The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:

[Walt Zingmatilder]

preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?

In a universe of cause and effect......the invalidation of effect by you in that statement is just wank.

[BashfulAnthony]

The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.

Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.

Nonsense.  The thread is simply about what crucifixion was like, and it is not specifically related to the Gospel (capital "G" for Gospels) accounts,  or reliant on Gospel testimony  Your comment is redolent of all your views on Christianity:  tenuous, at best.

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxiNy8mwHqM

Yes I did find it interesting, especially his description of Pilate, would Pilate have handed over the body of Jesus?

Well from Biblical evidence, yes, Pilate washing his hands, Pilate giving the crowd a choice, Pilate thinking Jesus was a innocent man.

Sorry but I don't think Mr Erhman has thought that one through properly.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.

And, equally, some Christians are so intellectually blunted that they think an historical assessment that there was probably an historical basis for Jesus means that history validates the idea of Jesus as the Son of God. It turns out there are a range of intellectual capacities on both sides.

Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.

The fact that you made a valid point has just been completely undermined by your firing up the Assertatron<sup>TM and blurted out this unsubstantiated little nugget.

O.</sup>

[Enki]

Dear enki,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxiNy8mwHqM

Yes I did find it interesting, especially his description of Pilate, would Pilate have handed over the body of Jesus?

Well from Biblical evidence, yes, Pilate washing his hands, Pilate giving the crowd a choice, Pilate thinking Jesus was a innocent man.

Sorry but I don't think Mr Erhman has thought that one through properly.

Gonnagle.

As is your right, of course( to disagree with Prof.  Ehrman, that is). It just shows however that when we quote someone(as you did, originally) it is a good idea to understand the range and details of that person's views, before giving them prominence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.

And, equally, some Christians are so intellectually blunted that they think an historical assessment that there was probably an historical basis for Jesus means that history validates the idea of Jesus as the Son of God.

That's a theological issue....I think most people get that.

[Outrider]

The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.

Couldn't agree more - The God Delusion should be with the rest of the works of social commentary or philosphy.

But hey, that's just one of the many of the miracles of New Atheism......it makes theologians out of ethologists and scientists out of booksellers.

The arguments stand or fall on their own merits - you don't need to have studied philosophy or made philosophy your career to have a valid argument. By the same token, you can be William Lane Craig and making your living out of philosophy and still not have a single coherent argument in your playbook.

O.

[floo]

Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real!

Well the personnel, the context, the gatherings and the discipleship are certainly accepted by most historians....mainly because they crop up in epistles.

Ravers and ranters such as yourself would certainly not be allowed on any jury because of your bias and you have demonstrated a generic bias against Christian and bias for any bollocks coming out the New Atheist stable.

I doubt that very much!

I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?

[Outrider]

That's a theological issue....I think most people get that.

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you, but I'm not so sure.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real!

Well the personnel, the context, the gatherings and the discipleship are certainly accepted by most historians....mainly because they crop up in epistles.

Ravers and ranters such as yourself would certainly not be allowed on any jury because of your bias and you have demonstrated a generic bias against Christian and bias for any bollocks coming out the New Atheist stable.

I doubt that very much!

I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?

What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?

[Hope]

Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.

Which fictional nature, jeremy?

[Outrider]

What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?

Well the OP was trying to go with some sort of 'argument from sympathy' idea that because crucifixion is an horrible way to die, therefore we owe Jesus devotion.

Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

As is your right, of course( to disagree with Prof.  Ehrman, that is). It just shows however that when we quote someone(as you did, originally) it is a good idea to understand the range and details of that person's views, before giving them prominence.

Am I being two faced about this most probably

But Erhmans argument for a historical Jesus, most experts on the subject agree to there being a historical Jesus, but his argument regarding Pilate

But I am a Christian, so absolutely no bias in my posting

Gonnagle.

[floo]

What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?

Well the OP was trying to go with some sort of 'argument from sympathy' idea that because crucifixion is an horrible way to die, therefore we owe Jesus devotion.

Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.

O.

If Jesus was crucified his ghastly death was no worse than that of all the others who suffered the same fate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?

Well the OP was trying to go with some sort of 'argument from sympathy' idea that because crucifixion is an horrible way to die, therefore we owe Jesus devotion.

Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.

O.

Too much belief in Jesus and the orthodox Christian view too soon after to meet a bias antitheists definition of myth I'm afraid.

[Hope]

I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?

Had he remained here, are you seriously telling us that you would accept the corollary of this - that there is a guy who is aged 2000+ years old, somewhere on the earth?

[Outrider]

Too much belief in Jesus and the orthodox Christian view too soon after to meet a bias antitheists definition of myth I'm afraid.

On that basis then, Mormonism, Scientology and Islam are all equally as valid? No, millions of people not only can be wrong, but they can be wrong quickly.

How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.

O.

[Hope]

Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.

O.

And you have evidence that 1) the Gospel stories were made up, and 2) that the divine nature of Jesus is mythical, O?

[Shaker]

The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.

The God Delusion isn't popular science.

[Hope]

On that basis then, Mormonism, Scientology and Islam are all equally as valid?

Potentially, yes.  That is where the next stage of the process of discernment comes in.  Do they ring true with existing beliefs, for instance.  Do they move humanity on from what other faiths teach?

Having studied all 3 to some degree or other, I'd say that the only one that satisfies the first criteria is Islam, but none of them satisfy the 2nd.

How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.

O.

Nor does it prove that what some regard as nonsense is actually nonsense.

[floo]

I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?

Had he remained here, are you seriously telling us that you would accept the corollary of this - that there is a guy who is aged 2000+ years old, somewhere on the earth?

No of course I wouldn't! Jesus was no more special than any other human, he died and remained DEAD!

[Outrider]

And you have evidence that 1) the Gospel stories were made up, and 2) that the divine nature of Jesus is mythical, O?

You make the divine claim, I reject on the lack of effectiveness of your argument and your absolute lack of any evidence. It's not my obligation to disprove your claim any more than it's your duty to disprove Marduk's divinity.

You make the case; if you ever manage to get something valid then you can challenge me to disprove it.

As to the Gospel stories being at least partly fictional - does the magic not give it away?

O.

[Outrider]

How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.

O.

Nor does it prove that what some regard as nonsense is actually nonsense.

No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.

O.

[Hope]

No of course I wouldn't! Jesus was no more special than any other human, he died and remained DEAD!

So, another of your arguments against Christianity bites the dust, Floo.  You really do need to think about the potential consequences to your overall argument whenever you pontificate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.

O.

Nor does it prove that what some regard as nonsense is actually nonsense.

No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.

O.

This is an excellent example of the New atheist delusion that you can be ignorant of that which you oppose yet suddenly and instantaneously be expert in a swathe of disciplines.............I'm sorry Outsider, your knowledge has either appeared supernaturally or it isn't knowledge. I plump for the latter......