was jesus raised from the dead?
wf3h
theological seminary at:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
pitman)
basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
how could we ever doubt!
and the relevance to TO?
-historical methods
-nature of miracles
-reasoning of certain groups of christians
-probability of miracles as defined by some christians (not that any
creationist on TO would EVER try and misapply probability to
creationism)
enjoy
Bill254
Andre Lieven
Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
HTH.
Andre
[M]adman
there were witnesses dumb ass
harry k
As there is no, as in zero, evidence that he even existed, there is
just as much evidence that he was raised from the dead.
Harry K
wf3h
fine. prove it. you're wrong on creationism. why should we believe you
on faith when you're wrong on science?
unrestra...@hotmail.com
What makes you think so?
The evidence is as strong for the miracles of Mohammad. Why aren't you
Muslim?
What you have are the translations of letters and books written by
people who claimed they were writing down stories as people told them.
These are not eyewitnesses; these are writings of third hand testimony
by people who didn't know what was possible and what wasn't.
The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that he could levitate when people
weren't watching. Do you believe him? There were witnesses to Krishna
making love to one hundred milkmaids at once. Or so it is said. Now
*there's a god. How many witnesses were there when Heracles shot those
bronze-feathered birds out of the sky? Dozens? Hundreds? How many make
it reliable? If it's ancient you want, well, those stories are older
than Christianity.
Kermit
R Brown
"[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
news:1txEl.28139$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
the Great Wall of China.
[M]adman
You really do not understand. Because You lack perception, you lack
perspective.
BTW, The God of Abraham is the same God of the christians and, the muslims
and the jews.
Devils Advocaat
> "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
And what about all the eyewitnesses that have seen David Copperfield
fly?
And those that have seen David Blaine and Criss Angel levitate?
As [M]adman has been told before most eyewitnesses are unreliable.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wf3h
really? the jews and muslims are trinitarians?
wow. talk about a breakthrough!!
Bill254
There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
You see, "neandertal man" *must* exist.
The "eye witnesses" published papers on their existance.
And you being the dumbass you are, took these papers
as *evidence*.
Our "papers" just sell more copies.
wf3h
> On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>
really? we have fossils of jesus? we have genes of jesus? boy you
creationists are amazing!
> You see, "neandertal man" *must* exist.
>
> The "eye witnesses" published papers on their existance.
eyewitnesses that jesus existed?
none. none at all. all we have is hearsay...2nd hand reports. no one
who wrote the bible ever met jesus. and the gospels, as the article
points out, differ in many ways. so ancient texts are not generally
reliable.
>
> And you being the dumbass you are, took these papers
> as *evidence*.
creationists forget that we DID once take ancient texts as the way to
understand the world....the 'physics' of aristotle was considered and
explanation of the world. so yes, adman's way was tried by the
creationists
and it failed. 100% of the time. for 2000 years. creationism is
SSSSOOOOOOO
U.S.E.L.E.S.S.
Ye Old One
He would first have had to have lived. There is no evidence for that.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Were there? Please provide their documented statements.
And no, the bible is NOT an acceptable source, that is know to be
fiction.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And yet much of the Jesus myth was plagiarized from the Krishna story.
--
Bob.
Mark Evans
No, there were not. Some people claimed to have seen him after he
died but there is no record in the mythology of anyone actually seeing
him raised from the dead. And the accounts of seeing him after he
died were written decades after the fact. Not a good record, all-in-
all.
BTW, you ever consider how much JC resembles a vampire (folklore, not
movies)? Rises from the grave, visits friends and families, has
rituals involving blood, etc. And, as a fun touch, Bela Lugosi played
Jesus in plays in his native country before his stage success as
Dracula.
Mark Evans
Chris
Copperfield doesn't claim to have actually done those things, right?
Like most modern prestidigitators, he prefers the term 'illusionist' I
believe.
Chris
Spil...@gmx.net
I don't agree, there is evidence that Jesus lived. It is plausible
that at that time a wandering rabbi with some radical ideas aquired a
following and was eventually crucified. There is however no evidence
that he did something miraculous.
Lark
Spil...@gmx.net
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:14:27 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
That's interesting, could you provide me with a source for that?
Lark
harry k
Odd, I can go to museums and see the bones of neantherthals.
How about you provide just ONE piece of physical evidence that your
mythical Jesus ever existed. Your assertions mean nothing.
Harry K
Spil...@gmx.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
Bart Ehrman is as usual highly enlightening.
Lark
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I have no trouble with his existence. There was definitely a Jesus
cult (who considered themselves Jewish) a generation after his death.
These groups are usually founded by a strong personality of some sort.
Paul/Saul of Tarsus took it over, for his own reasons. I don't know
how we could reliably sort thru the various quotes attributed to him
and determine which are accurate. As for the miracles, well, I would
be cautious about taking second-hand stories as evidence for ordinary
events.
I accidentally created false memories in fellow soldiers when I was
young; I shudder to think of the possibilities for false memories in
cult members (who don't have our modern sense of what's possible)
after a generation of reinforcement.
Kermit
Spil...@gmx.net
Andre Lieven
> On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
No proof ever offered ? Cowshit fact free ASSertion always fails.
> You see, "neandertal man" *must* exist.
>
> The "eye witnesses" published papers on their existance.
Bullshit. You are a massive moron.
> And you being the dumbass you are, took these papers
> as *evidence*.
<Massive Lunatic Projection>
> Our "papers" just sell more copies.
To morons, of which you have lots of.
That doesn't mean that you are right, just that the
morons are all on your side.
The company you keep, and all...
2,000 years and still, not one shred of objective evidence
for any mythical sky pixie.
Andre
Louann Miller
477b00...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> BTW, you ever consider how much JC resembles a vampire (folklore, not
> movies)? Rises from the grave, visits friends and families, has
> rituals involving blood, etc.
T-shirt seen at a science fiction convention: beware the vampire Jesus.
He gave his blood for you and he wants it back RIGHT NOW.
But that's just name-calling. A more upsetting read for the
conventionally pious would be something like "The Lost Messiah" by John
Freely. The history of a non-Jesus person (Rabbi Zevi) who believed
himself to be the Messiah, convinced others he was the Messiah, was
reported to have done miracles, etc.
He didn't give up his life to demonstrate his faith in his own divinity,
though plenty of other charismatic leader types have. (I should mention I
went to college in Waco, Texas.) The outcome was even more embarrassing
for the you-can-trust-eyewitness-witnessing school of thought. He was
more-or-less forcibly converted to Islam, but his followers STILL thought
he was the Messiah. Testing their faith, and so forth.
The disquieting thing is trying to distinguish between Jesus and Rabbi
Zevi for reasons _other_ than their relative market share. The content
and the claims were very similar, it's just that one took and one didn't.
(Which IMO is the real reason "Life of Brian" got in so much trouble. Not
the full frontal Graham Chapman or the scatalogical language or the
stoning scene. The whole joke of the story is that eyewitnesses can
convince themselves even unto death that they've seen miracles etc. and
get it completely wrong.)
Desertphile
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
> theological seminary at:
>
> http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
>
> what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
> probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
> his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
> sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
> pitman)
Looks more like parody to me.
Christians used to kill Christians over the issue of if Jesus was
"ressurrected." Other Christians used to kill other Christians
over the issue of what or who "ressurrected" Jesus: the war god
Yahweh or Jesus.
> basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
> stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
> probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
This is perfectly reasonable logic, for the Bronze Age.
> how could we ever doubt!
>
> and the relevance to TO?
>
> -historical methods
> -nature of miracles
> -reasoning of certain groups of christians
> -probability of miracles as defined by some christians (not that any
> creationist on TO would EVER try and misapply probability to
> creationism)
>
> enjoy
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > was jesus raised from the dead?
> Yes.
Zero evidence for; billions of pieces of evidence against.
Desertphile
Where? Who? How do you "know" there were witnesses?
Steven L.
There is just as much evidence that Jesus lived, as there is Democritus
lived.
Just about everything we know about Democritus comes from eyewitness
accounts from his contemporaries. Yet Democritus is universally
regarded as the first philosopher to conceive of atomic theory.
There are many ancients who left no written records, yet who left a mark
on history.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
Well, it's certainly true that most advocates for evolution are
atheists. And they're the type of atheists who go out of their way to
trash other folks' most deeply felt religious beliefs.
There are a lot of Christians who accept evolution. But the most
visible advocates for the ToE invariably end up being atheists: Gould,
Dawkins, Sagan, etc. Of all of them, only Sagan was respectful of
religion. The rest go out of their way to trash it.
Greg G.
wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:12:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill254
>
> > On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
> > Yes.
>
> Zero evidence for; billions of pieces of evidence against.
Oh, yeah? Name a million of them. 80)
Devils Advocaat
Ah, but you see [M]adman isn't actually referring to what people have
said they themselves have done, but what other people claim to have
seen being done.
A different kettle of fish that is.
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:38:21 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@asshole.nut>
> wrote:
>
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> > >> Yes.
>
> > > Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > > extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> > > HTH.
>
> > > Andre
> >
> > there were witnesses dumb ass
>
> Where? Who? How do you "know" there were witnesses?
Indeed. Madmonkey continually fails to grasp that, in order to
have any credibility over such claims, he needs to SHOW his
claimed "evidence".
To date, his side has a 2,000 year long record of AVOIDING
showing any actual evidence.
The consequence to them, then, is that their empty ASSertions
are not accepted by any rational people.
Andre
Andre Lieven
No, that's actually NOT true. As an atheist myself, I would likely
prefer that it were true, but I stick to the real world, so I have to
admit that most people who accept evolution are believers of one
sort or another.
> And they're the type of atheists who go out of their way to
> trash other folks' most deeply felt religious beliefs.
Bullshit.
> There are a lot of Christians who accept evolution. But the most
> visible advocates for the ToE invariably end up being atheists: Gould,
> Dawkins, Sagan, etc. Of all of them, only Sagan was respectful of
> religion. The rest go out of their way to trash it.
That's because religion is trash. It's called a consequence.
Andre
Paul J Gans
>Andre Lieven wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>
>>
>> Andre
>there were witnesses dumb ass
No, there were not. When the tomb was opened, it was found
to be empty.
Guess how many Egyptian tombs are in exactly that condition.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
[...]
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
Miller, Collins, Ayala, ...
The signers of the Clergy Letter Project.
>
>There are a lot of Christians who accept evolution. But the most
>visible advocates for the ToE invariably end up being atheists: Gould,
>Dawkins, Sagan, etc. Of all of them, only Sagan was respectful of
>religion. The rest go out of their way to trash it.
>
On the one hand Gould pushed NOMA, and generally seemed rather
respectful of religion. On the other hand Sagan wrote "The Demon-haunted
World".
--
alias Ernest Major
Bill254
You don't have "Alexander the greats skeleton".
By your logic, he never existed.
Greg G.
Please provide your skeleton to prove you exist.
Bruce Stephens
> Bill254 <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>
> Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
We have a *lot* of wood from the Cross, though. I thought there were
dozens of finger bones, too? I guess other bones aren't so saleable.
Desertphile
You mean there really was a debate?! Good bloody gods--- I thought
it was a joke. Imagine debating what a god did and didn't do, here
in the modern world where we have space craft exploring some of
the planets, near-instant communication across the planet, and
cultting-edge information right at our fingertips. It is bloody
frightening to hear about ignorant superstitiopus savages having a
debate, ON VIDEO, about what imaginary beings did 2,700 years ago.
Fucking frightening.
> Lark
Desertphile
Education has a way of making people grow up. Don't blame atheists
for accepting evolution because they are atheists: the blame is
due to education.
> And they're the type of atheists who go out of their way to
> trash other folks' most deeply felt religious beliefs.
Tough shit; it's a harsh world out there, and grown-ups are not
required to dumb down their conversation for the sake of children.
> There are a lot of Christians who accept evolution. But the most
> visible advocates for the ToE invariably end up being atheists: Gould,
> Dawkins, Sagan, etc.
Atheist tend to be educated, ergo atheists tend to accept reality.
They are "advocates for the theory of evolution" (and the fact
that evolution happens and happened) for the exact same reason
they tend to be advocates for heliocentricity, thermodynamics,
mathematics, chemistry, aerodynamics, and physics.
> Of all of them, only Sagan was respectful of
> religion. The rest go out of their way to trash it.
Yes, telling children how the world really works is perceived by
some children as "trashing" their wrong beliefs. Sorry: reality
doesn't give a shit about wrong beliefs.
Bill254
You and I know I exist.
But some retard believes only skeletal evidence proves I do.
Desertphile
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:54 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:38:21 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@asshole.nut>
> > wrote:
> > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > >>> was jesus raised from the dead?
> > > >> Yes.
> > > > Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > > > extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
> > > > HTH.
> > > > Andre
> > > there were witnesses dumb ass
I love that "dumb ass" part.
> > Where? Who? How do you "know" there were witnesses?
> Indeed. Madmonkey continually fails to grasp that, in order to
> have any credibility over such claims, he needs to SHOW his
> claimed "evidence".
>
> To date, his side has a 2,000 year long record of AVOIDING
> showing any actual evidence.
>
> The consequence to them, then, is that their empty ASSertions
> are not accepted by any rational people.
The book "Salem's Lot" says there were hundreds of witnesses of
vapires existing in the United States. That is *BETTER* evidence
than anything madass has; we know who wrote "Salem's Lot" and the
book doesn't contradict itself anywhere I could discover.
> Andre
Desertphile
The ability some people have to believe that which is observed to
be false frightens me; the ability for a sub-set of those people
to believe something even after the event was explained to be
false by the person or people who fooled them just scares the piss
out of me. Every otherday I thank the gods I'm not one of them.
When I attended a continuing education (adult) class on celestrial
navigation, one night I ordered the classroom door ten feet away
to slam shut--- it did so with phenomenal speed and force in front
of 25 witnesses. They stared at me in amazement up to dinner
break, when I then explained how the trick was done. Some of them
refused to accept the trick for what it was, saying my explanation
was more improbable than my having magical paranormal abilities.
Their reaction frightened me so much I never repeated the trick.
Desertphile
<ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> [M]adman <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>
> >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
> >>
> >> HTH.
> >>
> >> Andre
> >there were witnesses dumb ass
> No, there were not. When the tomb was opened, it was found
> to be empty.
So is the tomb of Santa Claus. You are assuming there was a Jesus
and a tomb.
> Guess how many Egyptian tombs are in exactly that condition.
Damn near all of them. :-) The British used to burn Egyptian
mummies as fuel.
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:12:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill254
> > <spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >
> >> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> was jesus raised from the dead?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > He would first have had to have lived. There is no evidence for that.
> There is just as much evidence that Jesus lived, as there is Democritus
> lived.
You know of text fragments wrotten by Jesus?!?!?!? That's AMAZING!
Why have you kept that knowledge to yourself?!
Desertphile
We have a half-dozen of his penis's foreskins.
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:54 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:38:21 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@asshole.nut>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > > >>> was jesus raised from the dead?
> > > > >> Yes.
> > > > > Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > > > > extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
> > > > > HTH.
> > > > > Andre
> > > > there were witnesses dumb ass
>
> I love that "dumb ass" part.
Ain't it cute ?
"Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> > > Where? Who? How do you "know" there were witnesses?
> > Indeed. Madmonkey continually fails to grasp that, in order to
> > have any credibility over such claims, he needs to SHOW his
> > claimed "evidence".
>
> > To date, his side has a 2,000 year long record of AVOIDING
> > showing any actual evidence.
>
> > The consequence to them, then, is that their empty ASSertions
> > are not accepted by any rational people.
>
> The book "Salem's Lot" says there were hundreds of witnesses of
> vapires existing in the United States. That is *BETTER* evidence
> than anything madass has; we know who wrote "Salem's Lot" and the
> book doesn't contradict itself anywhere I could discover.
Indeed. Most police investigators could well explain just how
unreliable
eye-witness testimony really is. This is one reason that good
historians
like to have all sorts of records from the time in question, including
materials that go beyond mere witness claims.
So, documents with such as a seal of a ruler of a land would be
appropriate. Such records would not have a motive just to falsify
the existance of a character in question.
Doofuses like assmonkey cannot grasp that they have NO objective
evidence that their cherished mythical characters ever existed, never
mind that they did any of the extraordinary (And, wholly unsupported)
"miracles" that are claimed for them.
Thus, there's no good reason to accept such fairy tales as fact.
Andre
Greg G.
No, that's just the alcohol talking. You said there is just as much
evidence for Jesus as for Neandertals. Paul mentioned that we don't
have Jesus' skeleton as a humorous way of saying that we do have
Neandertal skeletons.
The reason Paul's joke was funny is that if we had skeletal proof of
Jesus' existance, it would be proof that he didn't ascend into heaven
and we could cancel Easter Services from now on.
Nobody is saying you need skeletal proof to believe that a given
person existed except you when you are wasted.
Damaeus
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
> theological seminary at:
>
> http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
>
> what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
> probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
> his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
> sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
> pitman)
>
> basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
> stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
> probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
You can prove God exists with Occam's Razor.
One-Inch Theory (depending on your font)
God Exists.
or
God Israel.
It satisfies Occam's Razor. It introduces the fewest entities
(one), and makes the fewest assumptions (none). Why none? Because
the introduction of the entity also handles the assumption since you have
to assume God exists to have an entity in the first place. The assumption
and the entity are one in this case.
Any other theory will require at least one entity, and one assumption.
Therefore, the theory that God exists will prove out in the end, as
opposed to any other.
Damaeus
Mike Painter
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>
>> HTH.
>>
>> Andre
>
> there were witnesses dumb ass
explains these witnesses.
Mitchell Coffey
We do have Ramses II's mummy, as I recall, or at least I'm going to
assume we do for purposes of this post (n.b.: econ in the blood).
Ramses Deux is widely believed by those whose opinions support mine to
have been the utterly whipped Pharaoh vilified in Exodus, or would be,
should Exodus and History come to an understanding.
So anyway, does this mean Exodus is true, because we have Ramses'
bones, or false, because he was found in a tomb and not in a sodden
condition at the bottom of the Reed Sea, or inconclusive, because
Hebrews at the time the Scriptures were being compiled from ambient
oral texts had access to historical time-series of Egyptian rulers?
Mitchell
Rolf
> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
We won't know for certain before Ray publishes his paper.
Stuart
> On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>
>
> > Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
Actually there a number of Neandertal skeletons.
Where are the bones of Jesus?
Stuart
Louann Miller
news:c117u416ljcukfvd9...@4ax.com:
(re tombs, found empty, evidentiary value of)
>> Guess how many Egyptian tombs are in exactly that condition.
>
> Damn near all of them. :-) The British used to burn Egyptian
> mummies as fuel.
And an ingredient in oil paints iirc.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
>
> > debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
> > theological seminary at:
>
>
> > what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
> > probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
> > his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
> > sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
> > pitman)
>
> > basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
> > stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
> > probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
>
> You can prove God exists with Occam's Razor.
>
> One-Inch Theory (depending on your font)
>
> God Exists.
>
> or
>
> God Israel.
Ummm... what?
"Israel" is not a verb. In any event, there are simpler alternatives,
e.g. No gods.
Occam's Razor is not a scientific law, but it's the way to go
ordinarily to choose among alternative explanations for a set of
data.
>
> It satisfies Occam's Razor. It introduces the fewest entities
> (one), and makes the fewest assumptions (none).
One is a lot more than none.
> Why none? Because
> the introduction of the entity also handles the assumption since you have
> to assume God exists to have an entity in the first place. The assumption
> and the entity are one in this case.
Which "proves" the existence of Zeus, Santa Claus, and the Flying
Spaghetti Monster.
Or not.
>
> Any other theory will require at least one entity, and one assumption.
No.
Try this: no gods.
> Therefore, the theory that God exists will prove out in the end, as
> opposed to any other.
It is not a theory. It is an untestable model, that fits any data. but
makes no predictions.
Here are a few others:
You are psychotic, and sitting in a padded cell, and only *think your
chaotic dreams are coherent.
This is a virtual world, and we are subroutines in a computer game.
You are a brain in a jar, receiving signals fed to you by computer via
your sensory nerves.
God is a trickster; he made the world last Thursday to *look much
older, and we all have false memories.
These are all conceivable, they *might be true, we have no way of
knowing, and no reason to behave differently. They are all some sort
of an illusion.
If you think you benefit from following a religious path, more power
to you. But you have no scientific evidence, and no logical argument
to support your claim.
>
> Damaeus
Kermit
[M]adman
> On 13 Apr., 13:42, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:14:27 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On Apr 12, 7:38 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>>>>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Andre
>>
>>>>> there were witnesses dumb ass
>>
>>
>>>> The evidence is as strong for the miracles of Mohammad. Why aren't
>>>> you Muslim?
>>
>>>> What you have are the translations of letters and books written by
>>>> people who claimed they were writing down stories as people told
>>>> them. These are not eyewitnesses; these are writings of third hand
>>>> testimony by people who didn't know what was possible and what
>>>> wasn't.
>>
>>>> The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that he could levitate when people
>>>> weren't watching. Do you believe him? There were witnesses to
>>>> Krishna making love to one hundred milkmaids at once. Or so it is
>>>> said. Now *there's a god. How many witnesses were there when
>>>> Heracles shot those bronze-feathered birds out of the sky? Dozens?
>>>> Hundreds? How many make it reliable? If it's ancient you want,
>>>> well, those stories are older than Christianity.
>>
>>>> Kermit
>>
>>> You really do not understand. Because You lack perception, you lack
>>> perspective.
>>
>>> BTW, The God of Abraham is the same God of the christians and, the
>>> muslims and the jews.
>>
>> And yet much of the Jesus myth was plagiarized from the Krishna
>> story.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
> That's interesting, could you provide me with a source for that?
>
>
> Lark
of course not
[M]adman
> "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
> news:1txEl.28139$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>>
>>> HTH.
>>>
>>> Andre
>>
>> there were witnesses dumb ass
> through the Great Wall of China.
This was a wee bit different.
People saw Copperfield pass through the Great Wall of China ONCE.
People saw Jesus after his death for many days
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On 13 Apr., 13:39, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:12:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill254
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> >Yes.
>>
>> He would first have had to have lived. There is no evidence for that.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>I don't agree, there is evidence that Jesus lived. It is plausible
>that at that time a wandering rabbi with some radical ideas aquired a
>following and was eventually crucified. There is however no evidence
>that he did something miraculous.
Personally, based on quite a lot of reading over the years, I edge
towards the Jesus story being based on several previous characters
some of whom may (possibly) have been real.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:12:01 -0700 (PDT), Bill254
>> <spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> He would first have had to have lived. There is no evidence for that.
>
>There is just as much evidence that Jesus lived, as there is Democritus
>lived.
>
>Just about everything we know about Democritus comes from eyewitness
>accounts from his contemporaries. Yet Democritus is universally
>regarded as the first philosopher to conceive of atomic theory.
>
>There are many ancients who left no written records, yet who left a mark
>on history.
That is true. However, Democritus had a fame which spread throughout
at least the Greek world of his time. JC seems to have been unknown
until well after his supposed death.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On 13 Apr., 13:42, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:14:27 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Apr 12, 7:38 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> >>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> >>>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> >>>>> Yes.
>>
>> >>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> >>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>
>> >>>> HTH.
>>
>> >>>> Andre
>>
>> >>> there were witnesses dumb ass
>>
>> >> What makes you think so?
>>
>> >> The evidence is as strong for the miracles of Mohammad. Why aren't you
>> >> Muslim?
>>
>> >> What you have are the translations of letters and books written by
>> >> people who claimed they were writing down stories as people told them.
>> >> These are not eyewitnesses; these are writings of third hand testimony
>> >> by people who didn't know what was possible and what wasn't.
>>
>> >> The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that he could levitate when people
>> >> weren't watching. Do you believe him? There were witnesses to Krishna
>> >> making love to one hundred milkmaids at once. Or so it is said. Now
>> >> *there's a god. How many witnesses were there when Heracles shot those
>> >> bronze-feathered birds out of the sky? Dozens? Hundreds? How many make
>> >> it reliable? If it's ancient you want, well, those stories are older
>> >> than Christianity.
>>
>> >> Kermit
>>
>> >You really do not understand. Because You lack perception, you lack
>> >perspective.
>>
>> >BTW, The God of Abraham is the same God of the christians and, the muslims
>> >and the jews.
>>
>> And yet much of the Jesus myth was plagiarized from the Krishna story.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>
>That's interesting, could you provide me with a source for that?
Sure, try this - starting about 3:40 in.
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2525837.htm
>
>
>Lark
--
Bob.
*Hemidactylus*
>
> >>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> >>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
>
> >> You see, "neandertal man" *must* exist.
>
> >> The "eye witnesses" published papers on their existance.
>
> > Bullshit. You are a massive moron.
>
> >> And you being the dumbass you are, took these papers
> >> as *evidence*.
>
> > <Massive Lunatic Projection>
>
> >> Our "papers" just sell more copies.
>
> > To morons, of which you have lots of.
>
> > That doesn't mean that you are right, just that the
> > morons are all on your side.
>
> > The company you keep, and all...
>
> > 2,000 years and still, not one shred of objective evidence
> > for any mythical sky pixie.
>
> Well, it's certainly true that most advocates for evolution are
> trash other folks' most deeply felt religious beliefs.
>
> visible advocates for the ToE invariably end up being atheists: Gould,
> religion. The rest go out of their way to trash it.
>
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 13, 5:25 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> >> > Yes.
>>
>> >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>> >There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>>
>> Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>
>
>You don't have "Alexander the greats skeleton".
>
>
>By your logic, he never existed.
We have a lot of historical evidence for him - none for JC.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 13, 6:49 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 1:40 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > > Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>>
>> > You don't have "Alexander the greats skeleton".
>>
>> > By your logic, he never existed.
>>
>> Please provide your skeleton to prove you exist.
>
>
>You and I know I exist.
I really do not believe someone as ignorant as you is real.
>
>But some retard believes only skeletal evidence proves I do.
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> there were witnesses dumb ass
The ancient texts say Jesus was not resurrected. Everybody dies ever
since Coyote said so.
But then, [M]adman has nothing but contempt for ancient texts, so he will
never be convinced.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:06:42 -0400, "Steven L."
There are fragments of texts penned by Democritus; Krishna / Jesus
didn't write anything that anyone knows about.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:53:07 -0700 (PDT), Spil...@gmx.net enriched
> this group when s/he wrote:
>> On 13 Apr., 13:42, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>> And yet much of the Jesus myth was plagiarized from the
>>> Krishna story.
>> That's interesting, could you provide me with a source for that?
I thought it was common knowledge by everyone interested in
Christianity. Is that not the case? There are many dozens of books
on the subject. Many of the myths about Jesus are in the myths
about Krishna and predate the myths written about Jesus by at
least 700 years. The last author of "Matthew" being a fine example
of appending Krishna mythology to Jesus mythology.
> Sure, try this - starting about 3:40 in.
> http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2525837.htm
"British theologian Robert Beckford investigated remarkable
parallels to the Jesus story in other faiths; some that predate
Christianity by thousands of years. He looked at the stories of
Horus, Mithras, Krishna and the Buddha. He also examined the
radical differences between the Jesus story in Christianity,
Judaism and Islam, and sought to find within this the 'real'
Jesus."
... if any.
So many of the Jesus myths predate the time he is said to have
lived by many centuries, some Fundamentalist Christians insist
their god Satan created pre-dated forgeries to confuse people.
wf3h
no, they didn't. people reported that OTHER people had said they'd
seen jesus.
no DIRECT eyewitnesses at all. and phantasms were hardly unusual in
this age. LOTS of dead people walking around and being reported
harry k
> On Apr 13, 5:25 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > >On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> > >> > Yes.
>
> > >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
>
> You don't have "Alexander the greats skeleton".
>
> By your logic, he never existed.
But we DO have Neanderthal skeletons. That is firm, hard evidence
that that existed in spite of your lies to the contrary.
We are still waiting for you to provide some proof, however slight,
that Jesus existed.
Harry K
harry k
+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> writes:
>
> > Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>
> > Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>
> dozens of finger bones, too? I guess other bones aren't so saleable.
almost enough wood to reconstruct the ark ;)
Harry K
*Hemidactylus*
> In message <vu2dnZJe3rpHyH7UnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> >>>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> >>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> >>> You see, "neandertal man" *must* exist.
>
> >>> The "eye witnesses" published papers on their existance.
> >> Bullshit. You are a massive moron.
>
> >>> And you being the dumbass you are, took these papers
> >>> as *evidence*.
> >> <Massive Lunatic Projection>
>
> >>> Our "papers" just sell more copies.
> >> To morons, of which you have lots of.
> >> That doesn't mean that you are right, just that the
> >> morons are all on your side.
> >> The company you keep, and all...
> >> 2,000 years and still, not one shred of objective evidence
> >> for any mythical sky pixie.
>
> >Well, it's certainly true that most advocates for evolution are
> >atheists. And they're the type of atheists who go out of their way to
> >trash other folks' most deeply felt religious beliefs.
>
>
> The signers of the Clergy Letter Project.
>
>
>
> >There are a lot of Christians who accept evolution. But the most
> >visible advocates for the ToE invariably end up being atheists: Gould,
> >Dawkins, Sagan, etc. Of all of them, only Sagan was respectful of
> >religion. The rest go out of their way to trash it.
>
> respectful of religion. On the other hand Sagan wrote "The Demon-haunted
> World".
>
Gould seemed to identify himself more an agnostic and was hardly the
militant atheist Dawkins is. By grouping Gould together with Dawkins
as someone who trashed religion, Steven L is misrepresenting him.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
And Gould from _Rocks of Ages_ (1999. The Ballantine Publishing Group,
New York,p. 68-9): [bq] "But I also include, among my own scientific
colleagues, some militant atheists whose blinkered concept of religion
grasps none of the subtlety or diversity, and equates this entire
magisterium with the silly and superstitious beliefs of people who
think they have seen a divinely crafted image of the Virgin in the
drying patterns of morning dew on the plate-glass windows of some auto
showroom in New Jersey." [eq]
That being said I'm more aligned with Dawkins than Gould.
Mike Painter
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
> wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
>
>> debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
>> theological seminary at:
>>
>> http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
>>
>> what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
>> probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
>> his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
>> sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
>> pitman)
>>
>> basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
>> stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
>> probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
>
> You can prove God exists with Occam's Razor.
>
> One-Inch Theory (depending on your font)
>
> God Exists.
Not a theory.
>
> or
>
> God Israel.
>
Not a theory.
>
> It satisfies Occam's Razor. It introduces the fewest entities
> (one), and makes the fewest assumptions (none). Why none? Because
> the introduction of the entity also handles the assumption since you
> have to assume God exists to have an entity in the first place. The
> assumption and the entity are one in this case.
But it leaves out the most important part.
>
> Any other theory will require at least one entity, and one assumption.
> Therefore, the theory that God exists will prove out in the end, as
> opposed to any other.
>
It is not a theory and God does not esist is as simple and has more
ssupporting evidence.
Aside from not knowing what a theory is and not understanding Occam's Razit,
YOU ARE STILL WRONG
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> writes:
>> Bill254 <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>>There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>>
>> Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>We have a *lot* of wood from the Cross, though. I thought there were
>dozens of finger bones, too? I guess other bones aren't so saleable.
I don't know about finger bones, though they are common for
saints. But bits of the true cross? Oh yes. Even in the
Middle Ages they were wise enough to note that there was
enough material already being venerated to make a fair number
of crosses.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Apr 13, 1:40 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 5:25 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> > >> > Yes.
>>
>> > >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> > >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>
>> > Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>>
>>
>> By your logic, he never existed.
>Please provide your skeleton to prove you exist.
Oh, we don't need that. He posts, therefore he exists. Of
course he might be a dog, but as is said, on the internet
nobody knows you are a dog.
Paul J Gans
>On Apr 13, 5:25 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> >> > Yes.
>>
>> >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>> >There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>>
>> Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>You don't have "Alexander the greats skeleton".
>By your logic, he never existed.
No. Don't go all stupid on me. Try very hard not to.
The claim was that there were eye-witnesses to Jesus's
resurection. There weren't. The Bible does not claim
that any human actually saw the corpse resurected.
Your counterclaim was that there was "as much evidence" for
Neandertal man. This is not true. We have skeletons for
Neandertals so we know they existed.
Now you bring up Alexander the Great. We do NOT have
his skeleton. We do, however, have tons of circumstantial
evidence including eyewitness accounts, artifacts, and the
like. Nevertheless, it is not 100% proof.
Let me give you a fast clue. With it you can play with the
big boys. In history there are no 100% truths. There are
virtual certainties, such as George Washington was the first
President of the US. And there are less certain things such
as the details of many of the battles of the Revolutionary
War.
Historians work with evidence. And the evidence is carefully
examined and tested against any other available evidence.
For example it is a virtual certainty that sometime after the
start of the Christian era there was a religious group known
as Christians. There is a huge amount of evidence for it.
It is less likely that there were disciples named Matthew, Mark,
etc. There existance is not well-testified at all. It is
true that there are books that they supposedly wrote, but
they could easily have been written by somebody else and names
assigned later.
As for Jesus, it is quite possible that there was such a person,
probably a Jewish religious reformer. There were lots of those.
And it is likely that he ran afoul of the Roman authorities
and was, like so many other religious leaders preaching that
there was a higher power than the Romans, executed.
There is NO evidence other than the Bible that he was
resurected. The only material saying so is the tract known
as the Bible and it has a vested interest in the truth of
the legend. There are no other reliable attestations of
resurection.[1]
On the other hand there are reliable attestations of Neandertals
and Alexander the Great.
Do you understand the difference? And yes, there will be a test
on this in the next several posts.
[1] It is interesting, but Christianity as a kind of reform
Judaism did not need the resurection. Jews would have happily
taken Jesus as a prophet. Certainly Mohammed did not need to
be a supernatural being to found a religion.
One reasonable reason for the need for a resurection was the
need to convince the pagans that something miraculus had happened.
Reform Judaism would not have interested them very much.
And the resurection has gotten the Christians into all sorts of
trouble. To keep a monotheistic religion, all sorts of verbal
and mental gymnastics have been invented.
But given your religious temperment, all this is deep water for
you and one can't expect a reasonable discussion on the issue.
heekster
wrote:
Not according to the Gospels.
heekster
wrote:
>Spil...@gmx.net wrote:
Wrong answer.
Do you ever tire of making an ass of yourself in a public venue?
Paul J Gans
>On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:21:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> [M]adman <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> >Andre Lieven wrote:
>> >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>> >>
>> >> HTH.
>> >>
>> >> Andre
>
>> >there were witnesses dumb ass
>
>> No, there were not. When the tomb was opened, it was found
>> to be empty.
>
>So is the tomb of Santa Claus. You are assuming there was a Jesus
>and a tomb.
>
>> Guess how many Egyptian tombs are in exactly that condition.
>Damn near all of them. :-) The British used to burn Egyptian
>mummies as fuel.
No no. Empty tombs missing their intended occupant. Can
we assume that they have all been taken bodily into heaven?
Paul J Gans
>On Apr 13, 2:11 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 6:49 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 13, 1:40 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > You don't have "Alexander the greats skeleton".
>>
>> > > By your logic, he never existed.
>>
>>
>>
>No, that's just the alcohol talking. You said there is just as much
>evidence for Jesus as for Neandertals. Paul mentioned that we don't
>have Jesus' skeleton as a humorous way of saying that we do have
>Neandertal skeletons.
>The reason Paul's joke was funny is that if we had skeletal proof of
>Jesus' existance, it would be proof that he didn't ascend into heaven
>and we could cancel Easter Services from now on.
BINGO! You got it. Nobody else has mentioned it.
>Nobody is saying you need skeletal proof to believe that a given
>person existed except you when you are wasted.
Of course. The only point was that we have no eyewitnesses
to the resurrection. Bill claimed otherwise. But then he's
always shifting the goalposts when the going gets rough.
[Talk about mixed metaphors....]
Paul J Gans
>On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:25:36 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill254 <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 13 Apr, 03:15, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>> >>
>> >> > Yes.
>> >>
>> >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
>> >There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>
>> Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>
>We have a half-dozen of his penis's foreskins.
Curious business that. IIRC they don't show up until
credulus Roman Catholics started visiting Orthodox
Constantinople around the year 1000.
Paul J Gans
>>
>> >>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>
>> >>> Yes.
>>
>> >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>> >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>
>>
>> >> Andre
>> >there were witnesses dumb ass
>>
>> No, there were not. When the tomb was opened, it was found
>> to be empty.
>>
>We do have Ramses II's mummy, as I recall, or at least I'm going to
>assume we do for purposes of this post (n.b.: econ in the blood).
>Ramses Deux is widely believed by those whose opinions support mine to
>have been the utterly whipped Pharaoh vilified in Exodus, or would be,
>should Exodus and History come to an understanding.
>So anyway, does this mean Exodus is true, because we have Ramses'
>bones, or false, because he was found in a tomb and not in a sodden
>condition at the bottom of the Reed Sea, or inconclusive, because
>Hebrews at the time the Scriptures were being compiled from ambient
>oral texts had access to historical time-series of Egyptian rulers?
>Mitchell
Mitch, that wasn't the point. The point is that empty tombs
are nothing new. There are many reasons for them. One excellent
one is that the Romans took the body so that the tomb would not
become a gathering place or center for further religious activity.
After the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror recovered
Harold of England's body and had it buried in a secret location
so that the English could not venerate it. To this day nobody
knows where Harold lies. But nobody thinks he acendend to heaven.
*Hemidactylus*
Martin Hutton
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:14:27 -0500, "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 7:38 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>>>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>>>
>>>>> HTH.
>>>>
>>>>> Andre
>>>>
>>>> there were witnesses dumb ass
>>>
>>> What makes you think so?
>>>
>>> The evidence is as strong for the miracles of Mohammad. Why aren't you
>>> Muslim?
>>>
>>> What you have are the translations of letters and books written by
>>> people who claimed they were writing down stories as people told them.
>>> These are not eyewitnesses; these are writings of third hand testimony
>>> by people who didn't know what was possible and what wasn't.
>>>
>>> The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that he could levitate when people
>>> weren't watching. Do you believe him? There were witnesses to Krishna
>>> making love to one hundred milkmaids at once. Or so it is said. Now
>>> *there's a god. How many witnesses were there when Heracles shot those
>>> bronze-feathered birds out of the sky? Dozens? Hundreds? How many make
>>> it reliable? If it's ancient you want, well, those stories are older
>>> than Christianity.
>>>
>>> Kermit
>>
>> You really do not understand. Because You lack perception, you lack
>> perspective.
>>
>> BTW, The God of Abraham is the same God of the christians and, the
>> muslims
>> and the jews.
>>
> And yet much of the Jesus myth was plagiarized from the Krishna story.
>
Sadly, without the milkmaids. Christianity would have been
so much better without the prudishness of Paul.
--
Martin
Martin Hutton
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
> wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
>
>> debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
>> theological seminary at:
>>
>> http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
>>
>> what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
>> probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
>> his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
>> sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
>> pitman)
>>
>> basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
>> stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
>> probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
>
> You can prove God exists with Occam's Razor.
>
> One-Inch Theory (depending on your font)
>
> God Exists.
>
> or
>
> God Israel.
>
>
> It satisfies Occam's Razor. It introduces the fewest entities
> (one), and makes the fewest assumptions (none). Why none? Because
> the introduction of the entity also handles the assumption since you have
> to assume God exists to have an entity in the first place. The
> assumption
> and the entity are one in this case.
>
> Any other theory will require at least one entity, and one assumption.
> Therefore, the theory that God exists will prove out in the end, as
> opposed to any other.
>
>
> Damaeus
>
Here's my 1/2 inch rebuttal, reducing entities even further:
0 gods.
--
Martin
Devils Advocaat
> R Brown wrote:
> > "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
> >news:1txEl.28139$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> >>>> Yes.
>
> >>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> >>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> >>> HTH.
>
> >>> Andre
>
> >> there were witnesses dumb ass
> > through the Great Wall of China.
>
> This was a wee bit different.
>
> People saw Copperfield pass through the Great Wall of China ONCE.
And that is where your argument for the reliability of eyewitnesses
falls down completely.
David Copperfield didn't pass through the Great Wall of China EVER.
>
> People saw Jesus after his death for many days- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wombat
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:21:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
> <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> > [M]adman <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> > >Andre Lieven wrote:
> > >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> > >>> Yes.
>
> > >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> > >> HTH.
>
> > >> Andre
> > >there were witnesses dumb ass
> > to be empty.
>
> and a tomb.
>
>
> mummies as fuel.
Seems this might have been an urban myth popularised by Mark Twain.
The version I heard was the mummies were used in US locos. The Brits
did, it seems, import mummified cats to turn into fertiliser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy has the detail, assuming the facts
are correct.
Wombat
>
> --http://desertphile.org
Damaeus
unrestra...@hotmail.com posted:
> On Apr 13, 12:59 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
> > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> >
> > > debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
> > > theological seminary at:
> >
> > >http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate...
> >
> > > what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
> > > probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
> > > his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
> > > sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
> > > pitman)
> >
> > > basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
> > > stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
> > > probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
> >
> > You can prove God exists with Occam's Razor.
> >
> > One-Inch Theory (depending on your font)
> >
> > God Exists.
> >
> > or
> >
> > God Israel.
>
> Ummm... what?
>
> "Israel" is not a verb.
"Israel" sounds like "Is real" in some pronunciations. The way I see
things, the words we use, the colors we choose for designs, the names we
choose, are all part of a person's total life. In effect, our choices in
the past, and our preferences for the future work subconsciously to
influence our choices. And the root engendering of those choices is not
that clear without synergistic introspection and recollection of the past
as it relates to your contemplations of your sense of purpose and how it
would relate to any eternal life that you might want to envison for
yourself. These are very private moments and not easily shared with
others, from my experience because you'd have the sense that trying to
discuss it with someone would only make them look at you as weak-minded
and susceptible to flights of fancy. But in my case, after 12 years of
introspection and even being skeptical of my own thoughts, my belief level
was pulled up to the point where I decided I'd open myself for criticism
and just say it.
At the same time, I tried to be careful. I knew that "God is real, we are
going to live forever" wasn't going to be any more popular than a
Christian asking if you've been saved. So I would look for discussions
where I might be able to make comments in the general direction of
immortality. I was shocked to find out how many people not only don't
believe it's possible, but who don't even want it. They'd say things
like, "Why would I want to live forever? I don't even like this body."
Well, that was very short-sighted. I found that people were not even
considering the fact that immortality comes with physiological preference.
Build your body and build your anatomy the way you want to. Actually, if
I wanted to just say it the way I want to without trying to use what I
know about science to lure people into spirituality, I'd say that our
physical bodies have a spiritual counterpart that is constantly working to
upgrade our physical genetics for immortality, but our power of belief is
so strong in the physical world that our physical bodies can literally win
the battle against our spirits and die....after which point we find out we
are immortal, anyway, and we come back down for another lifetime to have
another go at it, but with more indwelling of wisdom than we had in the
previous lifetime. It's basically what makes some people act like apes
(less spiritual wisdom), while those who sit back and wonder why some
people act like apes have more spiritual wisdom--more previous lifetimes.
> In any event, there are simpler alternatives, e.g. No gods.
>
> Occam's Razor is not a scientific law, but it's the way to go
> ordinarily to choose among alternative explanations for a set of
> data.
>
> >
> > It satisfies Occam's Razor. It introduces the fewest entities
> > (one), and makes the fewest assumptions (none).
>
> One is a lot more than none.
>
> > Why none? Because
> > the introduction of the entity also handles the assumption since you have
> > to assume God exists to have an entity in the first place. The assumption
> > and the entity are one in this case.
>
> Which "proves" the existence of Zeus, Santa Claus,
Santa Claus is just another name for God.
> > Any other theory will require at least one entity, and one assumption.
>
> No.
>
> Try this: no gods.
Then there's nothing to test. There'd be no entity, no assumption. No
nothing. Nothing is something, however.
> Here are a few others:
> You are psychotic, and sitting in a padded cell, and only *think your
> chaotic dreams are coherent.
I've already said I've pushed my mind through psychosis. While my
thinking would be considered acutely and irreversibly psychotic by
psychiatrics, I've pushed it to the point where I can interact normally
with other humans without looking at them as if they just beamed down from
the Enterprise. Unfortunately, I'm so far beyond psychotic now that I
couldn't even convince a psychiatrist of it unless I went into his office
to intentionally say things that I think a psychotic person would say.
Proof? In August of 1997, a week long "acting out" of what society calls
psychotic behavior put me in the mental hospital. I didn't hurt anyone,
but I vandalized my apartment, but I knew what I was doing. By the time I
was actually put in a mental hospital, though, I was over it. My thoughts
were still all over the place, but my behavior was normal.
In December of 1997, I smoked some pot and after a few days, I was back
into another mental hospital for three days, and was released. Three days
is much better than three weeks.
From December of 1997 to September of 2002, I did not work. I felt ready
to go back to work in mid-2000, but my actual situation aside from my
"mental problems" prevented it.
I did go back to work in 2002. The things I thought about while in
"psycho mode" went into dormancy for a few years. I knew many of the
things I was thinking were true then, but my consciousness seemed to drift
back into a sleep. Those ideas faded away, even to the point where they
felt like they were fake, unreal, and would never happen.
But then in 2008, they surfaced again, and with more gusto. But this
time, it did not result in the same kind of psychotic behavior as before.
This time, it built up gradually, then for one day, I did a few things
that were bizarre, but not dangerous to me or anyone else. I was
cognizant enough to have a conversation with my roommate about whether I
wanted to go to a nut house or not, so I figured why not. Might be fun.
So I said, "Yeah, I think I will."
After waiting calmly in a medical hospital for several hours, a couple of
deputies came out to "transport me" to a town near Dallas. They waited in
the lobby while I went back to be evaluated. I was not admitted to the
mental hospital. The psychiatrist said I seemed perfectly fine to him,
and he said it's not illegal to have strange thoughts.
So having been given a clean bill of mental health, the deputies took me
back home (at 90 and 100 miles an hour).
Since that time, the state of mind I was in when I did those few bizarre
things for a day has only developed to go more in the direction of
psychosis, without all the impulsive psychotic behavior. This time, in
other words, my consciousness did not drift back into a sleep of
unawareness, but has awakened more, and is more aware.
After getting confidence in myself that I was not going to start acting
weird again, I began experimenting with how thoughts were affecting my
perception. I began doing things to make my mind more and more
"psychotic", but noticed that I wasn't actually becoming more psychotic,
but more clear-headed. What used to be random bodily sensations now had a
sense of place within my own thoughtscape. I realized the connection
between the body and the mind and how thinking affects the physical body.
The unfortunate part in all this is that now I know so damned much that
science /doesn't/ know. Science likes to say, "That can't happen because
this over here is true." In the mind, two things can be true at the same
time. For example, one time I had a strange sensation come over me, and I
suddenly found myself in three states of mind at the same time. I knew
who I was, and I discovered who I was, at exactly the same time. In a
perplexed, almost cross-eyed expression, I cocked my head to the side and
thought, "How the hell can I know myself, not know myself, and find out
about myself, all at the same time?" It was an odd mindset, to be sure.
To keep this from becoming any more boring than it already is, what
essentially happened is that my mind got so bored with thinking about
other things that it started doing some things on its own, and I just got
to sit back and enjoy the ride. I became even more of a responder to
input than a creator of something to say. I found a niche in responding
to what I see, instead of making up assumptions and acting from those. I
began to experiment with trusting the first thoughts that come to mind
instead of meeting each new thought with refutation as I had in the past.
I began trusting my brain and its workings and its design that came about
through my own thought processes, to bring to the forefront the most
pertinent words I could use in each passing moment.
Ugh... But all that is incredibly boring to talk about. I don't enjoy it.
I don't like talking about how my thinking works, but using it
conversation. Unfortunately many of the conversations with Ye Old One are
not that enjoyable because he doesn't say anything I can respond to.
> This is a virtual world, and we are subroutines in a computer game.
> You are a brain in a jar, receiving signals fed to you by computer via
> your sensory nerves.
> God is a trickster; he made the world last Thursday to *look much
> older, and we all have false memories.
>
> These are all conceivable, they *might be true, we have no way of
> knowing, and no reason to behave differently. They are all some sort
> of an illusion.
>
> If you think you benefit from following a religious path, more power
> to you.
I don't follow a religious path. That's just it. All the stuff I've been
through makes premeditated ritual practices so primitive as to be
absolutely ignored as a concept of at least my own human behavior. But I
still understand the reasons why people still go to church and practice
their rituals. It makes them happy, makes them feel safe. Since that's
what I want all people to feel (safe and happy), I'm glad to see people
going to church if that's what it brings them.
> But you have no scientific evidence,
I have no evidence that satisfies science. That's quite a difference.
> and no logical argument to support your claim.
The logic is there. But you must be clincially psychotic to see it. By
clinically psychotic, I mean according to professional, pill-pushing,
hospital-admitting psychiatry.
Damaeus
Damaeus
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> posted:
> Damaeus wrote:
> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
> > wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> >
> >> debate between bart ehrman of UNC and william craig of the talbot
> >> theological seminary at:
> >>
> >> http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
> >>
> >> what's laughable to me is craig's attempt to establish, based on
> >> probability theory, that jesus had 97% chance of being resurrected.
> >> his analysis is HYSTERICAL and, i suppose, is what passes for
> >> sophisticated analysis among a certain group of christians (like sean
> >> pitman)
> >>
> >> basically their agument seems to be that we can't know HOW god does
> >> stuff, so, being god, he can do anything he wants. therefore the
> >> probability is 100% and that proves god exists!
> >
> > You can prove God exists with Occam's Razor.
> >
> > One-Inch Theory (depending on your font)
> >
> > God Exists.
>
> Not a theory.
I used a buzzword to refer to it as one. And that people have enough
anecdotal, circumstantial, and experiental corroboration to see
similarities in their experiences means that God Exists /is/ a theory. It
just might not be a scientific theory in the strictest sense. To say it
isn't would be to say that we are all biological defectives and we cannot
trust our experiences at all to be truthful with us, even when we all
agree that we experience the same thing. God can exist without you
believing he does. :)
> > It satisfies Occam's Razor. It introduces the fewest entities
> > (one), and makes the fewest assumptions (none). Why none? Because
> > the introduction of the entity also handles the assumption since you
> > have to assume God exists to have an entity in the first place. The
> > assumption and the entity are one in this case.
>
> But it leaves out the most important part.
Which you failed to point out, leaving me wondering if you know what
you're talking about.
> > Any other theory will require at least one entity, and one assumption.
> > Therefore, the theory that God exists will prove out in the end, as
> > opposed to any other.
>
> It is not a theory
Why not?
> and God does not esist is as simple and has more ssupporting evidence.
There is no evidence that God does not exist except that no "body"
claiming to be God and performing feats to prove it has shown up yet, in
this age, where we can all see it. Until we all are extinct and cease to
exist, proof that God does not exist is going to be impossible to obtain.
> Aside from not knowing what a theory is and not understanding Occam's Razit,
> YOU ARE STILL WRONG
What's Occam's Razit?
I am not wrong.
Mitchell Coffey
Surely you don't think I was making a serious point?
> After the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror recovered
> Harold of England's body and had it buried in a secret location
> so that the English could not venerate it. To this day nobody
> knows where Harold lies. But nobody thinks he acendend to heaven.
Cromwell was ill treated in death, with bits redistributed hither and
yon. I believe they know where his head is, and most of the rest; the
point being that the former rests nowhere near the latter. Wait!
Wait!: Wasn't Richard III dug up and dumped in the Thames after some
to-do? Anyway, there is some tradition of disappearing those you
don't like once they've lost all capacity to dispute the issue.
The thing is, this is over-thinking the issue, which is one of two
reason I was unable to make a serious response. They fact is, Madman
is making an argument from a very common class; they are idiotic when
made by respectable people. As you've shown, though, fun can be had
when one responds to such arguments on their own terms.
Mitchell
*Hemidactylus*
>
> Santa Claus is just another name for God.
>
Devils Advocaat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtG6t6LcNAU
Did he do it in broad daylight? No he did it at night.
Did he simply step up to the wall and pass through it? No there was a
load of paraphenalia.
It is a typical illusionist's trick.
And it goes to show you cannot always believe what you see, or what
eyewitnesses claim to have seen.
>
>
>
> > People saw Jesus after his death for many days- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
> >[...]
> >>>There is as much evidence as say "neandertal man".
>
> >> Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
> >We have a *lot* of wood from the Cross, though. I thought there were
> >dozens of finger bones, too? I guess other bones aren't so saleable.
>
> I don't know about finger bones, though they are common for
> saints. But bits of the true cross? Oh yes. Even in the
> Middle Ages they were wise enough to note that there was
> enough material already being venerated to make a fair number
> of crosses.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
I vaguely remember that there is even a bit of doctrine to deal with
it - the veneration of the believers eventually _makes_ them holy, a
kind of rechargeable spirituality battery. I borrowed this for my own
belief system and have a nice collection of random items that I
venerate ferociously. Any day soon, they will become holy, I'll let
you know when it happens.
Ye Old One
Ye Old One
>R Brown wrote:
>> "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
>> news:1txEl.28139$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
>>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>>>>
>>>> HTH.
>>>>
>>>> Andre
>>>
>>> there were witnesses dumb ass
>> And apparently hundreds of people witnessed David Copperfield pass
>> through the Great Wall of China.
>
>This was a wee bit different.
>
>People saw Copperfield pass through the Great Wall of China ONCE.
No, he did it several times, and people only "thought" they saw him do
it because, as everyone knows, you can't pass through solid stone.
>
>People saw Jesus after his death for many days
That is a fiction that some are daft enough to think is real.
>
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:37:26 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >R Brown wrote:
> >>news:1txEl.28139$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>> Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> >>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> >>>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> >>>> HTH.
>
> >>>> Andre
>
> >>> there were witnesses dumb ass
> >> And apparently hundreds of people witnessed David Copperfield pass
> >> through the Great Wall of China.
>
> >This was a wee bit different.
>
> >People saw Copperfield pass through the Great Wall of China ONCE.
>
> No, he did it several times, and people only "thought" they saw him do
> it because, as everyone knows, you can't pass through solid stone.
>
>
> >People saw Jesus after his death for many days
>
> That is a fiction that some are daft enough to think is real.
>
>
>
> --
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 7:38 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 13 Apr, 03:02, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> >>>> Yes.
>
> >>> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> >>> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
>
> >>> HTH.
>
> >>> Andre
>
> >> there were witnesses dumb ass
>
>
> > The evidence is as strong for the miracles of Mohammad. Why aren't you
> > Muslim?
>
> > What you have are the translations of letters and books written by
> > people who claimed they were writing down stories as people told them.
> > These are not eyewitnesses; these are writings of third hand testimony
> > by people who didn't know what was possible and what wasn't.
>
> > The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that he could levitate when people
> > weren't watching. Do you believe him? There were witnesses to Krishna
> > making love to one hundred milkmaids at once. Or so it is said. Now
> > *there's a god. How many witnesses were there when Heracles shot those
> > bronze-feathered birds out of the sky? Dozens? Hundreds? How many make
> > it reliable? If it's ancient you want, well, those stories are older
> > than Christianity.
>
> > Kermit
>
> You really do not understand. Because You lack perception, you lack
> perspective.
>
> BTW, The God of Abraham is the same God of the christians and, the muslims
> and the jews.
Yes. And yet, most Southern Baptists would not accept the claims for
miracles associated with Mohammad. Do you?
How about the miracles of Heracles, Krishna, and others?
You have never explained why you accept some of these stories at face
value and not others.
I would think that you could argue that the story of Noah and the ark
is a corrupted memory of Nuwa the snake goddess and her restoration
of life after the fire and floods that destroyed Earth. And yet you
don't.
Kermit
Mark Evans
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:25:36 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > >> On Apr 12, 10:12 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > was jesus raised from the dead?
>
> > >> > Yes.
>
> > >> Since there is AbZero objective evidence in support of this
> > >> extraordinary ASSertion, the correct answer is No.
> > Not quite. We don't have Jesus's skeleton.
>
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ever read Mark Twain's comments on his travels in Italy? He was shown
the skull of Columbus three times. One was from his old age, one from
his explorer days and one from his childhood.
Mark Evans
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
<snip>
>
> > If you think you benefit from following a religious path, more power
> > to you.
>
> I don't follow a religious path. That's just it. All the stuff I've been
> through makes premeditated ritual practices so primitive as to be
> absolutely ignored as a concept of at least my own human behavior. But I
> still understand the reasons why people still go to church and practice
> their rituals. It makes them happy, makes them feel safe. Since that's
> what I want all people to feel (safe and happy), I'm glad to see people
> going to church if that's what it brings them.
There are other ways to be religious. Zen Buddhism is one, and it can
manifest as:
martial arts,
scientific research,
jazz music,
gardening,
to name a few.
Other disciplines include various yogas: the yoga of body (what we
usually think of
when we hear the word), the yoga of meditation, the yoga of charity to
others. Etc.
Just sayin'.
But it sounds like you have found your own path: mind surfing.
>
> > But you have no scientific evidence,
>
> I have no evidence that satisfies science. That's quite a difference.
Correct. We all have experiences that cannot be duplicated by others.
Some of us have experiences that cannot be even *approached by others.
>
> > and no logical argument to support your claim.
>
> The logic is there. But you must be clinically psychotic to see it. By
> clinically psychotic, I mean according to professional, pill-pushing,
> hospital-admitting psychiatry.
Understand then that most of us cannot follow the connections you
make,
and that these connections are personal, and your trying to
communicate them
is like writing a note and tying it to a rock and tossing it over the
wall. It will not
be useless, but it will have limited success...
They are not verifiable (or even - necessarily - comprehensible), and
therefore
not scientific.
Congratulations on learning to ride this thru the world around you.
Don't forget to look both ways when you cross the street.
>
> Damaeus
Kermit