More silliness of the Cruci-fiction

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
More silliness of the Cruci-fiction

One more thing about just how silly the Bible is - I recall while hanging crucified the other men conversed with Jesus - one even made fun of him. Do yuo really think people hanging by nails driven through their hands and feet are going to have a conversation? About all they really would be saying would be

"YYYYYAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHAAAACCCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!"

 

or maybe "Holy motherfucking shit this hurts!"

 

Of course that wouldn't have been as good of a story....

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:One more

MattShizzle wrote:

One more thing about just how silly the Bible is - I recall while hanging crucified the other men conversed with Jesus - one even made fun of him. Do yuo really think people hanging by nails driven through their hands and feet are going to have a conversation? About all they really would be saying would be

"YYYYYAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHAAAACCCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!"

 

or maybe "Holy motherfucking shit this hurts!"

 

Of course that wouldn't have been as good of a story....

Because of the position they would have been hanged in, their breathing would be very labored, so I doubt they would've let out any more than a few grunts or groans.  I haven't read through the buybull in a long time, but I think only Jesus was actually nailed to the cross.  The others should have been tied.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I've read already that being

I've read already that being tied would actually be worse than nailed - as the shock/trauma/bleeding might kill you quicker while with being tied you would slowly asphyxiate - a strong man could actually last for days (you could manage to stand straight a while but once you leaned forward you couldn't breathe.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I've read

MattShizzle wrote:

I've read already that being tied would actually be worse than nailed - as the shock/trauma/bleeding might kill you quicker while with being tied you would slowly asphyxiate - a strong man could actually last for days (you could manage to stand straight a while but once you leaned forward you couldn't breathe.)

That's a good point, in fact there's part of the story where the two others have their legs broken to speed up the process, and when they get to Jesus to break his legs, he is already dead.  This supposedly fulfills the prophecy (John 19:36) which of coarse is bullshit as said "prophecies" were commandments dealing with animal sacrifice and not a prophecy at all.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I love how Christians point

I love how Christians point out it says in the Buybull that when they pierced his side that water came out, and this is consistant with what modern medicine knows (not sure if it's even true.) Even if it were, don't you think that people living in a particularly rebellious area of the Roman empire would have likely seen a few crucifictions and known this happens from experience? Or at least that since the Romans dod in fact crucify people somewhat regularly that this might be part of the general knowledge of people? I'd say that epic fails as evidence.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I was told by a preacher

I was told by a preacher once that the nails through the feet were to prevent you from being able to maneuver into a position where you could breathe better.  IIRC, this guy had made a thorough and gruesome study of exactly what crucifixion entailed, but then, he also said he had thoroughly studied the "science of the bible," so we know how far we can believe him.

Reference.com has something interesting to say about one of the variations for crucifixion:

Quote:
If the writings of Josephus are taken into account, a sedile was used at times as a way of impaling the "private parts" as he wrote; this would be achieved by resting the condemned man's weight on a peg or board of some sort, and driving a nail or spike through the genitals. If this was a common practice, then it would give credibility to accounts of crucified men taking days to die upon a cross, since the resting of the body upon a crotch peg or sedile would certainly prevent death by suspension asphyxiation. It would also provide another method of humiliation and great pain to the condemned, since nudity was almost certainly a feature of most crucifixions.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Crucifixion

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Pfft, don't you guys know

Pfft, don't you guys know anything?  Not only can they talk quite easily, they can also sing and whistle.  Haven't you guys seen The Life of Brian?

 

 

 

 

(Ponders how many peoples heads he just got that song stuck in)

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Cruci Fiction
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I don't have more

Sorry, I don't have more silliness today.


xuoran
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Prophecies

Quote:
This supposedly fulfills the prophecy (John 19:36) which of coarse is bullshit as said "prophecies" were commandments dealing with animal sacrifice and not a prophecy at all. 

 

Have you ever read the ancient testament? I'm sorry, but only a small part is consecrated to commandments to the ancient Jewish people, the other (and biggest) part is most of all prophecies written a couple of thousands of years ago. The prophetic books, as Esaiah and all the following until the beginning of the new testament, contain 60 major prophecies and 270 ramifications. Stoner, a recognized american mathematician, calculated and concluded that the probability of one man fulfilling 8 of the prophecies would be of one on 10 ^ 17, which is 1000000000000000000. Altogether, Jesus fulfilled, only in himself, more than 300 prophecies laid down in the old testament by the prophets. Now you could say: but those were simply written after Jesus' death, but the dead sea scrolls (don't know if you have heard of them) had many prophetic books of the old testament and dated back to 100 BC.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Quote:This

xuoran wrote:

Quote:
This supposedly fulfills the prophecy (John 19:36) which of coarse is bullshit as said "prophecies" were commandments dealing with animal sacrifice and not a prophecy at all. 

 

Have you ever read the ancient testament? I'm sorry, but only a small part is consecrated to commandments to the ancient Jewish people, the other (and biggest) part is most of all prophecies written a couple of thousands of years ago. The prophetic books, as Esaiah and all the following until the beginning of the new testament, contain 60 major prophecies and 270 ramifications. Stoner, a recognized american mathematician, calculated and concluded that the probability of one man fulfilling 8 of the prophecies would be of one on 10 ^ 17, which is 1000000000000000000. Altogether, Jesus fulfilled, only in himself, more than 300 prophecies laid down in the old testament by the prophets. Now you could say: but those were simply written after Jesus' death, but the dead sea scrolls (don't know if you have heard of them) had many prophetic books of the old testament and dated back to 100 BC.

Many people here have indeed read that book.

Describe one of these fulfilled prophecies.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Quote:This

xuoran wrote:

Quote:
This supposedly fulfills the prophecy (John 19:36) which of coarse is bullshit as said "prophecies" were commandments dealing with animal sacrifice and not a prophecy at all. 

 

Have you ever read the ancient testament? I'm sorry, but only a small part is consecrated to commandments to the ancient Jewish people, the other (and biggest) part is most of all prophecies written a couple of thousands of years ago. The prophetic books, as Esaiah and all the following until the beginning of the new testament, contain 60 major prophecies and 270 ramifications. Stoner, a recognized american mathematician, calculated and concluded that the probability of one man fulfilling 8 of the prophecies would be of one on 10 ^ 17, which is 1000000000000000000. Altogether, Jesus fulfilled, only in himself, more than 300 prophecies laid down in the old testament by the prophets. Now you could say: but those were simply written after Jesus' death, but the dead sea scrolls (don't know if you have heard of them) had many prophetic books of the old testament and dated back to 100 BC.

Yes I have read the Bible in several translations in many years of religious study including grad courses

Are you referring to Isaiah?

Please detail each of the 300 prophecies Jesus fulfilled and include verifiable evidence.

I'm very familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are you? Do you even have a clue what is in the DSS?

Homer's works date to the 9th century BCE (about 850 BCE) so should we conclude his descriptions of the gods' actions in his work is an accurate depiction of occurrences because it comes from an ancient time? For that matter, Sumerian stories date to the 3rd millennium BCE, since they are so ancient, clearly An and Ki are the true gods not the later Yahweh.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Herk (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
It's interesting to me that

It's interesting to me that so many of the elements of the crucifixion in the Jesus story seem implausible and even impossible.

In all of archeology, only one known crucified set of bones has ever been found. Only one. This is because the Romans simply did not allow bodies to be removed and put in graves or tombs. The whole purpose of crucifixion is to humiliate publicly the victims and to show how brutal your death might be should you transgress. Kindness shown to the family is simply not part of the event.

Once the body was sufficiently rotted, the remains were thrown to the dogs, and were scattered, hence the lack of evidence, in spite of historians like Josephus speaking of thousands of Roman crucifixions.

Another oddity is the story of the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus tries to wake his disciples. He's sweating blood in fear of his upcoming trials. They won't awaken. He goes back and pisses and moans to dad. The bad guys show up and arrest him and take him away.

Who wrote the story? How do we know details? Not a single word written about Jesus during his life has survived, not from the handful of historians in the area who never even mention him, not from any followers. Not a single word.

The only part of the story that makes any sense at all is the bit about Jesus being asked if he is the King of the Jews. If he indeed said yes, that would have sealed his fate. Jews although having some favor, were not Roman citizens and were not allowed to have a king. On the other hand, what prefect would have someone killed who had no real political power? The Romans were tolerant of at least 500 or 600 gods and goddesses, and except for their refusal to give homage to Caesar, also a god, it's hard to understand why an itinerant preacher would be given so much attention.

Also, the name Barabbas means "son of the father," and only adds confusion to the story.


xuoran
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Are you really trying to

Are you really trying to prove that the early christian church is being based on totally nothing and that it sprouted out of an absurd lie? Why would people like you and me give their entire lives and risk their necks a coupe hundred time (and risk a crucifixion head downwards), perfectly knowing that they are preaching nonsense and that one could prove them wrong simply by showing to the romans and the people the remnants of Jesus' body? No! The empty tomb is the only fact that would justify this incredible disciple making in a few years. It's a fact.

 

Now the real question is: Is the disapearance of the body divine or human? And this could be the subject of many more conversations.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Are you really

xuoran wrote:

Are you really trying to prove that the early christian church is being based on totally nothing and that it sprouted out of an absurd lie? Why would people like you and me give their entire lives and risk their necks a coupe hundred time (and risk a crucifixion head downwards), perfectly knowing that they are preaching nonsense and that one could prove them wrong simply by showing to the romans and the people the remnants of Jesus' body? No! The empty tomb is the only fact that would justify this incredible disciple making in a few years. It's a fact.

A fact is something that is accepted because there is sufficient evidence to do so. The supposed empty tomb is not such a case. The only place this is even discussed is in suspect stories in the Gospels. These Gospels can't even agree on what happened during the life of Jesus yet alone what supposedly happened after he allegedly died. The Resurrection accounts all differ in content sufficiently to attribute them to legend and myth as passed on by oral tradition, today called gossip or Urban Legends.

 

 

xuoran wrote:

Now the real question is: Is the disappearance of the body divine or human? And this could be the subject of many more conversations.

 

No, the real question is was there even a body to disappear or was it all mythical based on conjecture and an epileptic seizure prone apostle named Paul or Saul.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I want to know how Jesus

I want to know how Jesus came back to life. It would help with our understanding of biology and medical science. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Are you really trying to

"Are you really trying to prove that the early christian church is being based on totally nothing and that it sprouted out of an absurd lie?"

Give the man a prize! Smiling

"Why would people like you and me give their entire lives and risk their necks a coupe hundred time (and risk a crucifixion head downwards), perfectly knowing that they are preaching nonsense and that one could prove them wrong simply by showing to the romans and the people the remnants of Jesus' body?"

Faith in make believe is a horrible thing.

"No! The empty tomb is the only fact that would justify this incredible disciple making in a few years. It's a fact."

More likely there was never a body. Just like jesus supposedly lived and performed all these miracles but noone took the time to write about these impossible and wonderful feats until he was long dead. So long dead that the first guy to write about it wasn't even born when jesus supposedly died.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Are you really

xuoran wrote:

Are you really trying to prove that the early christian church is being based on totally nothing and that it sprouted out of an absurd lie? Why would people like you and me give their entire lives and risk their necks a coupe hundred time (and risk a crucifixion head downwards), perfectly knowing that they are preaching nonsense and that one could prove them wrong simply by showing to the romans and the people the remnants of Jesus' body? No! The empty tomb is the only fact that would justify this incredible disciple making in a few years. It's a fact.

 

Now the real question is: Is the disapearance of the body divine or human? And this could be the subject of many more conversations.

 

We aren't proposing that they were "perfectly knowing that they are preaching nonsense" at all. They almost certainly believed it, we just suggest they were mistaken for whatever reasons. Without actually having some real evidence of all the things that actually went on at the time, and exactly what they were claiming, we can't really say either way what was going on.

Even in the Bible, there is no clear miracle, just that after a day, the tomb is found to be empty. They didn't even place the guard until the next day after the body was apparently placed there. There really is nothing to prove that it couldn't have been taken out before they placed the guard. You really would need much more solid evidence that such a major and important miracle had actually occurred.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


xuoran
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-10-22
User is offlineOffline
"More likely there was never

"More likely there was never a body. Just like jesus supposedly lived and performed all these miracles but noone took the time to write about these impossible and wonderful feats until he was long dead. So long dead that the first guy to write about it wasn't even born when jesus supposedly died"

Yes, but no matter what, the early christians did sprout preaching his resurrection in the few years after his crucifixion. It's not a matter of "long dead".

Second, supposing that the four gospels are a kind of conspiracy to make believe. I can't suppose that one who wants to be as credible as possible would voluntarily include some pieces of different information into the four stories. For examble, it is said in one that they were a group women to go to the tomb (in the morning of the third day). Another says they were only two. Not very credible for a totally made up story! But credible for a story that was recalled by a couple persons who didn't exactly remember the number of women. Plus, why make women go to the tomb first? (Again supposing that it is a made up story.)Women were a social class, in that epoch, who had no influence, and of which the testimony would not count. They were not believed. Why then would the author have made rely an incredible history fact upon the sayings of those?

Third, you can't arrive with a story and everyone believes you.

More, some said that none had taken the time to write it down. Well obviously some had. But there were very few who knew how to, and in that few, a few that had the whole story. We named those four gospels. They are simply recalling of many testimonies, written or oral, in which, as you see in reading them, the only couple differences are numbers, or unimportant things like that. It is not a divergence. And would you submit to the New Testament the reliability tests that you submitted to other early manuscripts, you would be surprised of the results. Manuscripts that you call reliable are not that reliable if you apply the same criticism that you are applying to the New Testament. I cannot state here all the surprising evidences, but I have read Josh McDowell's "Ready Defense". I suggest it to all of you.


AdvancedAtheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Are you really

xuoran wrote:

Are you really trying to prove that the early christian church is being based on totally nothing and that it sprouted out of an absurd lie?

Uh, hello? Haven't you heard of Islam? and the 72 virgins waiting for you in paradise? People will readily devote themselves to "absurd lies" if these fables address their emotional needs.

 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Are you really

xuoran wrote:

Are you really trying to prove that the early christian church is being based on totally nothing and that it sprouted out of an absurd lie?

Im not trying to prove it, i think its pretty obvious.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:"More likely

xuoran wrote:

"More likely there was never a body. Just like jesus supposedly lived and performed all these miracles but noone took the time to write about these impossible and wonderful feats until he was long dead. So long dead that the first guy to write about it wasn't even born when jesus supposedly died"

Yes, but no matter what, the early christians did sprout preaching his resurrection in the few years after his crucifixion. It's not a matter of "long dead".

Second, supposing that the four gospels are a kind of conspiracy to make believe. I can't suppose that one who wants to be as credible as possible would voluntarily include some pieces of different information into the four stories. For examble, it is said in one that they were a group women to go to the tomb (in the morning of the third day). Another says they were only two. Not very credible for a totally made up story! But credible for a story that was recalled by a couple persons who didn't exactly remember the number of women. Plus, why make women go to the tomb first? (Again supposing that it is a made up story.)Women were a social class, in that epoch, who had no influence, and of which the testimony would not count. They were not believed. Why then would the author have made rely an incredible history fact upon the sayings of those?

Third, you can't arrive with a story and everyone believes you.

More, some said that none had taken the time to write it down. Well obviously some had. But there were very few who knew how to, and in that few, a few that had the whole story. We named those four gospels. They are simply recalling of many testimonies, written or oral, in which, as you see in reading them, the only couple differences are numbers, or unimportant things like that. It is not a divergence. And would you submit to the New Testament the reliability tests that you submitted to other early manuscripts, you would be surprised of the results. Manuscripts that you call reliable are not that reliable if you apply the same criticism that you are applying to the New Testament. I cannot state here all the surprising evidences, but I have read Josh McDowell's "Ready Defense". I suggest it to all of you.

I don't think it was as much of a conspiracy to make believe as much as having Paul's story of a non-physical Christ and trying to humanize it to make it palatable to those they were trying to convince.

As for McDowell - that book looks like a compilation of the things that got smoked when his earlier books were examined. Good for affirming those who are already convinced but not so much at convincing others.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:Yes, but no

xuoran wrote:

Yes, but no matter what, the early christians did sprout preaching his resurrection in the few years after his crucifixion. It's not a matter of "long dead".

Second, supposing that the four gospels are a kind of conspiracy to make believe. I can't suppose that one who wants to be as credible as possible would voluntarily include some pieces of different information into the four stories. For examble, it is said in one that they were a group women to go to the tomb (in the morning of the third day). Another says they were only two. Not very credible for a totally made up story! But credible for a story that was recalled by a couple persons who didn't exactly remember the number of women. Plus, why make women go to the tomb first? (Again supposing that it is a made up story.)Women were a social class, in that epoch, who had no influence, and of which the testimony would not count. They were not believed. Why then would the author have made rely an incredible history fact upon the sayings of those?

Third, you can't arrive with a story and everyone believes you.

More, some said that none had taken the time to write it down. Well obviously some had. But there were very few who knew how to, and in that few, a few that had the whole story. We named those four gospels. They are simply recalling of many testimonies, written or oral, in which, as you see in reading them, the only couple differences are numbers, or unimportant things like that. It is not a divergence. And would you submit to the New Testament the reliability tests that you submitted to other early manuscripts, you would be surprised of the results. Manuscripts that you call reliable are not that reliable if you apply the same criticism that you are applying to the New Testament. I cannot state here all the surprising evidences, but I have read Josh McDowell's "Ready Defense". I suggest it to all of you.

??  So your proof that it is a real story is that a lot of the supposed facts are inconsistent?

Is this an attempt at a jedi mind trick?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


xuoran
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 A lot? No way. No jedi

 A lot? No way. No jedi mind trick either. Those couple little differences simply prove that the authors simply didn't sit together and built a story from nowhere.

What you just did was reformulating my statements into a stupid way. Please.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote: A lot? No

xuoran wrote:

 A lot? No way. No jedi mind trick either. Those couple little differences simply prove that the authors simply didn't sit together and built a story from nowhere.

What you just did was reformulating my statements into a stupid way. Please.

They didn't have nothing - they had all or nearly all of Paul's work and what we now call the Old Testament.

A wealth of material to build a story from.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote: A lot? No

xuoran wrote:

 A lot? No way. No jedi mind trick either. Those couple little differences simply prove that the authors simply didn't sit together and built a story from nowhere.

What you just did was reformulating my statements into a stupid way. Please.

Your statement was already stupid, I just made it more concise. 

Some people have short attention spans for idiotic rambling like you're spouting.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


xuoran
Theist
Posts: 6
Joined: 2009-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Come on. Please remove the

 Come on. Please remove the "from nowhere" and respond to my main argument instead of concentrating on little misunderstandings... 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
xuoran wrote:"More likely

xuoran wrote:

"More likely there was never a body. Just like jesus supposedly lived and performed all these miracles but noone took the time to write about these impossible and wonderful feats until he was long dead. So long dead that the first guy to write about it wasn't even born when jesus supposedly died"

Yes, but no matter what, the early christians did sprout preaching his resurrection in the few years after his crucifixion. It's not a matter of "long dead".

 

And you know this why? Because the Book tells you so right. The first Gospel written was Mark something like 60 CE, 30 years after the alleged events according to Church tradition.

12 disciples, 13 if you count the replacement disciple as well as Judas. Judas may or may not have died, it depends on the version you read. The only 2 accounts from this group of 12 or 13 is John and Matthew. And even these are questionable as being written by actual Jesus followers. Both were written quite late, between 80 -  100 CE, 50 to 70 years after the supposed events. Matthew has errors from the beginning and gets worse as you go on. John, is inaccurate in many ways when compared to the other 3.

On the other hand Paul wrote his mystical Christ books from somewhere around 46 CE to 60 CE. He however was vague about the whole story. Why might that be? Perhaps because the legends were still developing.

xuoran wrote:

Second, supposing that the four gospels are a kind of conspiracy to make believe. I can't suppose that one who wants to be as credible as possible would voluntarily include some pieces of different information into the four stories. For examble, it is said in one that they were a group women to go to the tomb (in the morning of the third day). Another says they were only two. Not very credible for a totally made up story! But credible for a story that was recalled by a couple persons who didn't exactly remember the number of women. Plus, why make women go to the tomb first? (Again supposing that it is a made up story.)Women were a social class, in that epoch, who had no influence, and of which the testimony would not count. They were not believed. Why then would the author have made rely an incredible history fact upon the sayings of those?

You think these Gospels are the only religious texts that came out of Jewish belief in the 1st century? Hardly. There were dozens of them. Many were just Apocalyptic in nature many were Messianic in nature. The Gospels are just legends and stories that were documented from many sources, like Robin Hood at best. Was there a real Jesus? Who knows. If so, he was likely a rebel Jew that was part of the Zealots or another group opposed to Rome and the current political structure in Judea. There were in fact other magic healers throughout the Roman Empire, some very well documented, such as Apollonius of Tyana. He performed thousands of miracles reportedly.

xuoran wrote:

Third, you can't arrive with a story and everyone believes you.

 

Are you trying to say you can't make up a story and have everyone believe you? If so, you're right, everyone did not believe the fantastic tale of Jesus. Google Celsus for example. The Jews clearly didn't buy into a dead messiah as the promised one of scripture either.

xuoran wrote:

More, some said that none had taken the time to write it down. Well obviously some had. But there were very few who knew how to, and in that few, a few that had the whole story. We named those four gospels. They are simply recalling of many testimonies, written or oral, in which, as you see in reading them, the only couple differences are numbers, or unimportant things like that. It is not a divergence. And would you submit to the New Testament the reliability tests that you submitted to other early manuscripts, you would be surprised of the results. Manuscripts that you call reliable are not that reliable if you apply the same criticism that you are applying to the New Testament. I cannot state here all the surprising evidences, but I have read Josh McDowell's "Ready Defense". I suggest it to all of you.

There are many things differing in the 4 Gospels which are important, not just numbers. It indicates more that these stories were legends and written down at a later time. By the time they were written nearly everyone from the time period was dead. So too was the case of Robin Hood. No one knows for sure if he was real or not either. You need to sit down with your Bible and compare all 4 stories and look at what's different.

I'll give you one example -

After the feeding of the 5,000, not the recycled 4,000 person event story as there is one, you have several major differing accounts:

Mark - They arrived at the desert place by ship and people followed them. They went there to discuss the recent missionary trip by the disciples.  Afterwords, Jesus sends the people away, then he communes in the mountains. The disciples are on the ship. He walks out to them and they freak. They then go to Gennesaret.

Luke - They just go to the desert place, no explanation how. They went there to discuss the missionary trip. There is no story about their departure from the mass feeding.

John - John only indicated they wanted to get away and it was near Passover. After they eat Jesus perceived the people would take him by force to make him king, so he departed into the mountains alone. Then he walks out to the ship and it is instantly transported across the sea. Beamed over by transporter perhaps?

Matthew - Jesus and his disciples go to a desert place after they heard of John the Baptist's execution, possible fear and fleeing. Jesus dispatched the crowd after the meal and went to the mountain to pray while his disciples go out on the ship. Jesus walks up to the ship and Peter decides to try it as well. Peter nickname the name the rock may be because he floats like one. They then went to Gennesaret.

So these differences are:

Went by ship, walked, or just got there.

They went there to discuss the mission trip, to chill out, or to hide from Herod.

Jesus sends away the crowd, no mention of it, or he runs and hides in fear of being taken by force and made king.

The disciples go to the ship and Jesus walks out to them. In one case Peter tries to do it and floats like a rock.

They then go to Gennesaret in 2 cases or have a Star Trek Transporter and Zap across instantly to their destination of Capernaum. In Luke's case there's no follow up story.

These differences ooze story-telling and legends, you can't see that. And this is just one little episode from the adventures of Yahshua bar Joseph, super healer. Roll drums.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
And yet . . . if the gospels

And yet . . . if the gospels were word for word the same - this site would still exist and all of you would be screaming . . .

 CONSPIRACY THEORY.

And you accuse Christians of saying the same things over and over again???  Very old argument . . . it has been answered over and over again.

Go interview a cop and ask him or her if when he or she has interviewed 4 witnesses to anything . . . if all their stories are exactly the same, even if they interview within hours of the event.

Let me clue you in on the answer . . . NO.  It doesn't mean their story was wrong.  It simply means they saw it from different perspectives, the people themselves have different back grounds, and if they were telling a cop and telling their spouse - it would also be different.  The gospels address different people groups, written by different people, who had different back grouds, written years after the events. 

BUT HEY, all you atheists think you know scripture better than christians . . . so you probably already knew all this stuff.  You just choose to ignore it.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
All of the details are just

All of the details are just fluff to me. What matters is whether there was a man named Jesus who was the son of God. And, to me, a few testimonies in religious scriptures, even if they were legitimate, is just not going to be enough. Personal accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. For extraordinary claims, I need extraordinary evidence. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:And yet . . .

REVLyle wrote:

And yet . . . if the gospels were word for word the same - this site would still exist and all of you would be screaming . . .

 CONSPIRACY THEORY.

You know, sometimes the gospels are word for word the same. That's when "Matthew" and "Luke" copy "Mark" word for word. No conspiracy needed, just plagiarism.

REVLyle wrote:
And you accuse Christians of saying the same things over and over again???  Very old argument . . . it has been answered over and over again.

Repeating the same baseless assertion does not "answer" anything. Why do we have to point that out to you christians over and over again???

REVLyle wrote:
Go interview a cop and ask him or her if when he or she has interviewed 4 witnesses to anything . . . if all their stories are exactly the same, even if they interview within hours of the event.

Let me clue you in on the answer . . . NO.  It doesn't mean their story was wrong.  It simply means they saw it from different perspectives, the people themselves have different back grounds, and if they were telling a cop and telling their spouse - it would also be different.  The gospels address different people groups, written by different people, who had different back grouds, written years after the events.

You're being way too generous with your analogy. A much better analogy would be that four people claimed to witness a car accident. Guy 1 swears up and down that there were two cars involved, a red and a blue one, and that it took place in Chicago. The second guy agrees there were two cars, but with different colors, and the accident happened in Milwaukee. Guy number 3 says it happened in Evanston, but there were no cars, only bicycles involved. The fourth guy says that the car accident was the Word, and the Word was with Zeus, and the Word was Zeus. That's when you realize they can't all be eye witnesses, the car accident, if it even happened, happened over 40 years ago in a different country, and the information about it has been transmitted across culture- and language- barriers in a gigantic game of primitive phone tag. On top of that, it is reaching you in books by unknown authors, written with particular theological agendas regarding car accidents.

REVLyle wrote:
BUT HEY, all you atheists think you know scripture better than christians . . . so you probably already knew all this stuff.  You just choose to ignore it.

You broke my irony meter with that last sentence.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You are right, Reverend Doctor

REVLyle wrote:

And yet . . . if the gospels were word for word the same - this site would still exist and all of you would be screaming . . .

 CONSPIRACY THEORY.

And you accuse Christians of saying the same things over and over again???  Very old argument . . . it has been answered over and over again.

Go interview a cop and ask him or her if when he or she has interviewed 4 witnesses to anything . . . if all their stories are exactly the same, even if they interview within hours of the event.

Let me clue you in on the answer . . . NO.  It doesn't mean their story was wrong.  It simply means they saw it from different perspectives, the people themselves have different back grounds, and if they were telling a cop and telling their spouse - it would also be different.  The gospels address different people groups, written by different people, who had different back grouds, written years after the events. 

BUT HEY, all you atheists think you know scripture better than christians . . . so you probably already knew all this stuff.  You just choose to ignore it.

And when the gospels quote jesus talking to god and satan while he was completely alone that wasn't a fabrication either, was it?

The gospels. Written in foreign language, almost certainly in a foreign country, by nobody know's who.

Oh, I know what to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle- Thanks for showing us the Gospels are Unreliable

REVLyle wrote:

And yet . . . if the gospels were word for word the same - this site would still exist and all of you would be screaming . . .

 CONSPIRACY THEORY.

If they were word for word the same there would be only one.

REVLyle wrote:

Go interview a cop and ask him or her if when he or she has interviewed 4 witnesses to anything . . . if all their stories are exactly the same, even if they interview within hours of the event.

Let me clue you in on the answer . . . NO.  It doesn't mean their story was wrong.  It simply means they saw it from different perspectives, the people themselves have different back grounds, and if they were telling a cop and telling their spouse - it would also be different.  The gospels address different people groups, written by different people, who had different back grouds, written years after the events. 

BUT HEY, all you atheists think you know scripture better than christians . . . so you probably already knew all this stuff.  You just choose to ignore it.

Since you bring this up, those who wrote these books didn't get interviewed with in hours of the supposed events. It's unknown who saw what and who they told.

Elan, Jared, Reuben, and Joel all stop by a crowded market where a man is preaching about the coming "kingdom of god". He waves his hands over the crowd. Later Elan hears this man was a prophet. He tells his neighbor Seth he saw this great man apparently performing a miracle. Seth several years later is reminded of this incident when he hears there is a great teacher in the neighboring village. He tells his son Alon that Elan had witnessed a man be healed from a fatal illness. About 40 years later Mark comes through the village trying to reconstruct the story of the great teacher Yahshua. Alon runs into him in the local tavern. Over many cups of wine Alon recalls the story. He tells Mark that there was this miracle that occurred in his village witnessed by many where 10 lepers were healed and made pure.

During this same period, Jared moves his family to a village near Jerusalem. Jared hears of a great teacher who was executed for rebellion. Jared tells his new neighbor Taavi it sounds like the same guy who was teaching in his village about 5 years ago who was doing miraculous things. Taavi goes on a business trip to the coast to ship some of his wares, Taavi is having wine in the local establishment and overhears a story about a healer that had been performing great miracles. Taavi tells the man that his neighbor saw the healer cure a lame man. Another guy sitting across the table named Guri adds that he heard the same man had raised a man dead for 3 days. Iram from Damascus in town to make a deal on olive oil listened in on the discussion. Two years later Iram hears about a healer that was supposed to be the expected messiah. Iram tells the man named Luke he knows of a man who witnessed this messiah raise a man from the dead and other miracles like healing the lame, and blind. Luke adds these tales to a book he is writing.

None of the stories finally written have anything at all to do with the original event, a man was preaching in the market, no more.

Since people tend to add their own 'spin' to a story, it's extremely difficult to tell if any of the Gospel accounts are based in anything more than legends, especially after 40 or 50 years and many retellings by many different people.

I

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.