] Awful tripe :rolleyes:
[x] No resurrection happened

I'd even say that the *reliable* evidence that Jesus (just as he is described in the bible) existed in the first place is very poor, much less any evidence for a resurrection :rolleyes:

His point is that in the context of the claims of Christianity, fantastic claims to the Truth, that Jesus is the Lamb of God given to take away the sins of the world, the one hope of mankind, the only way to God. When you place those claims next to the claims about his death and resurrection, his claims to be God, and to forgive sin, then you have an either or scenario. If one part of the story is false, then it is all false, since you cannot have Jesus claiming to be God, and then not being able to forgive sin.

To begin, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually claim to be God. There are many verses that have been interpreted by Christians since the Bianity and Trinity doctrines to infer that, however, this is not how first-century Christians viewed this, nor is it how many Christians view it today.

You're right that if one part of the story is false, its all false.

Demonstrate that one part is false, and the whole thing might turn out to be an invention. And what could be more evil than falseness that presents itself as God? What could do more damage, raise more false hopes, be ultimately more disappointing, than the claim that Jesus makes that we know God if we know him? If Jesus is a fake, then he or his followers (or whoever invented it) has succeeded in misleading more people than any other in history.

I think I did a pretty good job of demonstrating that at least one part is false in my analysis, or over in the pagan origins of Christianity thread. Are we ready to leave Christianity now?

Furthermore, that it could be "evil" in itself is not what McDowell said. He stated that it was a big evil conspiracy. That was where the false dichotomy came into play, and I demonstrated that when I listed alternatives.

When you put together the fact that the claims about Jesus are so fantastic, and the fact that it was either an invention or the truth, then you have such a McDowell scenario.

What you seem to be saying is that McDowell's dichotomy only makes sense if the Bible can be accepted as being accurate. (I thought McDowell addressed that point in one of his books.) If the Bible was not accurate, then of course that raises several other options, one being that it was not Jesus who was either liar, lunatic, or lord, but that whoever wrote the accounts were either liars or lunatics. Still a dichotomy, it seems.

McDowell's scenario still involved false dichotomies - he presented this or that situations when there were third options available. In fact, "liar, lunatic, or lord" is an example of a variation of this false dichotomy (trichotomy perhaps) that I was thinking of when I read through this article. There are other options aside from those three. Now, if you start with assuming that the Gospels are totally accurate (as McDowell did) then there is no reason to even set up a dichotomy. They already say, according to his interpretation, that Jesus is "Lord." Why would he go so far as to assume that the Gospels are accurate in some parts, yet leave the possibility that they are inaccurate in others to open slots for these arbitrary possibilites he has chosen? He seems to just be setting up false opposition (the lunatic or liar slots) so that he can try to defeat them, while ignoring the real opposition.

McDowell is afraid to address the possibility that the Gospels are untrue in any way. He wouldn't address that they are historically accurate, or that they are based off of pagan mythology. The closest attempt he made to this was to cite how old they are. From this, still with the assumption that Jesus was real because the Gospels said so, he argued that they were "close to the source." The second part consisted of his misunderstanding of first-century life literature, where he claimed that people would have imposed some prehistoric peer-review upon these people for writing false things. He failed to even mention that historians and writers during that time period made up crazy myths about famous people, and no one ever seemed to care or call them on it. Like I mentioned above, we even see this from relatively reputable sources like Josephus and Tacitus.

I haven't heard about any parts that are demonstrably false. I have heard about inconsistencies, but I have heard some explanations for these, some of which do not require any falsehood.

The contradictions in Jesus' genaeology, and the fact that the genaeologies don't match the genaeologies of the persons actually given in the Tanach (OT), are pretty irrefutable falsehoods. They are logically false, because they violate the law of non-contradiction. Either one is true (one gospel to the next, or gospels to the Tanach), but they can't all be true. One must be false, logically.

Every time one Gospel presents a logically inconsistent or contradictory situation with the next Gospel, there is a whole world of logical falsity.

But then there are the scientist that are promoting something that cannot be currently found wrong, and regarding evolution, when it makes exciting news, and when it cannot be falsified (like a fossil that looks like a missing link), then you have some serious deviations from your idea of but-kissing free science.

Actually evolution is verified in falsifable situations on a daily basis. In the lab, with a control, etc. We have quite a few observed instances of evolution.

So, are you one that rejects evolution too?

Yes. the christian zombie witch-doctors keep bringing him back.

Not at all - the geneology that runs through Jeconiah centres on David... but disallows Jesus from ever sitting on the Throne of David.

The OTHER geneology skips Jeconiah (although, somehow, includes his children?)... but skips David... following the Nathan branch instead.

Either Jesus IS David's heir (in which case, he is cursed never to sit on the throne), or he is Nathan's heir (and thus, fails to be a branch of David).

It's irreconcilable... and that's far from the only reason why Jesus is NOT 'messiah'.

I'm confused, doesn't Luke list Nathan as the son of David?

'30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,'

I'm not disputing what you say, just trying to clarify it.

I'm confused, doesn't Luke list Nathan as the son of David?

'30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,'

I'm not disputing what you say, just trying to clarify it.

Sorry - I've jumped over something.

You ARE right, of course... Nathan IS David's son, but there are other verses that point us to Solomon, as the 'legitimate' heir, rather than Nathan:

First - perhaps MOST importantly:

Second Samuel 7:12-3 "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever".

In case there was confusion about WHICH of David's 'seed' this "kingdom for ever" referred to, First Kings gives us the answer:

First Kings 1:30 "Even as I sware unto thee by the LORD God of Israel, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day"

First Kings 1:34-5 "And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah".

In effect, David's lineage on the throne, becomes dependent on the line of Solomon.

Thus - following the line of Nathan (as Luke's 'lineage' does) is quite different to being David's heir.... one can ONLY be the 'heir' (to the throne) of David, through Solomon.

Thanks for pointing it out - I didn't realise I was confusing the issue till I looked back over it.

Sorry - I've jumped over something.

You ARE right, of course... Nathan IS David's son, but there are other verses that point us to Solomon, as the 'legitimate' heir, rather than Nathan:

First - perhaps MOST importantly:

Second Samuel 7:12-3 "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever".

In case there was confusion about WHICH of David's 'seed' this "kingdom for ever" referred to, First Kings gives us the answer:

First Kings 1:30 "Even as I sware unto thee by the LORD God of Israel, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day"

First Kings 1:34-5 "And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah".

In effect, David's lineage on the throne, becomes dependent on the line of Solomon.

Thus - following the line of Nathan (as Luke's 'lineage' does) is quite different to being David's heir.... one can ONLY be the 'heir' (to the throne) of David, through Solomon.

Thanks for pointing it out - I didn't realise I was confusing the issue till I looked back over it.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm amazed that this isn't more widely known, it seems to be the ultimate counter-argument to Christianity. I'm saving the references on my computer for future reference. :)

NANANANANANANANANANA JESUS
NANANANANANANANANANANAIS
NANANANANNANANANANANANANANAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE

Jesus is fake!
The world is absurd!
religion is for toddlers!
GROW UP PEOPLE! :upyours:

NANANANANANANANANANA JESUS
NANANANANANANANANANANAIS
NANANANANNANANANANANANANANAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE

Jesus is fake!
The world is absurd!
religion is for toddlers!
GROW UP PEOPLE! :upyours:
Rewind a bit. There's some pretty awesome arguments here, and not everyone deserves to be ridiculed.
:(

NANANANANANANANANANA JESUS
NANANANANANANANANANANAIS
NANANANANNANANANANANANANANAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE

Jesus is fake!
The world is absurd!
religion is for toddlers!
GROW UP PEOPLE! :upyours:

So, has he convinced anyone yet? Are you all ready to leave Christianity after reading this? :p

So, has he convinced anyone yet? Are you all ready to leave Christianity after reading this? :p
If i'd ever been party to it in the first place ... :rolleyes:
I should've accessed this earlier, as a local talk-show host, even after i've pointed out a few of his fallacious stances, still implies everyone should take on the Easter bonnet this weekend since he "maintains" that the United States is "a christian nation". I was in the car, sans phone and teletypie, and to my chagrin, let him go on again with his BS unhindered. :(

NANANANANANANANANANA JESUS
NANANANANANANANANANANAIS
NANANANANNANANANANANANANANAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE

Jesus is fake!
The world is absurd!
religion is for toddlers!
GROW UP PEOPLE! :upyours:
You're fake too. You're just an imagination; a concept with no physical grounding. Why should I pay attention to the Quamarian concept - a nothing whose ideas can't spread beyond slight annoyance among theists and non-theists alike - when the Christian concept has irritated the hell out of everyone, dominating memetic influence for thousands of years?

You're fake too. You're just an imagination; a concept with no physical grounding. Why should I pay attention to the Quamarian concept - a nothing whose ideas can't spread beyond slight annoyance among theists and non-theists alike - when the Christian concept has irritated the hell out of everyone, dominating memetic influence for thousands of years?

Because you would be choosing the lesser of two evils ?

Because you would be choosing the lesser of two evils ?
The lesser of two evils always becomes greater when it is supported. But that's an aside.

The concept of Christianity here is one that thrives, having been built up and developed over time, and is therefore something to either side with, combat or tolerate. The concept of this kind of self-important pseudo-Atheist (most actual atheists are reasonable, well spoken individuals, whereas this guy seems simply an anti-christian with an axe to grind) is flat, without substance and powerless, thrown together in a purely reactionary manner, and can be ignored without second thought.

That's not necessarily the case with other, more developed ideas, of course. But I, and many (if not all) others, would be more receptive to a well-attempted argument in favour of something I disagree with than an abusive and slapdash agreement with what I say. The idea that gains the most recognition in one's mind is the idea that is best developed. And in this respect, the Quamarian concept is barely a glance. In the battle of memes, Christianity will always win out in this face-off.

http://ffrf.org/timely/debates/barker_horner.php