Atheist conclusions about the historicity of the resurrection

Cypress said:
Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann evaluated every reference to Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament, as well as apocryphal literature. Through this approach, he offers a reconstruction of the probable course of events as well as the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on the cross, the burial of his body, his reported resurrection on the third day, and subsequent appearances to various disciples.

The Christian faith Luedemann concludes ultimately stems from hallucinations of Peter and the other disciples, both men and women.

From a modern perspective this leads to the inescapable conclusion that the primary witnesses to Jesus' resurrection were victims of self-deception.

In conclusion, he asks whether in light of the nonhistoricity of Jesus' resurrection, thinking people today can legitimately and in good conscience still call themselves Christians.



https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christ-Historical-Inquiry/dp/1591022452
https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800627928/The-Resurrection-of-Jesus
Click to expand...
all of this means nothing.

doesn't prove anything.
 
Cypress said:
The noteworthy thing here is that even a respected atheist New Testament scholar won't take up the torch of saying everyone was lying about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. He thinks there is enough reliable historicity to say something really did happen, the disciples really did believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion, and it does requires an explanation - in this case, hallucinations and self delusion.

I've never heard any respected scholar of antiquity say the evidence points to the crucifixion and resurrection being a fabricated story that was introduced to the oral and written tradition as a legendary tale decades later.
Click to expand...
fuck noteworthy new testament scholars.

PHD means pile it higher and deeper.

you're kind of the stupidest person on the forum.
 
Hume said:
More stupidity. My god, you're a fucking buffoon.
Click to expand...
Capitalization and punctuation (and spelling, paragraphing, and indentation, among many other things), are not part of language at all. Certainly they're not part of grammar.

Instead, they're part of Writing -- literacy, reading, printing, wordprocessing, txting -- all of which is technological, not natural.

Language (including grammar, which is formation and arrangement of words into constituents) evolved as spoken language, for a million years or so. Humans co-evolved with spoken languages, and every normal human learns at least one spoken language long before their formal literacy training (i.e, school) starts. If it ever starts -- most humans are, and always have been, illiterate.

So the answer is: No, neither capitalization nor punctuation are part of grammar.

english.stackexchange.com

Do capitalization and punctuation fall under the category of grammar?

I've just read something that implied that capitalization falls under the category of grammar. After looking at the definition ("the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in gene...
english.stackexchange.com english.stackexchange.com
 
Neoclitorus said:
Capitalization and punctuation (and spelling, paragraphing, and indentation, among many other things), are not part of language at all. Certainly they're not part of grammar.

Instead, they're part of Writing -- literacy, reading, printing, wordprocessing, txting -- all of which is technological, not natural.

Language (including grammar, which is formation and arrangement of words into constituents) evolved as spoken language, for a million years or so. Humans co-evolved with spoken languages, and every normal human learns at least one spoken language long before their formal literacy training (i.e, school) starts. If it ever starts -- most humans are, and always have been, illiterate.

So the answer is: No, neither capitalization nor punctuation are part of grammar.

english.stackexchange.com

Do capitalization and punctuation fall under the category of grammar?

I've just read something that implied that capitalization falls under the category of grammar. After looking at the definition ("the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in gene...
english.stackexchange.com english.stackexchange.com
Click to expand...
You are extremely stupid.
 
Daylight63 said:
You should really talk with Cypress. He's super-duper smart like you. You two will get along famously.
Click to expand...

It obviously bothers you that you're really too uneducated and witless to have these discussions, so why do you continue to embarrass yourself by posting rubbish? Ah, but you have to jump in and show your peers that you too hate Da Evul Xians and how they make assorted mentally ill sexual fetishists feel bad n stuff. It's all about fashion, which of course requires no effort on your part to know what the fuck you're talking about.
 
EdwinA said:
It obviously bothers you that you're really too uneducated and witless to have these discussions, so why do you continue to embarrass yourself by posting rubbish? Ah, but you have to jump in and show your peers that you too hate Da Evul Xians and how they make assorted mentally ill sexual fetishists feel bad n stuff. It's all about fashion, which of course requires no effort on your part to know what the fuck you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Nah, I just come on here to see mouthbreathers such as yourself claim to be philological scholars. LOLOLOL. It makes me smile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top