Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on October 30, 2016, 01:08:26 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article about the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem.
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/jesuss-tomb-opened-for-first-time-in-centuries-1586598?pfrom=home-lateststories
*********
Preservation experts have opened for the first time in at least two centuries what Christians believe is Jesus's tomb inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
Some of the historic work was witnessed by AFP photographer Gali Tibbon who captured images of the site believed to contain the rock upon which Jesus was laid in around 33 AD as it was uncovered as part of ongoing restoration at the site.
It was the first time the marble had been removed since at least 1810, when the last restoration work took place following a fire, and possibly earlier, said Father Samuel Aghoyan, the church's Armenian superior.
"My knees are shaking a little bit," Fred Hiebert, an archaeologist-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, said in a video on the magazine's website during the work at the shrine.
A shrine was built in the 19th century over the site of the cave where Jesus is believed to have been buried before his resurrection, and it is visited by throngs of tourists and pilgrims each day.
**********
For information.
Sriram
-
If I remember correctly, it was Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, who decided which tomb was THE tomb. Not sure what archeaological qualifications she had to make this decision. Not sure that there had been much interest in which empty tomb was the tomb used for his temporary resting place prior to that.
-
You say, "...where Jesus is believed to have buried before his resurrection", Sririam.
What Hope said.
If the remains of a body is found, we'll not it's not Jesus's :D.
As an aside, I'm not comfortable with excavating tombs or pyramids or the like. They are of archeological, and other, interest of course but there is something distasteful about digging up bodies or remains of them unless there is a sound reason, forensics or something of that ilk. When that is necessary, in this country, the police and forensic experts have to apply for special permission and it's done late or early, with no-one else around, out of respect. Yet archeologists can dig anyone up willy nilly because the dead have no relatives still alive to consult! Just my feelings.
-
If the tomb is that of Jesus and there is a body inside it, it is likely to be his. Not that there is any way of proving it as we don't have copies of his DNA!
-
You say, "...where Jesus is believed to have buried before his resurrection", Sririam.
What Hope said.
If the remains of a body is found, we'll not it's not Jesus's :D.
As an aside, I'm not comfortable with excavating tombs or pyramids or the like. They are of archeological, and other, interest of course but there is something distasteful about digging up bodies or remains of them unless there is a sound reason, forensics or something of that ilk. When that is necessary, in this country, the police and forensic experts have to apply for special permission and it's done late or early, with no-one else around, out of respect. Yet archeologists can dig anyone up willy nilly because the dead have no relatives still alive to consult! Just my feelings.
This is not really a tomb because Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven in his body. So...there is no body or remains there. It is just a rock on which the dead body of Jesus is believed to have been placed before his resurrection.
-
As Hope says...someone just decided 300 years after the fact that that particular rock was the one on which Jesus was placed. There is no way of proving that either.
-
Well the article calls it a tomb, for all we know it could be anyone's tomb, there may even be a family buried there.
If nothing is found, I can envisage groups of people paying a lot of money to go there to worship. A result for some.
-
I'm with Hope and Brownie on this, Sriram.... if any remains are found it cannot be Christ's tomb.
Brownie
I'm with you as well on your comment on digging up ancient burial grounds. I'm quite passionate about the opening of Tutankhamun's tomb and the constant observing of his mummy. Guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite as in 1973 I stood in a queue for four hours to view the Tut exhibition when it came to London. At the time, I was a youthful 20yr old crazy about all things Egyptian.... have since changed some of my views. Then there are the mummies that get tossed about in the Cairo museum. It's about respect for those that have passed and their ancestors. Prayers and rituals have been performed at the time of burial, we must, as I say, respect this and not be selfish in want of gratification.
-
If I remember correctly, it was Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, who decided which tomb was THE tomb. Not sure what archeaological qualifications she had to make this decision.
Maybe she was correct, maybe she was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Not sure that you can prove that she wasn't?
-
I'm with Hope and Brownie on this, Sriram.... if any remains are found it cannot be Christ's tomb.
Brownie
I'm with you as well on your comment on digging up ancient burial grounds. I'm quite passionate about the opening of Tutankhamun's tomb and the constant observing of his mummy. Guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite as in 1973 I stood in a queue for four hours to view the Tut exhibition when it came to London. At the time, I was a youthful 20yr old crazy about all things Egyptian.... have since changed some of my views. Then there are the mummies that get tossed about in the Cairo museum. It's about respect for those that have passed and their ancestors. Prayers and rituals have been performed at the time of burial, we must, as I say, respect this and not be selfish in want of gratification.
Hi SweetPea,
Its not a newly discovered tomb that they are opening for the first time. It has probably been opened many times before but the last time was in 1810 or so. They are taking up some repairs or something.
-
Up I Scotland there is a Loch Ness Monster visitor centre, lots of people visit that too. I went there myself once and was separated from an amount of money ::)
-
Well the article calls it a tomb, for all we know it could be anyone's tomb, there may even be a family buried there.
If nothing is found, I can envisage groups of people paying a lot of money to go there to worship. A result for some.
There is always someone ready to make a lot of money out of the gullibility of other people.
-
Up I Scotland there is a Loch Ness Monster visitor centre, lots of people visit that too. I went there myself once and was separated from an amount of money ::)
;D
SweetPea, you and I appear to agree on the issue of digging up the dead.
On this one, there is some headline-making fuss about a site that has been excavated in the past.
-
If the tomb is that of Jesus and there is a body inside it, it is likely to be his. Not that there is any way of proving it as we don't have copies of his DNA!
The problem is, Floo, that the tomb he was buried in was not created for him - it was Joseph of Arimethea's tomb. Since the real idea that distinguished Christians from Jews was the risen-ness of Christ, the tomb might well have been used for JofA or any of his family.
-
Once a person is dead it doesn't matter what happens to the body, imo. Apparently in the UK graves can be dug up after 70 years now, I believe.
-
Maybe she was correct, maybe she was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Not sure that you can prove that she wasn't?
I wasn't actually saying one thing or the other - just that it she who decided because it appears that the early church wasn't that bothered with finding the tomb. It was more interested in the fact of resurrection and therefore a living Saviour.
Quite what Helena's position in regard to Jesus was I don't think anyone knows - did she ever claim a conversion experience?
-
Up I Scotland there is a Loch Ness Monster visitor centre, lots of people visit that too. I went there myself once and was separated from an amount of money ::)
From what you said elsewhere, it seems that you can afford to be' separated from an amount of money'. If its gone into the local economy up there, it sounds as if you have done a good deed.
-
Once a person is dead it doesn't matter what happens to the body, imo. Apparently in the UK graves can be dug up after 70 years now, I believe.
In Greece and some other countries, one rents a plot for x years. After that time (or sooner, if you don't keep the rental payments up) the bones are dug up and placed in an ossuary - often the resting place of the bones of other family members.
-
The problem is, Floo, that the tomb he was buried in was not created for him - it was Joseph of Arimethea's tomb. Since the real idea that distinguished Christians from Jews was the risen-ness of Christ, the tomb might well have been used for JofA or any of his family.
As it isn't credible for anyone to resurrect if they are well and truly dead, I think one can take the resurrection of Jesus with a HUGE pinch of salt. I have asked this question so many times and never had a sensible answer, if he did resurrect why isn't he around today in person so we can all see him, not as a matter of faith?
-
From what you said elsewhere, it seems that you can afford to be' separated from an amount of money'. If its gone into the local economy up there, it sounds as if you have done a good deed.
Yes, that's the way I looked at it too, thank you.
-
As it isn't credible for anyone to resurrect if they are well and truly dead, I think one can take the resurrection of Jesus with a HUGE pinch of salt. I have asked this question so many times and never had a sensible answer, if he did resurrect why isn't he around today in person so we can all see him, not as a matter of faith?
Well said,Floo :)
-
Well said,Floo :)
Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later. This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.
-
Oh Hope, we have discussed that at length before and the subject is horrific enough to give many people nightmares.
Our belief in the resurrection of Jesus has nothing to do with people waking up on the mortuary slab - and I honestly wish I hadn't felt the need to say that, it's so frightening.
-
Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later. This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.
Rather simplistic there, Hope: don't confuse circumstances during which resuscitation is possible even in the absence of normal functioning (e.g. after cardiac arrest) for a limited interval with the certification of clinical death, where at that point those certified as clinically dead really do stay dead.
If you have documented examples of recovery after the certification of clinical death then the details would be of interest.
-
Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later. This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.
They obviously weren't really dead!
-
I have asked this question so many times and never had a sensible answer, if he did resurrect why isn't he around today in person so we can all see him, not as a matter of faith?
I'll let someone you know answer this! ;)
They obviously weren't really dead!
What difference would Jesus being around today in person so we can all see him make?
-
I wasn't actually saying one thing or the other - just that it she who decided because it appears that the early church wasn't that bothered with finding the tomb. It was more interested in the fact of resurrection and therefore a living Saviour.
Quite what Helena's position in regard to Jesus was I don't think anyone knows - did she ever claim a conversion experience?
Did she ever not claim a conversion experience?
-
I'll let someone you know answer this! ;)
What difference would Jesus being around today in person so we can all see him make?
Surely if he was some sort of god it would be obvious wouldn't it?
-
I think Hopes favourite word is 'debate'. As in 'I have something of value to say on the subject'
Ah well...
-
I'll let someone you know answer this! ;)
What difference would Jesus being around today in person so we can all see him make?
are you serious?
-
Surely if he was some sort of god it would be obvious wouldn't it?
But you have already indicated that you are not prepared to accept it, no matter how obvious it was. Your words again
They obviously weren't really dead!
So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.
-
But you have already indicated that you are not prepared to accept it, no matter how obvious it was. Your words again
So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.
if you went back in time you would find it never happened.!
-
if you went back in time you would find it never happened.!
Just like that heaven which jesus is supposed to have ascended into.]
-
if you went back in time you would find it never happened.!
Great Wassler....so you are a Jesus Myther............ that means a fun explanation from you and a fun denial that anybody is a Jesus Myther on this forum from the usual suspects.
-
In Greece and some other countries, one rents a plot for x years. After that time (or sooner, if you don't keep the rental payments up) the bones are dug up and placed in an ossuary - often the resting place of the bones of other family members.
This is because the soil is such that grave space is limited. There is an interesting if macabre tradition whereby a service is held at the graveside five years after burial, whilst the body is exhumed. If the body has completely decomposed, it is seen as a sign that the sins of the deceased have been forgiven, and the deceased has gone to heaven. It is a kind of reverse burial, signifying triumph over death. The bones are then placed in an ossuary since cremation is considered wrong.
-
You say, "...where Jesus is believed to have buried before his resurrection", Sririam.
What Hope said.
If the remains of a body is found, we'll not it's not Jesus's :D.
As an aside, I'm not comfortable with excavating tombs or pyramids or the like. They are of archeological, and other, interest of course but there is something distasteful about digging up bodies or remains of them unless there is a sound reason, forensics or something of that ilk. When that is necessary, in this country, the police and forensic experts have to apply for special permission and it's done late or early, with no-one else around, out of respect. Yet archeologists can dig anyone up willy nilly because the dead have no relatives still alive to consult! Just my feelings.
Geek alert.
Hi, Sweetpea. Disturbing the dead was something of an industry in Egypt! Re-use of coffins, sarcophagus - even mummy wrappings (All three and more in the case of Tutankhamun) was par for the course.
Go to the Theban Royal Mummy Project site and have a look at the contents of KV 35 and DB/TT 320 - both of which contained the royal dead stacked up like Ikea furniture as their own equipment had been 'recycled' by the state.
If the Egyptian state, which so valued the afterlife, were sanguine on the entering of these tombs, we need not be.
End of Geek alert.
As an aside, I'd like this Israeli tomb entered by professional, objective archaeologists with no axe to grinde.
I say I'd like it - but I hold out little hope that it will be the case.
-
if you went back in time you would find it never happened.!
Oddly enough, there is probably more evidence for it happening than for it not happening, Walt. Perhaps, rather than requiring the 'religious' amongst us to provide the evidence for their position, its time you presented the evidence for yours. (I'll give you a quick hint, though: this challenge has been made before and never taken up).
-
Oddly enough, there is probably more evidence for it happening than for it not happening, Walt. Perhaps, rather than requiring the 'religious' amongst us to provide the evidence for their position, its time you presented the evidence for yours. (I'll give you a quick hint, though: this challenge has been made before and never taken up).
Reversing the burden of proof - house!
-
Oddly enough, there is probably more evidence for it happening than for it not happening, Walt. Perhaps, rather than requiring the 'religious' amongst us to provide the evidence for their position, its time you presented the evidence for yours. (I'll give you a quick hint, though: this challenge has been made before and never taken up).
you really simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND do you. And I'm not about to explain it again. You should take a serious look at your thinking skills and work out where you keep going wrong.
I would be embarrassed if I were you
-
you really simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND do you. And I'm not about to explain it again. You should take a serious look at your thinking skills and work out where you keep going wrong.
I would be embarrassed if I were you
Why should I be embarrassed when a number of people - several of them starting from the POV that you hold (and seeking to disprove the whole thing once and for all) have done exactly what you have suggested, Walter, and come to the conclusion that it is true. Frank Morrison, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and Andre Kole spring to mind.
I appreciate that such facts are uncomfortable for you, but their being uncomfortable for you doesn't mean that we should ditch them.
-
I don't know these people , give me some time and ill get back to you.
-
Oddly enough, there is probably more evidence for it happening than for it not happening, Walt. Perhaps, rather than requiring the 'religious' amongst us to provide the evidence for their position, its time you presented the evidence for yours. (I'll give you a quick hint, though: this challenge has been made before and never taken up).
If so, and since it's the claim of you Christians, how about you presenting the 'evidence' you refer to instead of making such a glaring attempt to switch the burden of proof.
-
Why should I be embarrassed when a number of people - several of them starting from the POV that you hold (and seeking to disprove the whole thing once and for all) have done exactly what you have suggested, Walter, and come to the conclusion that it is true. Frank Morrison, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and Andre Kole spring to mind.
I appreciate that such facts are uncomfortable for you, but their being uncomfortable for you doesn't mean that we should ditch them.
Then set out these 'facts' so we can all consider them: after all just citing people without providing details is poor form, so how about you do the work and summarise their views for us.
-
I don't know these people , give me some time and ill get back to you.
Frank Morrison: an English journalist and author who set out to disprove the myth of Christianity over 80 years ago. His book “Who moved the stone?” is a classic and has led many people to Christ.
Lee Strobel:Chicago Tribune journo who set out to disprove Christianity, but ended up becoming a Christian and creating the “Case for…” series.
Josh McDowell: set out to write a paper in college to expose Christianity as a myth, but ended up being so convinced that he became a Christian himself and wrote the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.
Andre Kole: created tricks for the greatest magicians in the world including making the statue of liberty disappear for David Copperfield. He was commissioned to study the miracles of the bible to expose them as magic tricks and thus disprove its legitimacy. Through this investigation, Andre Kole became a Christian.
-
Then set out these 'facts' so we can all consider them: after all just citing people without providing details is poor form, so how about you do the work and summarise their views for us.
Well, I thought that citing people might be more effective than the various arguments that Jim, I and others have posited over the years.
-
Why should I be embarrassed when a number of people - several of them starting from the POV that you hold (and seeking to disprove the whole thing once and for all) have done exactly what you have suggested, Walter, and come to the conclusion that it is true. Frank Morrison, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and Andre Kole spring to mind.
I appreciate that such facts are uncomfortable for you, but their being uncomfortable for you doesn't mean that we should ditch them.
You haven't cited facts, you have listed some people. I could do that to but it's doesn't even stretch to argument by authority as you haven't established that.
-
Well, I thought that citing people might be more effective than the various arguments that Jim, I and others have posited over the years.
you should have found better examples, you just don't get it do you
-
Well, I thought that citing people might be more effective than the various arguments that Jim, I and others have posited over the years.
I will happily deal with the arguments, if you actually make then. Never seen you do it, just refer to arguments you have made. On you go, make them.
-
Frank Morrison: an English journalist and author who set out to disprove the myth of Christianity over 80 years ago. His book “Who moved the stone?” is a classic and has led many people to Christ.
Lee Strobel:Chicago Tribune journo who set out to disprove Christianity, but ended up becoming a Christian and creating the “Case for…” series.
Josh McDowell: set out to write a paper in college to expose Christianity as a myth, but ended up being so convinced that he became a Christian himself and wrote the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.
Andre Kole: created tricks for the greatest magicians in the world including making the statue of liberty disappear for David Copperfield. He was commissioned to study the miracles of the bible to expose them as magic tricks and thus disprove its legitimacy. Through this investigation, Andre Kole became a Christian.
On what basis should we take their views seriously in respect of how they justify their current position? That they are now Christians is lovely for them personally but we'd need to critique their reasoning: after all they could be right or they could be wrong, but just knowing they regard themselves as converts to Christianity isn't enough.
So perhaps you should summarise the key factors than convinced them and we can explore just how convincing these are.
-
Well, I thought that citing people might be more effective than the various arguments that Jim, I and others have posited over the years.
Then you'd be dead wrong - so go on, bite the bullet and set out these arguments.
-
Frank Morrison: an English journalist and author who set out to disprove the myth of Christianity over 80 years ago. His book “Who moved the stone?” is a classic and has led many people to Christ.
Lee Strobel:Chicago Tribune journo who set out to disprove Christianity, but ended up becoming a Christian and creating the “Case for…” series.
Josh McDowell: set out to write a paper in college to expose Christianity as a myth, but ended up being so convinced that he became a Christian himself and wrote the book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.
Andre Kole: created tricks for the greatest magicians in the world including making the statue of liberty disappear for David Copperfield. He was commissioned to study the miracles of the bible to expose them as magic tricks and thus disprove its legitimacy. Through this investigation, Andre Kole became a Christian.
Charlie Cairoli: wore a red nose
Chic Charnley: quite fat footballer
Arthur Montford: great use of word 'stramash'
Sydney Devine: 'Crystal Chandeliers'
-
Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later. This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.
Sadly for you Hope, floo qualified her statement by saying "well and truly dead". There are no credible accounts of well and truly dead people coming back to life.
-
Why should I be embarrassed
Because your ability to think critically on any subject relating to Christianity is severely compromised by your faith.
when a number of people - several of them starting from the POV that you hold (and seeking to disprove the whole thing once and for all) have done exactly what you have suggested, Walter, and come to the conclusion that it is true. Frank Morrison, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and Andre Kole spring to mind.
I read Who Moved the Stone as a teenager. At the time I was very impressed by it. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand in that it relies heavily on the gospels for evidence and the gospels are just not reliable.
-
Because your ability to think critically on any subject relating to Christianity is severely compromised by your faith.
I read Who Moved the Stone as a teenager. At the time I was very impressed by it. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand in that it relies heavily on the gospels for evidence and the gospels are just not reliable.
using the bible to prove its authenticity is always going to lead to nothing. Its like eating burgers everyday to prove to someone there's no other food but burgers
-
Charlie Cairoli: wore a red nose
Chic Charnley: quite fat footballer
Arthur Montford: great use of word 'stramash'
Sydney Devine: 'Crystal Chandeliers'
Note:
Please desist in using foul and obscene language...."Sydney Devine" is unfit for o
public - or most private use - at any time......
-
Because your ability to think critically on any subject relating to Christianity is severely compromised by your faith.
This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included. That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically; the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments, both for and agin my faith, suggest that my ability to think critically hasn't been compromised.
I read Who Moved the Stone as a teenager. At the time I was very impressed by it. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand in that it relies heavily on the gospels for evidence and the gospels are just not reliable.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable. How do you square your opinions with theirs?
-
This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included. That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically; the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments, both for and agin my faith, suggest that my ability to think critically hasn't been compromised.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable. How do you square your opinions with theirs?
do you or they have a method for evaluating supernatural claims? You know, the one that you have been asked for hundreds of times?
-
This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included. That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically; the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments, both for and agin my faith, suggest that my ability to think critically hasn't been compromised.
You've just demonstrated otherwise.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable. How do you square your opinions with theirs?
What methods did these scholars use to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies?
-
do you or they have a method for evaluating supernatural claims? You know, the one that you have been asked for hundreds of times?
yes. If it isn't natural then it's supernatural. Wanky terms natural and supernatural but if you insist on using them................
-
yes. If it isn't natural then it's supernatural. Wanky terms natural and supernatural but if you insist on using them................
So no answer, what a surprise!
-
So no answer, what a surprise!
If you ever get round to stating what you mean by methodology which doesn't look suspiciously like science then we can probably start to get somewhere.
-
If you ever get round to stating what you mean by methodology which doesn't look suspiciously like science then we can probably start to get somewhere.
so once again, as I have done for Vlad so many times before, what set of methods (methodology) do you have to separate a methodological naturalism from a supernaturalism? And stop lying about this not having been given before!
-
so once again, as I have done for Vlad so many times before, what set of methods (methodology) do you have to separate a methodological naturalism from a supernaturalism? And stop lying about this not having been given before!
What?
Look.....almost as many times as You have asked me for a method.......... I've asked for methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism..........apart from pretending one isn't a philosophical naturalist........or claiming Vlad doesn't understand the term ''philosophical naturalist''.
-
What?
Look.....almost as many times as You have asked me for a method.......... I've asked for methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism..........apart from pretending one isn't a philosophical naturalist........or claiming Vlad doesn't understand the term ''philosophical naturalist''.
Not a philosophical naturalist, that would be you lying again! Do you ever get bored of lying?
See the clue in the 'methodology' question is about methodology. You know the term methodological that you have used multiple times? Was that you lying about understanding methodological?
Got any methodology for supernatural claims yet? Or just happy to try and evade by lying yet again?
-
NS
he does not have the capacity to understand what is being asked of him. its pointless repeating the question, maybe asking in a loud voice might help but I doubt it.
It seems some peoples brains are wired with a short circuit loop.
-
.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable. How do you square your opinions with theirs?
Inserting the word 'scholars' into your sentence does not add any gravity to its value and their opinions remain only that, opinions. I'm not interested in their opinions any more than I am in yours.
-
This could be levelled at anyone, jp - you included.
Nope. I don't have a faith so it can't compromise my critical thinking abilities.
That said, the fact that I have studied the material and made a conscious decision to accept it as truth suggests that I have already thought critically;
No it doesn't. Your acceptance of the gospels at face value is based on wishful thinking on your part.
the fact that I then get challenged on sites like this and still manage to come up with rational arguments,
Don't make me laugh. You have never come up with a rational argument for the resurrection. The fact that you claim you did on another secret site or on this one but it got deleted is no better than my claim that the dog ate my homework.
Whereas others, scholars included (some who aren't even believers) regard them as reliable. How do you square your opinions with theirs?
Name a non apologetic historian who regards the gospels as reliable.
-
But you have already indicated that you are not prepared to accept it, no matter how obvious it was. Your words again
So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.
If it was obvious I would have to accept it. When Jesus was strutting his stuff it was only his followers who believed him to be who he said he was, even his family weren't convinced. Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him, but clearly it wasn't, now I wonder why that was?
-
Nope. I don't have a faith so it can't compromise my critical thinking abilities.
Faith is just one form of mindset, jp. Critical thinking can be effected by any such mindset. The very fact that you can't see that suggests that your abilities have been compromised.
No it doesn't. Your acceptance of the gospels at face value is based on wishful thinking on your part.
The very fact that you use the term 'at face value' shows how little you understand about faith and mine in particular. Again, an example of your particular mindset compromising your critical thinking abilities.
Don't make me laugh. You have never come up with a rational argument for the resurrection. The fact that you claim you did on another secret site or on this one but it got deleted is no better than my claim that the dog ate my homework.
You are entitled to your opinion, jp, but since folk here have noted in the past that my arguments (and those of other Christians) have been rational - even if they disagree with them - suggests yet again that your critical faculties are compromised.
Name a non apologetic historian who regards the gospels as reliable.
'Scholars' don't have to be historians, but you know that already. However, since Roman writers referenced the events without providing any evidence to disprove it (something that both they and the Jewish leaders of the time could very easily have done) the historical reliability of the stories would seem to be greater than lesser. Interestingly, the very fact that the 3 synoptic gospels differ is some ways indicates, from a legal evidentiary pov, a greater chance of reliability than if they were all identical.
-
So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.
Which presumes that these aspects of the NT story are historical facts: perhaps then you can answer the question that I've asked the likes of Hope numerous times with nary a reply: how have you assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts you seem to be presenting as historical fact?
-
If it was obvious I would have to accept it. When Jesus was strutting his stuff it was only his followers who believed him to be who he said he was, even his family weren't convinced. Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him, but clearly it wasn't, now I wonder why that was?
Oddly enough Floo, there is little or no evidence to suggest that 'even his family weren't convinced'. Apart from the roles that Mary, his mother, and James - a brother - took in the years of ministry( Mary) and the early church (James) we hear nothing about his family.
As for "Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him", what makes you say that? After all, there are plenty of people whose genius isn't really appreciated or recognised until late in their lives or even posthumously. People are often blind to the abilities and nature of others.
-
As all these centuries later it is not possible to know for a fact what Jesus did say and do when he was alive, one has to treat with great scepticism the things, which are attributed to him that don't seem remotely credible.
-
You are entitled to your opinion, jp, but since folk here have noted in the past that my arguments (and those of other Christians) have been rational - even if they disagree with them - suggests yet again that your critical faculties are compromised.
Who here noted that your arguments are 'rational'?
However, since Roman writers referenced the events without providing any evidence to disprove it (something that both they and the Jewish leaders of the time could very easily have done)
You've been told this before - at the time of the alleged events involving Jesus he was of no great immediate significance so that those involved at the time wouldn't have needed to deny anything.
...the historical reliability of the stories would seem to be greater than lesser. Interestingly, the very fact that the 3 synoptic gospels differ is some ways indicates, from a legal evidentiary pov, a greater chance of reliability than if they were all identical.
Then you'll at long last tell me what specific steps have been taken to assess the risks of mistakes and lies in these post-hoc anecdotal accounts: so, on what basis are these accounts distinguishable from fiction?
-
Oddly enough Floo, there is little or no evidence to suggest that 'even his family weren't convinced'. Apart from the roles that Mary, his mother, and James - a brother - took in the years of ministry( Mary) and the early church (James) we hear nothing about his family.
As for "Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him", what makes you say that? After all, there are plenty of people whose genius isn't really appreciated or recognised until late in their lives or even posthumously. People are often blind to the abilities and nature of others.
is that your best attempt at a SERIOUS reply.HOPE sort yourself out .
-
Not a philosophical naturalist, that would be you lying again! Do you ever get bored of lying?
NS
Herein lies the greatest problem.
As Christians they do not see it as lying! They cannot see that their "truth" is anything but "truth" - it a matter of faith not fact. Otherwise why would it be called the Christian faith, why do they espose Christian belief?
The answer is so simple that even Vlad and Hope, if they had the elevated levels of intelligence that they claim, they would be able to see this, but as both you and I and millions and millions of others well know - there are none so blind s those who will not see.
And they will remain blind as they are determined not to see,
-
Which presumes that these aspects of the NT story are historical facts: perhaps then you can answer the question that I've asked the likes of Hope numerous times with nary a reply: how have you assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts you seem to be presenting as historical fact?
'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon. I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too. I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces.
In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion). Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb. My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.
Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb. The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.
What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family. This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.
-
Dearie me, Hope, begging the question at this time in the morning by assuming a number of facts that you are being asked to justify. The fallacy bingo started already
-
The answer is so simple that even Vlad and Hope, if they had the elevated levels of intelligence that they claim, they would be able to see this, but as both you and I and millions and millions of others well know - there are none so blind s those who will not see.
And they will remain blind as they are determined not to see,
And exactly the same 'charge' could be laid at your feet, Owl. The fact that you (and jeremyp in another part of the debate) can't see that, points to a flawed critical judgement. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, several Christians here have, over the years, laid out rational and logical arguments for their faith. Rarel, if ever, has anyone on your side of the debate been able to counter those arguments in any rational or logical way; instead they have relied on cheap jibes such as your 'elevated levels of intelligence that they claim' comment above (I doubt anyone here claims to have any level of intelligence 'elevated' above those of other posters).
-
Dearie me, Hop, begging the question at this time in the morning bupy assduming a number of facts that you are being asked to justify. The fallacy bingo started already
Pardon NS? What 'number of facts' am I assuming? All I have done is take 3 of the more common alternatives to the Gospel explanations and pointed out the level of unlikelihood of their being valid. Am I not allowed to assume that they are 3 of the more common alternatives?
-
And exactly the same 'charge' could be laid at your feet, Owl. The fact that you (and jeremyp in another part of the debate) can't see that, points to a flawed critical judgement. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, several Christians here have, over the years, laid out rational and logical arguments for their faith. Rarel, if ever, has anyone on your side of the debate been able to counter those arguments in any rational or logical way; instead they have relied on cheap jibes such as your 'elevated levels of intelligence that they claim' comment above (I doubt anyone here claims to have any level of intelligence 'elevated' above those of other posters).
So given owlswing's reply was to me pointing out Vlad was lying about me being a philosophical materialist, are you happy to agree that in the case of Vlad lying, is not one of these rational arguments you are stating have not been countered?
-
Pardon NS? What 'number of facts' am I assuming? All I have done is take 3 of the more common alternatives to the Gospel explanations and pointed out the level of unlikelihood of their being valid. Am I not allowed to assume that they are 3 of the more common alternatives?
You are assuming Jesus existed, was crucified, was seen as a series threat (by the way were the bodies of the robbers also guarded?), that he was stabbed by a sword, that the blood had started to separate.
-
'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon.
You have studiously avoided replying: so feel free to do so now.
I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too.
I've noted you citing Jim as support but I think I'll await a response from Jim confirming he has made the arguments you claim for him: I'm not convinced you aren't taking Jim's name in vain. You haven't posted anything of the sort - your answers are, you've often said, conveniently held somewhere else so perhaps you could rectify that and post them here.
I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces.
In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion). Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb. My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.
Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb. The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.
What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family. This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.
These are claims in anecdotal accounts, Hope yet you are naively treating them as historical facts since you haven't said on what basis you've eliminated the risk of mistake or lies, since unless you have then the claims in the accounts you cite are indistinguishable from fiction.
-
So given owlswing's reply was to me pointing out Vlad was lying about me being a philosophical materialist, are you happy to agree that in the case of Vlad lying, is not one of these rational arguments you are stating have not been countered?
Yet Owl widens the point beyond merely Vlad; he said 'As Christians they do not see it as lying! They cannot see that their "truth" is anything but "truth" - it a matter of faith not fact. Otherwise why would it be called the Christian faith, why do they espose Christian belief?', which indicates that he was referring to every argument that Christians put forward.
The fact that faith can often be shown to be truth seems to pass him by. I catch the train to Cardiff most week days and aim to catch the 07:10 or 07:25 train; those are the timetabled timings). If I leave home a tad late I have faith that either will be a minute or two late because my experience over the last 7 months is that 95% of the time, they are. In fact, I have only known the 07:10 to be on time once in that time (and I can hear it from home even if I'm not trying to catch it), and the 07:25 has only been on time 3 or 4 times.
Note, I'm not using the rail operators' definition of 'on time' here - within a couple of minutes of the advertised time!!
-
You have studiously avoided replying: so feel free to do so now.
I won't state a categorical number of times, but I have used the examples I gave in the post several times before. Perhaps you hadn't noticed those posts?
-
Yet Owl widens the point beyond merely Vlad; he said 'As Christians they do not see it as lying! They cannot see that their "truth" is anything but "truth" - it a matter of faith not fact. Otherwise why would it be called the Christian faith, why do they espose Christian belief?', which indicates that he was referring to every argument that Christians put forward.
The fact that faith can often be shown to be truth seems to pass him by. I catch the train to Cardiff most week days and aim to catch the 07:10 or 07:25 train; those are the timetabled timings). If I leave home a tad late I have faith that either will be a minute or two late because my experience over the last 7 months is that 95% of the time, they are. In fact, I have only known the 07:10 to be on time once in that time (and I can hear it from home even if I'm not trying to catch it), and the 07:25 has only been on time 3 or 4 times.
Note, I'm not using the rail operators' definition of 'on time' here - within a couple of minutes of the advertised time!!
I asked a specific question, could you answer it
are you happy to agree that in the case of Vlad lying, is not one of these rational arguments you are stating have not been countered?
-
These are claims in anecdotal accounts, ...
Are they? Do you have any evidence for that claim? After all, they have been proposed often enough by posters on this board without any come-back from the likes of your good self.
-
Are they? Do you have any evidence for that claim? After all, they have been proposed often enough by posters on this board without any come-back from the likes of your good self.
shifting the burden of proof - house!
-
I won't state a categorical number of times, but I have used the examples I gave in the post several times before. Perhaps you hadn't noticed those posts?
Unlikely Hope, since for other reasons I've been paying close attention to what goes on here for quite some time now.
You could easily resolve this constant thorn in all our sides by posting a summary of the arguments you say you've regularly used in a separate thread: that would surely resolve the issue.
-
The fact that faith can often be shown to be truth seems to pass him by. I catch the train to Cardiff most week days and aim to catch the 07:10 or 07:25 train; those are the timetabled timings). If I leave home a tad late I have faith that either will be a minute or two late because my experience over the last 7 months is that 95% of the time, they are. In fact, I have only known the 07:10 to be on time once in that time (and I can hear it from home even if I'm not trying to catch it), and the 07:25 has only been on time 3 or 4 times.
Note, I'm not using the rail operators' definition of 'on time' here - within a couple of minutes of the advertised time!!
-
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING, SURELY
-
'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon. I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too. I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces.
In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion). Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb. My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.
Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb. The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.
What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family. This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.
Even for you, Hope, this post is a screamer!
Why were there a 'group of Roman soldiers' guarding a tomb of one minor dead rebel? Even if there were two, soldiers - which is unlikely for a job like that - they could easily have dozed off, gone for a cuppa, played cards. And yet you think that a band of disciples couldn't possibly have outsmarted them ... and a much more likely scenario is that a dead man came back to life! Get real, please Hope!
Your experience of trained military personnel is a lot different from mine!
-
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING, SURELY
No - I'll think you find he isn't.
The probability of catching a train based on experience of it's lateness or otherwise is a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of proving faith in a deity. Obviously.
-
The probability of catching a train based on experience of it's lateness or otherwise is a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of proving faith in a deity. Obviously.
why did I not see that? doh!
btw Trent do you live on the river?
-
Are they? Do you have any evidence for that claim? After all, they have been proposed often enough by posters on this board without any come-back from the likes of your good self.
Good heavens Hope, leaving aside your shifting the burden tactics, they are post-hoc accounts of uncertain provenance dating from antiquity and I'd say I've raised this regularly: in fact, if you read through my posts I think you'll find I've repeatedly asked you how you've assessed the risks of mistake and lies in the NT accounts and noted that without such an assessment these accounts, that you portray as historical fact, are indistinguishable from fiction.
For instance, you recently said:
In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion). Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb. My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.
So, it seems here your justification of the 'empty tomb' element of the story hangs on Jesus being executed representing an immediate 'serious threat' to the authorities at that time which you illustrate by saying it is unlikely that a group of civilians could overcome a bunch of armed Roman guards guarding a tomb. The problem is, in addition to assuming the 'serious threat' scenario, is that these claims appear in later accounts of uncertain provenance of those promoting the status of Jesus. So, and in line with accounts in general, it is important that the known risks of bias and propaganda are assessed - you seem to have avoided addressing this risk.
-
Good heavens Hope, leaving aside your shifting the burden tactics, they are post-hoc accounts of uncertain provenance
So, it seems here your justification of the 'empty tomb' element of the story hangs on Jesus being executed representing an immediate 'serious threat' to the authorities at that time which you illustrate by saying it is unlikely that a group of civilians could overcome a bunch of armed Roman guards guarding a tomb. The problem is, in addition to assuming the 'serious threat' scenario, is that these claims appear in later accounts of uncertain provenance of those promoting the status of Jesus. So, and in line with accounts in general, it is important that the known risks of bias and propaganda are assessed - you seem to have avoided addressing this risk.
Gordon
I think you are too generous in allowing this kind of detail to be discussed in the first place.
I requires proof that any of it happened at all .
That can be submitted on anther thread.
-
'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon. I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too. I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces.
In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion). Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb. My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.
Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb. The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.
What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family. This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.
The real story is much more likely Jesus didn't pop up alive three days later, and once dead stayed dead. The resurrection story is almost certainly a work of fiction.
-
The real story is much more likely Jesus didn't pop up alive three days later, and once dead stayed dead. The resurrection story is almost certainly a work of fiction.
I would remove the word 'almost' from that sentence, Floo.
-
Does it matter to you what others believe? We're living in the 21stC and nobody in this country is going to force their beliefs on you or make you feel bad if you don't agree with them. We are all free to choose what we believe.
-
why did I not see that? doh!
btw Trent do you live on the river?
I live in Nottingham - used to be able to see the river from my bedroom in the old house but we moved from there many moons ago - we are now on higher ground to avoid the oncoming deluge. ;)
-
I live in Nottingham - used to be able to see the river from my bedroom in the old house but we moved from there many moons ago - we are now on higher ground to avoid the oncoming deluge. ;)
and it will come, its already started.
-
Does it matter to you what others believe? We're living in the 21stC and nobody in this country is going to force their beliefs on you or make you feel bad if you don't agree with them. We are all free to choose what we believe.
are you sure about that? Islam is a threat that will only become more serious unless we all wake up to it.
-
Does it matter to you what others believe? We're living in the 21stC and nobody in this country is going to force their beliefs on you or make you feel bad if you don't agree with them. We are all free to choose what we believe.
That isn't true, some people do try to force their beliefs on others in a very abusive way, even in the 21st century. You try attending a pentecostal church where hell-fire reigns supreme. >:(
-
No-one forces anyone to go to a Pentecostal church, floo. I should qualify that by saying that I mean adults. I've never been inside one, have no wish to, and don't even know where there is one near me. I doubt you've been inside one since you were young. The only people I have encountered who have those views are in cyberspace which is not real life.
We aren't forced to swallow any religious dogma in this day and age in this country.
-
No-one forces anyone to go to a Pentecostal church, floo. I should qualify that by saying that I mean adults. I've never been inside one, have no wish to, and don't even know where there is one near me. I doubt you've been inside one since you were young. The only people I have encountered who have those views are in cyberspace which is not real life.
We aren't forced to swallow any religious dogma in this day and age in this country.
But this is a public forum, Brownie, if a poster posts on here, he/she must expect to be challenged on the views he/she expresses.
Unless you think it should go back to the old days, when the vicar stood high above his flock and no one dared question the content of his sermon?
-
But this is a public forum, Brownie, if a poster posts on here, he/she must expect to be challenged on the views he/she expresses.
Unless you think it should go back to the old days, when the vicar stood high above his flock and no one dared question the content of his sermon?
where does Brownie's post contain anything that suggests she thinks that?
-
No-one forces anyone to go to a Pentecostal church, floo. I should qualify that by saying that I mean adults. I've never been inside one, have no wish to, and don't even know where there is one near me. I doubt you've been inside one since you were young. The only people I have encountered who have those views are in cyberspace which is not real life.
We aren't forced to swallow any religious dogma in this day and age in this country.
As you have never been in one you are not in a position to comment! People who are indoctrinated are scared not to attend in case they end up in hell. I have been inside several during my adult years, and nothing has changed where the unpleasant dogma they spout is concerned!
-
Does it matter to you what others believe? We're living in the 21stC and nobody in this country is going to force their beliefs on you or make you feel bad if you don't agree with them. We are all free to choose what we believe.
Have you read some of the posters on this forum, Brownie?
Some of the posts here would not be out of place in either a Pentecostal or an Evangelical church or public meeting.
No names but one of the worst of the breed could be described as a bit cheeky!
-
Have you read some of the posters on this forum, Brownie?
Some of the posts here would not be out of place in either a Pentecostal or an Evangelical church or public meeting.
No names but one of the worst of the breed could be described as a bit cheeky!
Is cheeky a synonym for sassy?
And that reminds me whatever happened to Synonym?
-
Have you read some of the posters on this forum, Brownie?
Some of the posts here would not be out of place in either a Pentecostal or an Evangelical church or public meeting.
No names but one of the worst of the breed could be described as a bit cheeky!
Another poster who seems to get off on the idea of people burning in hell, hasn't been around for a couple of months.
-
That isn't true, some people do try to force their beliefs on others in a very abusive way, even in the 21st century. You try attending a pentecostal church where hell-fire reigns supreme. >:(
As you have never been in one you are not in a position to comment! People who are indoctrinated are scared not to attend in case they end up in hell. I have been inside several during my adult years, and nothing has changed where the unpleasant dogma they spout is concerned!
And I have been in many as well - of several denominations, floo - and have never experienced hellfire preaching in any form. I have never approved of threats to achieve conversion, and have seen no such evidence in the several Pentecostal fellowships in my area - one of which, I may add, has just had a split - not through doctrinal differences, but because the building, in Monckton, Prestwick, only holds 600 - so the fellowship split into two, both of which are thriving. I may not share all the doctrines of the Pentecostalists. but I would certainly not malign them with the label of hellfire preachers.
-
I'm just catching up - I had one of the mornings when my computer says 'this page cannot be displayed' - and as usual an enjoying reading some posts, but scrolling past, for example, Hope's!
-
I'm just catching up - I had one of the mornings when my computer says 'this page cannot be displayed' - and as usual an enjoying reading some posts, but scrolling past, for example, Hope's!
Oh Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
There was me thinking that I was the only one! Do you you do the same to Sassy?
-
#67
But you have already indicated that you are not prepared to accept it, no matter how obvious it was. Your words again:
They obviously weren't really dead!
So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.
If it was obvious I would have to accept it. When Jesus was strutting his stuff it was only his followers who believed him to be who he said he was, even his family weren't convinced. Surely if he was some sort of god it would have been obvious to everyone who met him, but clearly it wasn't, now I wonder why that was?
Do you believe that the truth (or otherwise) of a matter is affected by what we believe about it?
-
And I have been in many as well - of several denominations, floo - and have never experienced hellfire preaching in any form. I have never approved of threats to achieve conversion, and have seen no such evidence in the several Pentecostal fellowships in my area - one of which, I may add, has just had a split - not through doctrinal differences, but because the building, in Monckton, Prestwick, only holds 600 - so the fellowship split into two, both of which are thriving. I may not share all the doctrines of the Pentecostalists. but I would certainly not malign them with the label of hellfire preachers.
Well lucky, lucky you!
-
Why were there a 'group of Roman soldiers' guarding a tomb of one minor dead rebel?
Do you know what the Gospels have to say with regard to this question?
Even if there were two, soldiers - which is unlikely for a job like that - they could easily have dozed off, gone for a cuppa, played cards. And yet you think that a band of disciples couldn't possibly have outsmarted them
Do you know what the penalty was for the guards should this have happened?
In the Gospels account, what happened after Jesus rose from the dead to stop the guards getting into trouble?
-
Do you know what the Gospels have to say with regard to this question?
Do you know what the penalty was for the guards should this have happened?
In the Gospels account, what happened after Jesus rose from the dead to stop the guards getting into trouble?
What the gospels have to say, and what is factual, is probably very different indeed.
-
As you have never been in one you are not in a position to comment! People who are indoctrinated are scared not to attend in case they end up in hell. I have been inside several during my adult years, and nothing has changed where the unpleasant dogma they spout is concerned!
You do not know that I have not been indoctrinated by religious people, floo; not Pentecostals but they are not the only ones. That certainly did happen to me when I was younger and though I firmly reject it, I remember it vividly and to this day still feel little undercurrents of uncertainty when I am exposed to some types of religious teaching. Like yourself, I have to deal with it when it comes up and talk myself round; I worry at times about stuff in my sub- and unconscious mind that may rear up when I am older and vulnerable. So I know it isn't easy.
However no-one is going to force religion on me now, whatever they might do in their own churches.
-
#67
So even if you could go back in time and see everything that happened from the moment Jesus died on the cross, to the moment He rose from the dead, your conclusion would be that He wasn't really dead.Do you believe that the truth (or otherwise) of a matter is affected by what we believe about it?
Just because you believe it does NOT make it truth! Equally just because I do NOT believe it does not make it untrue.
However, if the truth of your belief is questioned, it will remain merely belief until you can provide incontrovertible proof of its truth.
Please note that no quantity or length of quotes from the Bible are considered incontrovertible proof.
-
Some pictures and stuff about the excavation site....with possibly original limestone burial bed.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/original-limestone-bed-on-which-jesus-was-buried-said-uncovered/?utm_content=buffer4b503&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
Just because some claim it to be the tomb of Jesus, doesn't mean it is.
-
For once, floo, I agree. 'Biblical' archaeologists sometines set my teeth on edge. Certainly there are some brilliant scholars in the field in Israel, but there are some less than gifted ones as well. Anyone with a Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other brings disrepute to the discipline. I also treat the 'relics' and other stuff 'found by Helena - Constantine's mum - with extreme caution. At best it was speculative, at worse playing politics to gain brownie points for her son's self aggrandisment.
-
I also treat the 'relics' and other stuff 'found by Helena - Constantine's mum - with extreme caution. At best it was speculative, at worse playing politics to gain brownie points for her son's self aggrandisment.
Well, boo to you then.
-
Well, boo to you then.
Sorry, ad-O, but there is not a shred ov verifiable archaeology to substantiate Helena's exotic souvenier trip.
-
Sorry, ad-O, but there is not a shred ov verifiable archaeology to substantiate Helena's exotic souvenier trip.
Eh?
-
When Constantine's mum went to Palestine and found relics and bits of the Cross by the bucketload, there was nothing to substantiate her 'claim'. Even the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built on little more than speculation. There is no verifiable evidence that links the tomb with that of the Resurrection. After all, two centuries and more had passed where Jerusalem was little more than a ruin, and the Church based itself at Antioch and Ephasus, rather than the devastated city. Believers were more concerned with sharing their faith and preserving their lives, than guarding spurious sites.
-
When Constantine's mum went to Palestine and found relics and bits of the Cross by the bucketload, there was nothing to substantiate her 'claim'. Even the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built on little more than speculation. There is no verifiable evidence that links the tomb with that of the Resurrection. After all, two centuries and more had passed where Jerusalem was little more than a ruin, and the Church based itself at Antioch and Ephasus, rather than the devastated city. Believers were more concerned with sharing their faith and preserving their lives, than guarding spurious sites.
Faith.
-
Faith is fine. But many need to substantiate that faith with verifiabkle fact. Several of the relics the lady was conned into 'finding' including a surviving bit of the 'Cross' - date, not from the first, but the third century. Given that Helena seems to have fallen for toyurist tat, her finding of the tomb wher Christ rose needs to be treated with equal scepticism till archaeology can confirm or deny it.
-
Faith is fine. But many need to substantiate that faith with verifiabkle fact. Several of the relics the lady was conned into 'finding' including a surviving bit of the 'Cross' - date, not from the first, but the third century. Given that Helena seems to have fallen for toyurist tat, her finding of the tomb wher Christ rose needs to be treated with equal scepticism till archaeology can confirm or deny it.
Well, it seems you've already made up your mind, so there's no convincing you anyway. But then Protestantism is inherently iconoclast. I believe St. Helena.
-
No, I haven't made up my mind, ad_o. I'm simply trying to employ the skills of archaeology to the situation.