The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:

[Hope]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

[BeRational]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.

Any evidence you have ever presented has been rebutted , so your continued acceptance of a God is through flawed thinking.

[floo]

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.

What do you mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.

I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?

[floo]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.

I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?

If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?

[BeRational]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.

I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?

Adequate for the claim being made.

If any evidence you provide can be rebutted then the conclusion you have drawn from it is flawed.

If you have evidence for God or son of God just present it.

I remain confident it will be defeated.

[Shaker]

If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?

Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.

[floo]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.

I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?

Adequate for the claim being made.

If any evidence you provide can be rebutted then the conclusion you have drawn from it is flawed.

If you have evidence for God or son of God just present it.

I remain confident it will be defeated.

No evidence has ever been presented which stands up to any scrutiny.

[BeRational]

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.

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.  Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.  My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.

I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?

Adequate for the claim being made.

If any evidence you provide can be rebutted then the conclusion you have drawn from it is flawed.

If you have evidence for God or son of God just present it.

I remain confident it will be defeated.

No evidence has ever been presented which stands up to any scrutiny.

Indeed.

But some people cite it as reasons for believing which makes them wrong to do so

[jeremyp]

Get back on topic, or start a new thread.

Instead of whining to me, report my post to the mods and see if they think it's off topic.

I notice you are not whining equally as hard at Vlad in spite of his bringing a book by Richard Dawkins into a thread about crucifixion.

[jeremyp]

Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.

Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.

He never mentions the empty tomb once or the last supper or the Lord's Prayer or Jesus' last words on the cross or the guy with a spear or anything about Jesus' life as opposed opposed to his death at all.

He doesn't even mention the empty tomb in a situation where you would expect him to. He didn't know about it.

[jeremyp]

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.

Evasion of the point noted.

[Outrider]

That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.

No, that's not an assumption, it's a description. Within the tale he raises the dead, expels demons, conjures food, transmutates liquids and walks on water - that's magic. That you call them 'miracles' to try to justify a grown up believing in magic is just special pleading.

Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.

No, my fundamental understanding is that reality behaves consistently, and that from that consistency we can deduce probable facts. One of those probable facts is that magic isn't real. I don't start from a position of 'no gods', I end there.

My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.

But that 'fundamental understanding' is shaped by those gospels - which means it's not a fundamental understanding, it's a learnt (or trained) behaviour; outside of that self-referential circle there's no reason for presuming that any of it's real. If people believed in Voldemort they'd have exactly as much justification for that belief because of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as you do for the mythic Jesus.

That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.

Only one of us is talking about a level of understanding, me. You're talking about faith, which isn't understanding, isn't knowledge and isn't conclusions. It's the maintenance of a position in the absence of, or disregard of, any justification.

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

My apologies, I misread your post as saying the thread was about The Crucifixion.

The point still stands however. The gospels are the earliest documentation of Jesus' crucifixion and their fictionality is therefore relevant to the thread.

By the way, thanks for making the petty little point about capitalising the "G" in "gospels". I think I'll just continue writing it any way I like.

[jeremyp]

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

Which fictional nature, jeremy?

That of the gospels, Hope.

[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.

Evasion of the point noted.

No all Paul is saying is that without the resurrection there would be no notion of salvation through Christ so we are left with the question. How would those who have enjoyed the salvation of Jesus ever come to know it if it weren't for the resurrection. How would people know about salvation in Christ if Christ wasn't saved himself.

[2Corrie]

Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.

Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.

He never mentions the empty tomb once or the last supper or the Lord's Prayer or Jesus' last words on the cross or the guy with a spear or anything about Jesus' life as opposed opposed to his death at all.

He doesn't even mention the empty tomb in a situation where you would expect him to. He didn't know about it.

Paul never mentions the last supper? Are you sure about that?

[wigginhall]

If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?

Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.

Yes, it's a powerful argument.  I think that Schellenberg and others add the point that an all-loving God would inevitably make his presence clear.   I suppose the counter-arguments are 1), he does, and we're too stupid and/or sinful to notice; 2), he has a very good reason not to appear clearly. 

Both these arguments seem feeble.   It's also called the argument from reasonable non-belief, although maybe that's a bit different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?

Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.

Yes, it's a powerful argument.  I think that Schellenberg and others add the point that an all-loving God would inevitably make his presence clear.   I suppose the counter-arguments are 1), he does, and we're too stupid and/or sinful to notice; 2), he has a very good reason not to appear clearly. 

Both these arguments seem feeble.   

That's only opinion.

The counter to that is that most people through the ages have caught the divine and it's only those of a a philosophical materialist bent who demand signs and wonders. In fact I suppose philosophical materialism the equivalent of putting on spiritual blindfold

I think it's yer actual Dawkins who in one part of his jumbled corpus accuses the masses of jumping to conclusions about the universe having a creator....That is an admission that people see the divine quite naturally.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.

Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.

Well most of the audience of Paul's letters would be Christians who had experienced Jesus spiritually. But Paul, as you know, cites the 500 witnesses to resurrected Christ. Why talk about 500 witnesses if Paul actually thought that a spiritual experience of a spiritual resurrection was the end of the story. If every Christian has met with Christ spiritually why go on about a 500? 

[jeremyp]

No all Paul is saying is that without the resurrection there would be no notion of salvation through Christ so we are left with the question.

Which is a really poor argument for the resurrection. It would absolutely be improved if Paul could have said "and there was the empty tomb". After all, Christians today don't seem shy of using it.

No, the best explanation is that Paul knew virtually nothing of Jesus' life.

How would those who have enjoyed the salvation of Jesus ever come to know it if it weren't for the resurrection. How would people know about salvation in Christ if Christ wasn't saved himself.

So it seems to me that it would be a good idea if you could find out if it were true or not. You seem to have a lot riding on the idea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No all Paul is saying is that without the resurrection there would be no notion of salvation through Christ so we are left with the question.

Which is a really poor argument for the resurrection. It would absolutely be improved if Paul could have said "and there was the empty tomb". After all, Christians today don't seem shy of using it.

No, the best explanation is that Paul knew virtually nothing of Jesus' life.

How would those who have enjoyed the salvation of Jesus ever come to know it if it weren't for the resurrection. How would people know about salvation in Christ if Christ wasn't saved himself.

So it seems to me that it would be a good idea if you could find out if it were true or not. You seem to have a lot riding on the idea.

yes you do have to find out if the love of God which is ours through Jesus is true....but you can only find the truth of love yourself Jeremy.

[jeremyp]

Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.

Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.

He never mentions the empty tomb once or the last supper or the Lord's Prayer or Jesus' last words on the cross or the guy with a spear or anything about Jesus' life as opposed opposed to his death at all.

He doesn't even mention the empty tomb in a situation where you would expect him to. He didn't know about it.

Paul never mentions the last supper? Are you sure about that?

Not in any detail. He never says who was there or what happened, other than enough to establish the Eucharist.

[jeremyp]

Well most of the audience of Paul's letters would be Christians who had experienced Jesus spiritually.

Well, Christians who thought they experienced Jesus spiritually, at any rate.

This is part of the point. Paul places much more emphasis on knowledge of Christ by revelation. It seems he,and the Christians at the time, didn't place much value on the events of Jesus' life. Revelation was considered much more legitimate. In the circumstances, it's understandable that the actual events of Jesus' life were largely ignored by Paul and his followers.

But Paul, as you know, cites the 500 witnesses to resurrected Christ. Why talk about 500 witnesses if Paul actually thought that a spiritual experience of a spiritual resurrection was the end of the story. If every Christian has met with Christ spiritually why go on about a 500?

Why indeed. It's a number he pulled out of his arse. Ninety five thousand people saw me score the winning goal for England in the 1966 World Cup. Do you believe that I did?

[Hope]

This is part of the point. Paul places much more emphasis on knowledge of Christ by revelation. It seems he,and the Christians at the time, didn't place much value on the events of Jesus' life. Revelation was considered much more legitimate. In the circumstances, it's understandable that the actual events of Jesus' life were largely ignored by Paul and his followers.

A slight misrepresentation, jeremy.  The letters are all about day to day life as a believer - and would basically have been written to those who had already chosen that route.  They were also written to groups that Paul had already had face2face contact with.  In the case of new churches he planted, the letters make it clear that he made his listeners fully aware of the actual events of Jesus' death and his resurrection - after all, these were the seminal events of his life.

Let's take an example.  Arsene Wengerr isn't going to spend all his time teaching his squad how to kick, trap or head a ball - the fundamental aspects of football.  He is going to talking tactics, and on-pitch action.

Why indeed. It's a number he pulled out of his arse.

And you have evidence to support that assertion?