Continuation of Christianity debate.

[MeDeFe]

Time may cause memories to erode, but the major event around which that memory was formed is not forgotten. So, you may forget whether your grandfather's funeral was at Ferguson or Cole Funeral home, but the fact that your grandfather died, (or the detail that it was the 1st time you saw your father cry) aren't things that you forget, even after 30 or 40 years.

So if you want to argue that some details are amiss, I won't argue (I won't agree, either) But to say that somehow they made up the resurrection itself seems disingenuous.

You assume that the core of the story is that Jesus was resurrected, but that may be just a detail, the core might be that he was buried and then a few days later the corpse was gone. Maybe even for such mundane reasons as that some people sneked in by night and hid it somewhere else. The grave might not even have been guarded, maybe half a dozen soldiers were added as a detail. You see, your theory about details changing is probably pretty sound, but you still have to show that the core of the story IS that a person was dead for three days and then resurrected.

[MR. Nate]

Have you ever read 1st Corinthians 15? I don't think there is any doubt that early Christianity (and therefore, the apostles) took the resurrection as the single most important event in history.

[luns101]

You see, your theory about details changing is probably pretty sound, but you still have to show that the core of the story IS that a person was dead for three days and then resurrected.

All someone can do is quote from the Bible as the source of that information. If a person doesn't believe that account of how the events of the resurrection took place I doubt any rhetorical apologetic would be any more convincing. Of course there are extra-Biblical sources which people cite, but the core of the information is written by those who actually spent time with Jesus himself.

[Jenos Ridan]

Here is Hell frozen over.

Not to be confused with Hel, which is either the Norse goddess of the frozen lands or the lands in question.

[MeDeFe]

Of course they took it as important, they had hailed Jesus as their Messiah, and then he was suddenly dead. As far as I know that didn't fit with contemporary jewish ideas of the Messiah at all. I'm pretty sure that the resurrection of the dead (ALL dead) is in there somewhere, though.
All that was left was to either say "damn, I guess we were wrong, hey guys, let's just forget about this and not mention it again" or to reinterpret a whole lot of their religion and make it fit.

Whether Jesus resurrection was faked or whether he somehow survived the crucifixion and left his grave is not important. (You might notice that I don't think a person can still be revived after 3 days, the brain starts taking serious damage after as little as 10-15 minutes if I remember correctly, the blood clots, and so on...) This jewish sect had suddenly lost its leader, they had to think of something or let it all fall to pieces. They had invested, what?, a decade or so of their lives I think, people tend to hang on to stuff they have put a lot of effort in.

[luns101]

I'm reading your other stuff, MeDeFe. However, this stood out to me.

Whether Jesus resurrection was faked or whether he somehow survived the crucifixion and left his grave is not important.

I would disagree with this on the following basis:

- If He actually rose from the dead of His own power, then He validated who He claimed to be...God in the flesh. It would also fulfill the prophecies that He & others made.

- If His resurrection was faked then the entire belief in Christ would be in vain. People would be putting their faith in a hoax.

- If He survived the crucifixion then all the prophecies saying He would die by that method would be invalidated.

[daddy1gringo]

gosh, I only posted this morning and already so much to reply to. Where to start.
MeDeFe wrote:
Whether Jesus resurrection was faked or whether he somehow survived the crucifixion and left his grave is not important.

Once again, the fact that the apostles gave their lives for the belief that Jesus had risen doesn't prove it true in itself, but it does prove they didn't make it up. see my post on P64 regarding the ideas that Jesus somehow revived or that they mistook someone else for him. They make no sense either.

Regarding the gospels, the idea that they were manipulated through the dark ages is not held even by atheists who understand history. Not only do we have manuscripts from before anyone could have manipulated them, we have letters from early "church fathers" many of whom Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp for example, knew the apostles well. 75% of the new testament can be reconstructed and verified from the abundant scriptural quotes in those letters. BTW, they only quote from the 4 legitimate gospels, discounting the claim that the 4 were chosen later arbitrarily or to support a particular doctrine, and the gnostics are just as legit.

The argument that the bible has been translated into many languages is only used to deceive the ignorant into the perception that our modern translations had to come through those translations. The translations in English, Spanish, Swahili and Yanomamo all come directly from the original Greek and Hebrew.

Regarding religion and logic, it's true, intellect is largely the slave, the prostitute if you will, of the will. Generally people will find arguments to support the position that they want to take. But that is at least as true of those who choose not to believe as those who choose to believe.

I do not claim to be able to prove that God exists or that the claims of the Bible are true. I can, however, disprove the contention of many that science and logic contradict Christianity and the Bible. Christianity is at least as compatible with logic and the facts of science and history as deism or atheism. Science and logic are not a stumbling block. You are free to choose to belive in the God who reaches out to you in love and who sacrificed himself for you. That I belive I can prove.

[d.gishman]

Regarding the gospels, the idea that they were manipulated through the dark ages is not held even by atheists who understand history.

Yep, I have to agree with you on this - I doubt that there is any real scholarly dispute that the gospels that we print now was 'corrupted' or 'manipulated' throughout time, as there are archaeological finds of various manuscripts saying the same thing from different periods of time. The discussion in this forum should therefore stray away from the question of if the new testament has been changed and more into the debate about the new testament itself.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi Bertros Bertros:
First, I’m sorry for dividing your post so much. You came up with several different points that I’d like to address individually and this seemed the best way to do it. I tried to leave your ideas intact without misrepresenting them.

This is interesting as it demonstrates that having faith can help with overcoming illness and injury. This is a well known fact, the placebo effect has been well researched and documented plenty of times.

Sure the placebo effect is well documented, but there is a flaw with your assumption. According to the website below, a placebo is an inert treatment. You have yet to show that having religious faith is inert. So, at best, you believe that this is the placebo effect, but haven’t produced any proof that your belief is correct.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV ... enDocument

There is a problem with assuming that this is the placebo effect, as well.

Rates of maternal complications for women:

1) No religious preference 21%
2) mainline Christian (defined as Catholic, Episcopal, & Methodist) 11%


Rates of neonatal ICU admissions:

1) No religious preference 18%
2) mainline Christian 11%

How did these neonates receive the benefits of a placebo effect? They weren't informed they were getting any special treatment and therefore couldn't be fooled by it. You can't give someone a placebo secretly; it's the belief in the inert treatment that helps.

This doesn't mean having faith in [insert preffered deity] has any effect in overcoming illness and injury.

The articles I cited state exactly that, there are medical benefits associated with religious belief. Even though the placebo effect is well known, The doctors, who conducted the studies, didn’t mention it. That is, I believe, they did not assume that the religious faith involved was inert.

The faith in question is faith in yourself, and faith you will heal. For some people this comes from with themselves, others find the faith in placebo medicine and others in religion.

You seem to be talking for a lot of people you don’t know here. Are you really suggesting that you know what a complete stranger puts her faith in?

One of the reasons I am unhappy with established religion is I feel it acts as a barrier to people from finding true faith and happiness with who they are, I see it as a spiritual crutch which in part absolves the believer from a responsibility for themselves.

In the words of the great bard; "To thine own self be true"...

To summarize, I’m not presenting this as proof of God’s existence, but I am stating that there are health benefits that come with religious faith. These benefits are seen in both mental/emotional health and physical health. To use the metaphor that religious devotion is a spiritual crutch doesn’t seem to fit. Eventually, a crutch weakens you as muscles atrophy from disuse. On the contrary the above mentioned studies suggest that religious devotion strengthens the believer, emotionally and even physically.

[unriggable]

Angelican, the placebo effect is where you think you will be saved when in fact it doesn't help much. Study found on wikipedia:

"In post-World War II 1946, pharmaceutical chemicals were in short supply. One U.S. headache remedy manufacturer sold a drug that was comprised of three ingredients: a, b, and c. Chemical b was in short supply.

Jellinek was asked to test whether or not the headache drug's overall efficacy would be reduced if ingredient b was missing.

Jellinek set up a complex trial involving 199 subjects, all of whom suffered from "frequent headaches". (Originally there were 200 subjects, but one did not complete the trial.) The subjects were randomly divided into four test groups. He prepared four test drugs, involving various permutations of the three drug constituents, with a placebo as a scientific control. The structure of this trial is significant because, in those days, the only time placebos were ever used "was to express the efficacy or non-efficacy of a drug in terms of "how much better" the drug was than the "placebo". (Jellinek (1946), p.88. Note that the trial conducted by Austin Flint is an example of such a drug efficacy vs. placebo efficacy trial.) The four test drugs were identical in shape, size, colour and taste:

* Drug A: contained a, b, and c.
* Drug B: contained a and c.
* Drug C: contained a and b.
* Drug D: a 'simulator', contained "ordinary lactate".

Each time a subject had a headache, they took their group’s designated test drug, and recorded whether their headache had been relieved (or not). Although "some subjects had only three headaches in the course of a two-week period while others had up to ten attacks in the same period", the data showed a "great consistency" across all subjects (Jellinek, 1946, p.88). Every two weeks the groups’ drugs were changed; so that by the end of eight weeks, all groups had tested all the drugs.

The stipulated drug (i.e., A, B, C, or D) was taken as often as necessary over each two-week period, and the two week sequences were:

1. A, B, C, D
2. B, A, D, C
3. C, D, A, B
4. D, C, B, A.

Each group took a test remedy for two weeks. The trial lasted eight weeks, and by the end of the trial all groups had taken each test drug for two weeks (although each group had taken them in a different sequence). Over the entire population of 199 subjects, 120 of the subjects responded to the placebo, and 79 did not; i.e., there were 120 "subjects reacting to placebo" and 79 "subjects not reacting to placebo".[22]

At first glance there was no difference between the self-reported "success rates" of Drugs A, B, and C (84%, 80%, and 80% respectively) (the "success rate" of the simulating placebo Drug D was 52%); and, from this, it appeared that ingredient b was completely unnecessary.

However, in quite a remarkable way, the trial eventually did demonstrate that ingredient b did make a significant contribution to the remedy’s efficacy. Examining his data more closely, Jellinek discovered that there was a very significant difference in responses between the 120 placebo-responders and the 79 non-responders. The 79 non-responders' reports showed that if they were considered as an entirely separate group, there was a significant difference the "success rates" of Drugs A, B, and C: viz., 88%, 67%, and 77%, respectively. And because this significant difference in relief from the test drugs could only be attributed to the presence or absence of ingredient b, he concluded that ingredient b was essential (thus contradicting his initial conclusion, derived from the comparison between the "success rates" for all test subjects, that Drugs A, B, and C were equally efficacious)."

[quote="MR. Nate]What about the fact that Duke University has nearly complete copies from around 250? Which pope edited those?[/quote]

Did they read them? I'm sure they are different from today in many ways. It would be impossible for them to be identical.

[MeDeFe]

gosh, I only posted this morning and already so much to reply to. Where to start.
MeDeFe wrote:
Whether Jesus resurrection was faked or whether he somehow survived the crucifixion and left his grave is not important.

Once again, the fact that the apostles gave their lives for the belief that Jesus had risen doesn't prove it true in itself, but it does prove they didn't make it up. see my post on P64 regarding the ideas that Jesus somehow revived or that they mistook someone else for him. They make no sense either.

You're jumping to conclusions I think. That some people are prepared to give their lives for their religion shows... that they take their religion importantly enough to give their lives for it. It doesn't say whether they made it up, witnessed an actual miracle or were deceived in some way or another.

Throughout history people have been prepared to die for their convictions, whether it's their being jews and not christians or the earth revolving around the sun or that the nazis were a bunch of fucking bastards.

[Bertros Bertros]

Hey Anglican. One of the reasons my presecence in religious discussions has been waning is that I just don't have the time to properly compose a post which accurately conveys my opinion without sounding trite or condescending, which unfortunately my previous posts in this thread some ways did, dammit.

I know somebody else earlier claimed that all the people who haven't been cured by God does not invalidate the ones who have. Well I disagree. To believe in a benovelent interventionary personal God I would require a level of consistency to support it. Why does faith heal one person and not the other, if the actual healing is coming from God. I could accept if all pious persons were healed and all those doubters such as myself weren't but this isn't the case either. Now I know you could say its down to God to decide who is healed and who are we to question it but that is the standard cop out which is applied to anything unexplainable i.e. There is no answer to this therefore we put it down to God being mysterious and who are we to judge.

We can bandy statistics around about religious faith and instances of recovery from illness etc but these don't provide full coverage of all contributory factors such as the socio-economic trends and so are incomplete. The thing is ultimately we agree that faith, albeit in God in otherwise, is a powerful tool in recovery and even prevention of illness, one which certainly shouldn't be ignored. However I believe should also be demystified.

And the spiritual crutch remark, which was indeed trite, was also misplaced so I will try and expand. I'm not suggesting I know what anyone puts their faith in, but its clear that having faith in something is beneficial. Faith in yourself combined with an understanding and acceptance of your own integrity and morality is essential and it sometimes seems that organised religion can act as a barrier to that self discovery by prescribing what constitutes these things and suggesting that they do not come from within. In some respects it excuses people from thinking too much.

[daddy1gringo]

[quote="MeDeFe"]
MeDeFe wrote:
That some people are prepared to give their lives for their religion shows... that they take their religion importantly enough to give their lives for it. It doesn't say whether they made it up, witnessed an actual miracle or were deceived in some way or another.

As to it not proving they were wrong or deceived, that's what I said. there are other arguments for those that I gave at some length before. But I can't agree with you that it doesn't prove they didn't make it all up. If they invented the story of the resurrection, they would know that it was a lie. For the third time, who would die for what they [/u]knew to be a lie? They had opportunity to recant and save their lives.

[daddy1gringo]

Here is the first post re-put. I still think no one has successfully addressed the points

No, the fact that the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected does not in itself prove it to be true. It just dis-proves the idea that they made it all up. Lots of people give their lives for lots of beliefs and causes and it doesn't prove the belief true or the cause right. What it does prove is that the martyr belived in it. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?
But in another sense, it does prove that Jesus actually rose because the conspiracy theory is the only alternative that is half plausible. The others are that the people who knew him best, (including his mother, she was there at pentecost) mistook someone else for the risen Christ, or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God. Those are scientifically and historically ludicrous.[/quote]

[daddy1gringo]

Oops, only meant to underscore "knew" in the top post

[Bertros Bertros]

or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God

When you put it like that you make Jesus sound like Jack Bauer!

[AlgyTaylor]

or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God

When you put it like that you make Jesus sound like Jack Bauer!

# Crop circles are Jesus' way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie down.

# Jesus is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and could eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.

# The Great Wall of China was originally created to keep Jesus out. It failed miserably.

# Contrary to popular belief, Jesus not the box jellyfish of northern Australia, is the most venomous creature on earth. Within 3 minutes of being bitten, a human being experiences the following symptoms: fever, blurred vision, beard rash, tightness of the jeans, and the feeling of being repeatedly kicked through a car windshield.

# Most people have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Jesus has 72... and they're all poisonous.

# If you ask Jesus what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds 'til." After you ask, "Two seconds 'til what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.

# When Jesus sends in his taxes, he sends blank forms and includes only a picture of himself, crouched and ready to attack. Jesus has not had to pay taxes, ever.

# The quickest way to a man's heart is with Jesus' fist.

# Jesus originally appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Jesus replied, "That's no glitch."

# Fool me once, shame on you. Fool Jesus once and he will roundhouse kick you in the face.


etc ...

[Stopper]

Here is the first post re-put. I still think no one has successfully addressed the points

No, the fact that the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected does not in itself prove it to be true. It just dis-proves the idea that they made it all up. Lots of people give their lives for lots of beliefs and causes and it doesn't prove the belief true or the cause right. What it does prove is that the martyr belived in it. Who would die for what they knew to be a lie?

I don't claim to be any expert in the lives of the apostles, but I've been checking on Google for information regarding the fate of the apostles, and I can't find very much in the way of evidence for the apostles all dying a martyr's death. The only one that seems to be mentioned in the Bible is James. All the stories of martyred apostles that we all know appear to based on church "traditions". Am I missing a trick here?

It seems a bit difficult to take the idea - that the apostles would not have died for something they knew to be a lie - as some kind of proof of Jesus' divinity, if there's hardly any evidence that the apostles were indeed violenty killed, and for their faith, in the first place.

[daddy1gringo]

or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God

When you put it like that you make Jesus sound like Jack Bauer!

My point exactly. I'm not sure who Jack Bauer is, but my guess is he's some fictional character who performs impossible feats, like James Bond or Indiana Jones. The point is, the scenario is not likely.

[daddy1gringo]

or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God

When you put it like that you make Jesus sound like Jack Bauer!

# If you ask Jesus what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds 'til." After you ask, "Two seconds 'til what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.

...

# Fool me once, shame on you. Fool Jesus once and he will roundhouse kick you in the face.


etc ...

Sounds ike somebody hurt you and did it in the name of Jesus. I am sincerely sorry. I mean that. The one who hurt you was not acting in accord with Jesus or his Spirit. The one who comforted you afterward was.

What's up with roundhouse kicks?

[unriggable]

daddy1gringo, he took a bunch of chuck norris jokes and switched them with jesus.

[unriggable]

or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God

When you put it like that you make Jesus sound like Jack Bauer!

My point exactly. I'm not sure who Jack Bauer is, but my guess is he's some fictional character who performs impossible feats, like James Bond or Indiana Jones. The point is, the scenario is not likely.

Of course, neither is a supernatural waking-up.

[AlgyTaylor]

Sounds ike somebody hurt you and did it in the name of Jesus. I am sincerely sorry. I mean that. The one who hurt you was not acting in accord with Jesus or his Spirit. The one who comforted you afterward was.

What's up with roundhouse kicks?

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com

Just a bit of sillyness, offence not intended




Personally I'm an atheist, but not one of the militant variety ... the respect is there for 'people of the faith' - if a belief in God (or whatever) makes you a better person then it can only be a good thing

As you quite rightly say (sort of), people using, say, Christianity as justification for their wrong actions is no reason to say that Christianity itself is bad. I think the teachings of the bible are quite clear and people living their life by the example set by Jesus are certainly to be commended.

[MR. Nate]

What about the fact that Duke University has nearly complete copies from around 250? Which pope edited those?

Did they read them? I'm sure they are different from today in many ways. It would be impossible for them to be identical.

They're not identical, but I think you'd be surprised at how accurate the copyists have been over the last 2 millenia. The textual variants tend to be misspellings, or mistaken words, not wholesale editorial changes as you suggested. In fact, scholarship has pretty much ruled out major editorial changes: We have too many texts too early that are nearly identical. The only long passages that have any questions are the ending of Mark, and the passage on the woman in adultery in John. Intense textual criticism over the last 50 or so years has not come up with a single variant that impacts a major Christian doctrine.

Of course, neither is a supernatural waking-up.

You say unlikely . . . I say a matter of time.

[daddy1gringo]

or that the Romans' time perfected method of execution failed to actually kill him, and he had a recovery any hospital would be proud of in a damp, dirty, sealed cave, and this barely-alive patient rolled a huge stone, defeated the guards, and looked good enough to pass for the victorious son of God

When you put it like that you make Jesus sound like Jack Bauer!

My point exactly. I'm not sure who Jack Bauer is, but my guess is he's some fictional character who performs impossible feats, like James Bond or Indiana Jones. The point is, the scenario is not likely.

Of course, neither is a supernatural waking-up.

Well, if you pre-suppose the impossibility of the supernatural or the existence of God it's not likely, but that's begging the question. It's perfectly logical if you remember that we are engaged in a debate as to whether God exists, the claims of Christianity are true etc.

If God exists and Jesus is the Messiah, it makes perfect sense that he could and would do such a thing. It is not internally inconsistent.