100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Extra-Biblical proof of Jesus' resurrection? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? Because of the direction of the discussion and according... Siberian unicorn Tomsk State University believe they've found fossil evidence of a Siberian unicorn prancing around just 29,000 years ago — more than 300,000 years after they were thought to have gone extinct. So in fact "unicorns" actually scientifically "did" exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? depends on the "merit" you give them, or the "faith" you give them. Well, the degree of merit one grants them should be based on logic and common sense, as far as I'm concerned. (Otherwise, anyone can claim anything.) And, as I have been demonstrating, these stories don't hold up very well to logical scrutiny. Granted, that doesn't automatically mean that they are false, but I think it should cause us to seriously question their accuracy. After all, truth (Regardless of its source.) is truth. It should be able to withstand logical scrutiny. All that said, would I be correct in assuming that, if Lazarus did claim he could fly (Thanks to Jesus), you would not give much merit his claims? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus is Lord.
Get used to it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? Because of the direction of the discussion and according... Siberian unicorn Tomsk State University believe they've found fossil evidence of a Siberian unicorn prancing around just 29,000 years ago — more than 300,000 years after they were thought to have gone extinct. So in fact "unicorns" actually scientifically "did" exist. Mmm, not really. A rhino is not a unicorn. See, for example:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/29/did-unicorns-co-exist-with-humans-yes-but-they-were-just-rhinos/ Of course, I did note that you put quotation marks around the word "unicorns," so I am assuming that you are implying that these ancient rhinos were the basis of the unicorn legend, and that therefore, in a sense, unicorns did exist. If so, I have to agree that that is a plausible theory. That said, I probably gave you the wrong impression when I quoted the Bible verses about unicorns, anyway. I wasn't saying that since the Bible refers to unicorns, and unicorns are mythical animals, that that proves the Bible is wrong. I only posted those quotes because Lazarus mentioned these mythical animals, and I thought it ironic that he mentioned them in a thread where we were discussing the Bible and I knew that the Bible referred to them. My guess is that the translators of the KJV needed a word to describe a large, four-footed, horned animal, and they picked "unicorn" because that was a term for such a creature that most people at the time were familiar with. I don't think the animal in question was really a unicorn. (BTW-The Strong's definition of the Hebrew word in question is "wild ox.") |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus is Lord. Get used to it You know, Rooster, I am always blown away by the depth of understanding that your posts bring to these discussions. You are a master at developing a complex and nuanced argument.  Here's an equally complex and nuanced reply: Zeus could kick the living **** out of Jesus. If he could spare the time. After all, all those comely women aren't going to boink themselves. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? Because of the direction of the discussion and according... Siberian unicorn Tomsk State University believe they've found fossil evidence of a Siberian unicorn prancing around just 29,000 years ago — more than 300,000 years after they were thought to have gone extinct. So in fact "unicorns" actually scientifically "did" exist. Mmm, not really. A rhino is not a unicorn. See, for example:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/29/did-unicorns-co-exist-with-humans-yes-but-they-were-just-rhinos/ Of course, I did note that you put quotation marks around the word "unicorns," so I am assuming that you are implying that these ancient rhinos were the basis of the unicorn legend, and that therefore, in a sense, unicorns did exist. If so, I have to agree that that is a plausible theory. That said, I probably gave you the wrong impression when I quoted the Bible verses about unicorns, anyway. I wasn't saying that since the Bible refers to unicorns, and unicorns are mythical animals, that that proves the Bible is wrong. I only posted those quotes because Lazarus mentioned these mythical animals, and I thought it ironic that he mentioned them in a thread where we were discussing the Bible and I knew that the Bible referred to them. My guess is that the translators of the KJV needed a word to describe a large, four-footed, horned animal, and they picked "unicorn" because that was a term for such a creature that most people at the time were familiar with. I don't think the animal in question was really a unicorn. (BTW-The Strong's definition of the Hebrew word in question is "wild ox.") http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/unicorns-west-and-east/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? Because of the direction of the discussion and according... Siberian unicorn Tomsk State University believe they've found fossil evidence of a Siberian unicorn prancing around just 29,000 years ago — more than 300,000 years after they were thought to have gone extinct. So in fact "unicorns" actually scientifically "did" exist. Mmm, not really. A rhino is not a unicorn. See, for example:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/29/did-unicorns-co-exist-with-humans-yes-but-they-were-just-rhinos/ Of course, I did note that you put quotation marks around the word "unicorns," so I am assuming that you are implying that these ancient rhinos were the basis of the unicorn legend, and that therefore, in a sense, unicorns did exist. If so, I have to agree that that is a plausible theory. That said, I probably gave you the wrong impression when I quoted the Bible verses about unicorns, anyway. I wasn't saying that since the Bible refers to unicorns, and unicorns are mythical animals, that that proves the Bible is wrong. I only posted those quotes because Lazarus mentioned these mythical animals, and I thought it ironic that he mentioned them in a thread where we were discussing the Bible and I knew that the Bible referred to them. My guess is that the translators of the KJV needed a word to describe a large, four-footed, horned animal, and they picked "unicorn" because that was a term for such a creature that most people at the time were familiar with. I don't think the animal in question was really a unicorn. (BTW-The Strong's definition of the Hebrew word in question is "wild ox.") http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/unicorns-west-and-east/ Well, that was interesting. So, the translators of the KJV followed the Septuagint translators lead when rendering the "unicorn" passages. One thing I will point out, however, is that the Greek word in question, monokeros, means "having one horn." Since there are a number of animals with one horn, like rhinos for instance, we still don't know for certain what kind of animal is being referred to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus is Lord. Get used to it You know, Rooster, I am always blown away by the depth of understanding that your posts bring to these discussions. You are a master at developing a complex and nuanced argument. Here's an equally complex and nuanced reply: Zeus could kick the living **** out of Jesus. If he could spare the time. After all, all those comely women aren't going to boink themselves. Deal with it. That's funny, DavidM616 But Jesus is still Lord And you're still have to get used to it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extra-Biblical proof of Jesus' resurrection? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DavidM616
on
Sun 11/06/16 11:39 AM
|
|
Jesus is Lord. Get used to it You know, Rooster, I am always blown away by the depth of understanding that your posts bring to these discussions. You are a master at developing a complex and nuanced argument. Here's an equally complex and nuanced reply: Zeus could kick the living **** out of Jesus. If he could spare the time. After all, all those comely women aren't going to boink themselves. Deal with it. That's funny, DavidM616 But Jesus is still Lord And you're still have to get used to it Thanks, Rooster. It's nice to see that you can have a sense of humor about this topic. :) But, Jesus better count his lucky stars that Zeus has a god-sized libido, as indicated in this passage from the ancient text of X-ratedus, Chapter 69, Verse 1: "Almighty Zeus is the bomb! He is awesome and powerful, what with his lightning bolts, super-strength and all! And, his testosterone flows like a mighty river! His lust is never sated! He is also SO handsome that he makes Brad Pitt look like DavidM616! So, all the chicks really dig him! Of course, all of his amorous conquests leave no time for kicking the living **** out of lesser deities, but we KNOW that he could do it, if he could spare a moment or two!" That's my own personal translation of the ancient Greek, of course. I have tried to preserve the original intent while employing modern vernacular so as to make the passage easier to understand. Also, please note the prophetic prowess of the inspired writer, as she (Yes, she. Worshipers of Zeus weren't misogynists, like some writers I could mention.) directly referred to both Brad Pitt and myself. I certainly couldn't find our names anywhere in the Bible. What's that tell ya'?  |
|
|
|
|
