Community > Posts By > Nubby

 
Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 11:18 PM
I said I would post more quotes. Feel free to post yours.


"The strident atheists of our time like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are writing ruthless articles against any transcendent worldview, mocking and deriding belief in God. Let them look at the face of Cho and his video clips and see the end game in sight if their worldview is true: Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA. But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame. We have names, we long for purpose, we see evil, we cry out for justice, we wrestle against the silence of death, we define ourselves by relationships. Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound."

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 11:15 PM




Its by Steve Turner, I Knew it would get a reaction.


I pretty much think that is your ultimate goal, Nubby, Reaction!
I will chalk it up to your youth. You seem to need to find anyone, even remotely intellectual to back your view of your god, from poets to scientists, anyone will do, as long as they buy your version. That is suppose to convince us that your right. It just convinces me that you are desperate to be right.

Proves nothing but it must be fun for you because you are still at it.


Ok


Ok? Wow, that was way to easy Nubby.. :wink:



I am not gonna fight, I am here to learn and get what I know out.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 10:51 PM
"The observations of C.S. Lewis are worlds apart from Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins. In his book River Out of Eden, Dawkins explains, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” In an interview with Skeptic magazine, Dawkins was asked if his view of the world was not similar to that of Shakespeare’s Macbeth: namely, life is but “A tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

“Yes,” Dawkins replied, “at a sort of cosmic level, it is. But what I want to guard against is people therefore getting nihilistic in their personal lives. I don’t see any reason for that at all. You can have a very happy and fulfilled personal life even if you think that the universe at large is a tale told by an idiot.”""

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 10:41 PM
Krimsa, I cant prove Hitler was a follower of Nietzsche with out a doubt, but I thought I would lay this out there.




"However, the ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler has been made by various scholars. J. P. Stern, Professor of German at the University of London, who co-authored a book on Nietzsche,[9] points out that Mussolini, who read Nietzsche extensively, received a copy of Nietzsche’s Collected Works as a present from the Führer on the Brenner Pass in 1938.[10] Another point worth noting is that, according to historian William Shirer, "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."[11]

Historian Paul Johnson writes of the ideological connection between Nietzsche and Hitler:

Adolf Hitler . . . was a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. . . . Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled Lenin’s. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended ‘to stamp out Christianity root and branch.’ ‘One is either a Christian or a German -- you cannot be both,’ he added. . . . He said, ‘I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth. . . . The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes. . . .’[12]

The death of God movement helped support and add fuel to the fire of Nazism -- even if not on the matter of anti-Semitism and German nationalism. Thus Krueger’s statement regarding anti-Semitism still doesn’t refute the point that Nietzsche’s public ideas on the death-of-God ideology and its implications had a noteworthy influence on people like Hitler or Mussolini.

Krueger goes on to assert that Hitler was a theist: "In many of his speeches, Hitler asserted that he was acting in accordance with god’s will." But this type of political pandering is certainly not unusual. One can probably safely say that many politicians have glibly invoked the name of God to gain broader support from religious constituents. Hitler was no theist. We saw above that he despised Christianity. He also despised Judaism. Hitler reportedly claimed that conscience was a Jewish invention and had to be abolished.[13] That’s Christianity and Judaism down -- we’re quickly running out of theistic options.

Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis:

They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong [echoes of Nietzsche here?] would be established, because strong equalled good, powerful equalled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies."

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 10:28 PM
"Prehistory to 1850 B.C.E. -- Borrowed [by Genesis] from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world. This is the standard line, but the consensus outside of Bidstrup's limited circle of agreeable writers is that the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis represent parallel developments from a common core -- not that one borrowed from another. See here."

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 10:19 PM
Edited by Nubby on Sun 02/01/09 10:20 PM

Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic, there is no room for good moral teacher.


This is a falsehood that is perpetuated by truly ignorant Christian Evangelists.

There is plenty of room for Jesus to have been a good moral teacher who denounced the ways of the Old Testament.

The falsehood in your statement stems from being unable to think outside of the box.

If Jesus was indeed God, and the Bible was indeed the inspired word of God then clearly the gospels could be trusted to be true.

However, the moment we consided that Jesus was just a mortal man then the truth of the gospels flies right out the window!

First off, for Jesus to have claimed to be God would be perfectly natural for a pantheist. This is what Pantheism teaches so if Jesus was a pantheist then he would naturally believe that he and God are one in the same.

According to the Bible Jesus also taught that we too are Gods. In fact, he even dreged that up from the Old Testamant so that he could give it some clout.

In any case, you've got it all wrong.

You keep saying, "Jesus said this, and Jesus said that".

But according to the Bible Jesus never said anything directly. All we have in the Bible is hearsay from people who were trying to convince us that Jesus was God.

So why should we believe that they wouldn't twist his words to fit their agenda? huh

Nope!

There is plenty of room for Jesus to have been a mortal teacher who was used as a dead marionette doll after he was crucified for saying things that did NOT support the Old Testament!

So it's quite possible to believe that Jesus was a perfectly sane moral teacher who was abused after his death by having words shoved in to his mouth that never came out of his mouth.

In fact, there are actually quite a few people who believe that Jesus never even existed at all.

The bottom line is that there is not one word from Jesus in the Bible. Not a single solitary word written by Jesus.

Your claim that either Jesus was telling the truth or he was a raving lunatic is based on the totally erroneous idea that the scriptures are a verbatim account of precisely what the man said in any case.

But if Jesus wasn't God, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that the gospels are a valid verbatim account of what he might have actually said.

C. S. Lewis takes the same stance that you hold here (in fact, you probably got this idea from him, or from the Chrisitian community as a whole).

But it's false logic because that whole conclusion is based on the idea that the gospels are the "word of God" no matter what! laugh

But therein lies the folly!

If Jesus wasn't God, then why should anyone trust the gospels to be a verbatim account of what Jesus actually stood for? huh

Clearly it's filled with demagoguery.

You've been blinded by the presumption that the Bible is the verbatim truth no matter what!

But there's no reason to believe that it's the verbatim truth if it is a false religion!

I believe that it's a false religion.

It was clearly created by men to control the masses and make them feel guilty to obey and worship the authority of the Church!

The men who wrote the Bible used Jesus!

Jesus was a victim!

It's clear that he was not the son of the God of Abraham. He totally disagreed with the ways of the Old Testament.

Jesus was used and now Christians are worshiping the men who absused Jesus.

I'll never understand why people think that God would be affilated with such an obviously hateful and bigoted religion.

There is nothing good about that religion.




"This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,

Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."




The conclusion is based on the 4 facts.


Jesus thoutht he was God.
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."


Do you know who said this.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed."

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 08:41 PM
Edited by Nubby on Sun 02/01/09 08:47 PM

Inductive evidence is questionable.

First of all the NEW testimate was written by the Catholic Church and rewritten several times over the course of the years. It is reasonable to assume by preponderance of the writings to believe a MAN named Jesus of Nazareth did indeed live and die. The Scripture according to Judas paints a different and wholly unaccepted picture of Jesus that is unflattering to the views of Modern Christians. the idea of Jesus being sexually involved with a prostitute drives them insane because it makes out Jesus to not be pure when his love for her as described by Judas was pure love.

Pure savior vs. a man who tried to embody pure love? Which version won out?

A lot of the bible was written in metaphor let like any fundamentalist people want things simple and to the point and they take the bible literally. So much emphasis has been placed on the bible that it has become a dogmatized mess.

Just in this one question I have eaten a lot of Christian's,
Do you believe in ten commandments or two?
Jesus their savior gave them two commandments and yet they can't seem to understand that those two commandments carry all of the weight of the ten. Jesus himself said that we are all children of God.

Ultimately the point is not whether Jesus existed or whether he was some Deity or not. The point is Jesus tried to teach love and what has been done with that teaching. If anything Jesus Christ is one of the worst monsters in history based on the MILLIONS of people who died in his name!

I seriously doubt Jesus is going to come back and if he does you can bet I am going to challenge his claims very hard. Also remember Jesus said beware of false Shepherds.
I doubt if Jesus was a man of good conscious he would appreciate people trying to justify his existence more than trying to live the life of love and respect for others. He wanted to teach though example but the church chose subjugation and ignorance.

I think a lot more will open to you when you look past Jesus and see what he was trying to teach rather than to put your faith in him. The point he was trying to make was we need to have faith in ourselves. Not a savior figure.



The Catholic church did not write the Bible.

Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic, there is no room for good moral teacher. He claimed to be God. If you dont believe Christ was who he claimed to be, liar and lunatic are your only two option.

"Each of the Gospels narrates the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The traditional author is listed after each entry. Modern scholarship differs on precisely by whom, when, or in what original form the various gospels were written.
The Gospel of Matthew, traditionally ascribed to the Apostle Matthew, son of Alphaeus.
The Gospel of Mark, traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist, who wrote down the recollections of the Apostle Simon Peter.
The Gospel of Luke, traditionally ascribed to Luke, a physician and companion of the Apostle Paul.
The Gospel of John, traditionally ascribed to the Apostle John, son of Zebedee
The first three are commonly classified as the Synoptic Gospels. They contain very similar accounts of events in Jesus' life. The Gospel of John stands apart for its unique records of several miracles and sayings of Jesus, not found in the other three."
------------------------------------------------


"The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he's pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century--four centuries after they were written.[3] Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.[4] Thucydides' History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus' History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer's Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.[5]

Bruce's comments put the discussion in perspective: "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals."[6]

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.


The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)![7]

Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.[8]

Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,[9] is dated c. 340.[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[13]

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.

Keep in mind that most of the papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity."

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 08:11 PM
I just want to get this information out there, just to see what people think.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 08:09 PM

I wanted to move this to this thread because I was getting questions on it.








"The resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me that there are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."{15}

Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."{17}

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{18}

Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for--apart from the resurrection itself.{19}

Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament scholarship today. The question is: how do you best explain these facts?"




"Now this puts the sceptical critic in a somewhat desperate situation. For example, some time ago I had a debate with a professor at the University of California, Irvine, on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He had written his doctoral dissertation on the subject and was thoroughly familiar with the evidence. He could not deny the facts of Jesus’s honorable burial, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. Therefore, his only recourse was to come up with some alternative explanation of these facts. And so he argued that Jesus had an unknown identical twin brother who was separated from him at birth, came back to Jerusalem just at the time of the crucifixion, stole Jesus’s body out of the grave, and presented himself to the disciples, who mistakenly inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead! Now I won’t go into how I went about refuting his theory, but I think that this theory is instructive because it shows to what desperate lengths skepticism must go in order to deny the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the evidence is so powerful that one of today’s leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapide has declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead!"

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 08:04 PM
Edited by Nubby on Sun 02/01/09 08:05 PM
I wanted to move this to this thread because I was getting questions on it.








"The resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me that there are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."{15}

Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16} As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."{17}

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{18}

Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for--apart from the resurrection itself.{19}

Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament scholarship today. The question is: how do you best explain these facts?"

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 08:00 PM







I will not quote the cut and paste here but historical validity of the bible is questionable at best.

Just like old folk stories, which the bible actually is, there is always a remnant of some place or event that may have actually happened in the story line but it does not make the folk tale historically valid at any point.

Faith is just that believing blindly in something someone told you is truth without any proof of any kind.

Science is the process of verifying facts to correspond with other facts and then draw a conclusion.

No similarity there at all other than they both will be written by man


How is the historical validity of the bible questionable?
What folklore are you referring to?
Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were.


Oh but it is a large leap of faith if you do not believe that the bible is true, right? Just like all scientific theories, it has to be true on more than one plane of facts in order to be considered a fact or true so where else does the bible ring true? Is Jesus part of history in any other town histories? How about birth records and such? Are any of these so called prophets documented anywhere? If not then they are part of folk lore. Folk lore like I said before usually has a smidgeon of something real in it be it a real location or maybe a real person but the rest of the story is someone's imagination, in the case of the bible it is many people's imagination, the original writers of the individual stories, the people who edited these stories to fit what they wanted them to say and the people in power who chose what actually made it into the bible and what was not of the "right" mindset to be included.

If you take the TAUGHT reverence out of your thought process and read the bible as a story book, like it should have been done, then you can see the parables and lessons of the writers but you can also see the lack of fact.








This comes from a debate btw. William Land Craig and Bart Erhman. Craig argues for the affirmative position. Take the time to read. This is why I treat the ressurection as highly probable.







Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.

Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.

We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been
collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial
account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a
very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator
Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an
extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’
crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind
Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter.
Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some
of which are extraordinarily early.

2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely
to be a Christian invention.

There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian
eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament
scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost
inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is
right by Jesus.

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph
of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the
burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.”

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of
his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to
the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent
sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles
(2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4).
Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the
Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a
Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the
discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male
disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than
men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the
chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for
them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.
I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an
Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the
biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.”


Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and
groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such
appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples
known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger
brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles.
Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the
early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his
personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere
legends.

2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the
appearances.

For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve
is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and
John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be
reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical
German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically
certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to
them as the risen Christ.”


Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen
from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead.

And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over
Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and
immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised
Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious
question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish
thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of
powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest
Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty
tomb behind him."








(II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no
better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the
best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth.
Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection
have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the
Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however,
none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts.
Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts.

So why, we may ask, does Dr. Ehrman not accept the resurrection as the best explanation? The
answer is simple: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr. Ehrman denies the possibility of
establishing a miracle. He writes, “Because historians can only establish what probably
happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably
occurred.”9 This argument against the identification of a miracle is an old one, already refuted in
the 18th century by such eminent scholars as William Paley and George Campbell, and is
rejected as fallacious by most contemporary philosophers as well. Now I’ve promised to say
more about this later; but for now, let me simply say that in the absence of some naturalistic
explanation of the facts, Dr. Ehrman’s hesitancy about embracing the resurrection of Jesus as the
best explanation is really quite unnecessary. Dr. Ehrman would be quite within his rational
rights to embrace a miraculous explanation like the resurrection—and so would we.









that is so far from any kind of fact it's crazy.
These are NOT facts, period.
There are 0 facts to support a resurrection.
in fact the eveidence shows it not happening.


The first recorded appearance story (in terms of when it was written, not when it was supposed to have happened) is of the appearance to Paul, and it is clearly a vision. In one account, he does not see Jesus, only a flash of light (9.3-5), and those with him do not see Jesus, but only hear him (Acts 9.7).


Paul could have been speaking in another voice, which the others took as Jesus (or which the author of Acts portrays them as taking to be Jesus, since we don't have their account of it, after all).

But the fact that no one, not even Paul, saw Jesus in the flesh makes the point well enough. Most importantly, Paul never says in his letters that he ever saw Jesus in the flesh (he even denies it in Galatians 1). Moreover, this particular encounter in Acts has all the earmarks of something like a seizure-induced hallucination: Paul alone sees a flash of light, collapses, hears voices, and goes blind for a short period.


An embolism is sufficient to cause or explain all of this. We can add to this the fact that the earliest manuscripts of the earliest gospel, Mark, do not describe any appearances of Jesus.


Paul gives other accounts of his vision which claim that others saw it, too. Doesn't this suggest a genuine vision from God?


First of all, there is still never any mention of Jesus appearing in the flesh. Rather, all that appears is a light from heaven (phôs ek tou ouranou, 9.3; ek tou ouranou...phôs, 22.6; ouranothen...phôs, 26.13).


So even if several saw the light, it can still have a natural explanation, from lightning to a reflection from a distant object, or even a simple ray of sunlight peaking through a cloud, any of which could also have induced a seizure or affected Paul emotionally, causing an hallucination (or inspiration).

And since we don't have the story from any of these other observers, the story could be embellished or fabricated at leisure, for whatever reason.


In my opinion, Paul may have seen in Christianity a way to save the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Romans by displacing their messianic motives to rebel, and creating a new Judaism more agreeable to the Gentiles, open to all and thus uniting rather than dividing, and more submissive to outside authority by internalizing and spiritualizing religious faith, eliminating messianic (and violent) emphasis on the Temple, and postponing material and social complaints by referring them to an afterlife.


This could have been a deliberate or a subconscious motivator for Paul and others leading the movement. In Paul's case, guilt at what he had done to good people, and admiration for their moral program and fortitude, may have also played an emotional role.




I happen to be one who is fairly well read on this subject. I will refute all that in one swoop.



"Paul's letter to the Corinthians is dated by Christians and skeptics alike at around AD 54 or 58, but Paul must have received the creed before he could have recorded it in his letter. In fact, Paul tells us that he gave this Gospel to them earlier. Christians and skeptics alike agree Paul visited Corinthians and gave them the Gospel orally about AD 51.
Paul tells us that about 3 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem and saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19). It's likely that Paul received the creed while in Jerusalem. If Christ was crucified in AD 30, then Paul would have been converted a short while later (perhaps 33-35, though more likely as early as 31 and no later than 33), placing his tript o Jerusalem around 36-38. Obviously Paul would have spoken with the two apostles about the Gospel, an assumption which is strengthened by the specific mention of meeting with Peter, James and the Gospel 14 years after his first journey (Galatians 2). So Paul likely received the creed no later than AD 38 directly from the apostles.
It's possible that Paul receied the creed even earlier, perhaps while in Damascus 3 years earlier than his trip to Jerusalem. However, as mentioned above, the creed contains a number of items which indicate Semitic origin, making Jerusalem a more likely location."

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

This creed dates earlier than Mark. And they are facts.




We need to move this to a new thread.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 07:56 PM
"1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability."

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 06:55 PM

You know Nubby I think you would enjoy a book by the physicist Paul Davies Called "Cosmic Jackpot"

He is such a physicist who might be up your ally. No disregard for the man, he is brilliant. Not sure I agree with him, but I read his book 4 times.



Thanks Billy.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 06:44 PM


Its by Steve Turner, I Knew it would get a reaction.


I pretty much think that is your ultimate goal, Nubby, Reaction!
I will chalk it up to your youth. You seem to need to find anyone, even remotely intellectual to back your view of your god, from poets to scientists, anyone will do, as long as they buy your version. That is suppose to convince us that your right. It just convinces me that you are desperate to be right.

Proves nothing but it must be fun for you because you are still at it.


Ok

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 05:24 PM
I am posting this for fun, I find it incredible


"I remember my professor of quantum physics at Cambridge University, Dr. John Polkinghorne, talking to us one day. (And his book, One World, is a marvelous exposition of his fascination with the created order.) He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, if you were to analyze just one contingency in the early picoseconds of the universe”—a picosecond is how long it takes the speed of something moving at the speed of light to traverse the breadth of a single strain of hair—he said, “If you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be?” He said, “It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.” And then he looked at us with typical English anticlimax and said, “Gentlemen, there’s no free lunch. Somebody has to pay.”

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 05:22 PM



Science is about what can be known, as soon as something is determinable it is within the realm of science until then it is not.

Religion could never be apart of science unless supposed gods could be understood by science.

Your two assertions that some religious scientists admit that there are limits to science, and that science and religion can mix are contradictory statements.

Which is it, can science know god, or is science and the super natural exclusive non-overlapping magisteria?

You cannot have your cake and eat it.


I dont believe we will ever be able to prove Gods existence through science.
Well if your right then science and religion will never overlap.

Ben Stein does not agree. He thinks that intelligent design and bringing religion into the acceptance of science can bring about proof of god.




I could be wrong, I have watched the video, I think the intelligence Ben Stein is talking about is any intelligence.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 04:58 PM
I am gonna post some more Quote's.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 04:54 PM

Science is about what can be known, as soon as something is determinable it is within the realm of science until then it is not.

Religion could never be apart of science unless supposed gods could be understood by science.

Your two assertions that some religious scientists admit that there are limits to science, and that science and religion can mix are contradictory statements.

Which is it, can science know god, or is science and the super natural exclusive non-overlapping magisteria?

You cannot have your cake and eat it.


I dont believe we will ever be able to prove Gods existence through science.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 04:52 PM






I dont know but, but I cant prove they dont.
Does that mean you do not believe?


I am skeptical.

If you asked me Yes or NO, I would say no
So I must assume if there is little or no strong evidence for this idea that flying pink elephants exist that you will not believe it; is that the case?

Does it require faith to not accept this idea that flying pink elephants exist?


Yes, I take it on faith because I cannot prove it.


So if I make up something right now, you would have faith that it is not true?

So every piece of fiction requires faith to disregard as true?

So everything in your life is a positive belief? Your default stance is to accept something as true, until you gather the faith or knowledge to determine that this is false?



That is a good point.

Nubby's photo
Sun 02/01/09 04:10 PM




I dont know but, but I cant prove they dont.
Does that mean you do not believe?


I am skeptical.

If you asked me Yes or NO, I would say no
So I must assume if there is little or no strong evidence for this idea that flying pink elephants exist that you will not believe it; is that the case?

Does it require faith to not accept this idea that flying pink elephants exist?


Yes, I take it on faith because I cannot prove it.


1 2 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 24 25