At What Point?

[Kafka]

You've been trying to equate Magical Mormon Glasses, which have no relation to actual human experience, to Near Death Experiences, which are widely observed and documented in human experience.

That's simply just not going to cut the mustard

Let me try one more time: I'm trying to compare ONE story which I think we can all agree is made up and another story which I believe can also be explained as "made up".

 

[Kafka]

The Resurrection is reported not just independently in the four Gospels, but in the epistles of Paul.

Paul never met Jesus.

Paul's epistles were written only 20 to 25 years after the crucifixion. Paul was in direct contact with the apostle Peter, and James the bother of Jesus.

And didn't he also disagree with them over the nature of Jesus' ministry (ie should it be open to Gentiles)? And remind me again which Gospels the Apostle Peter and James wrote?

The only people in antiquity who had contemporaneous records written about them were emperors, generals, and nobles.

Fine. But that does not logically mean ipso facto that Jesus MUST have been real. Not sure what the point of that sentence was.

I don't think a miracle happened. But I think something unusual happened that rallied the disciples (they scattered like cockroaches after Jesus was arrested) and propelled Jesus from an obscure rabbi from Galilee, to the center of a religious movement that spread like wildfire through the Roman empire. An NDE seems like a rational explanation to me

Again, not sure why you don't go for the more simple explanation but, as per usual, unevidenced claims of this nature seem to be attractive to you.

 

[Cypress]

Let me try one more time: I'm trying to compare ONE story which I think we can all agree is made up and another story which I believe can also be explained as "made up".

Thanks for agreeing that Magical Mormon Glasses are completely alien to human experience, whereas near death experiences actually happen and are part and parcel of the human experience.

You read the Old Testament literally and cherry pick quotes out of it to prove what an asshole Yahweh is.

But you don't take the NT literally in any way and think it is fabricated lies.


Your free to believe that the disciples got together and coordinated a conspiracy to lie not only to their companions, but to dupe the evangelists like Paul and Luke.

I have pointed out what I think are numerous problems with the coordinated conspiracy theory, and have offered a rational medical explanation that does not require miracles but fits the accounts written in the four gospels, and the epistles of Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter.

 

[Cypress]

Paul never met Jesus.



And didn't he also disagree with them over the nature of Jesus' ministry (ie should it be open to Gentiles)? And remind me again which Gospels the Apostle Peter and James wrote?







Fine. But that does not logically mean ipso facto that Jesus MUST have been real. Not sure what the point of that sentence was.



Again, not sure why you don't go for the more simple explanation but, as per usual, unevidenced claims of this nature seem to be attractive to you.

I didn't say Paul met Jesus. I said he met the apostle Peter and Jesus' brother James.

You said post-crucifixion second generation authors made up the story of the resurrection. If Paul was going around fabricating accounts of the resurrection, you would think Peter and Jesus' brother, who were still alive, would have corrected it or given a counter narrative

 

[Kafka]

Thanks for agreeing that Magical Mormon Glasses are completely alien

Are you incapable of having a discussion without misrepresenting someone else's point? I'm just curious because this gambit it so beneath you.

to human experience, whereas near death experiences actually happen and are part and parcel of the human experience.

I will agree to no such thing. Raising from the dead is not a "human experience" at that time. It is made up. Just like the Urim and Thummimm.

You read the Old Testament literally and cherry pick quotes out of it to prove what an asshole Yahweh is.

We are talking about the NT right now. I know you want to complain about my other things but let's stay focused, shall we?

But you don't take the NT literally in any way and think it is fabricated lies.

I don't take stories of people rising from the dead literally, no. You are correct. There's a reason for that.

Your free to believe that the disciples got together and coordinated a conspiracy

How many times do you have to be told you are mischaracterizing my position before you stop?

I have pointed out what I think are numerous problems with the coordinated conspiracy theory,

Thankfullly that isn't MY position, so you can argue it with whomever said it.

and have offered a rational medical explanation that does not require miracles but fits the accounts written in the four gospels, and the epistles of Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter.

It seems VERY important to you for this point to not be made up.

Why is that?

 

[Kafka]

You said post-crucifixion authors made up the story of the resurrection. If Paul was going around fabricating accounts of the resurrection, you would think Paul and Jesus' brother would have corrected it or given a counter narrative

You would think Paul wouldn't disagree with the Jerusalem Church on anything but he did. Why would Paul think he could disagree with the guys who hung with JC?

 

[Litmus]

It is odd that the disciples scattered like cockroaches after Jesus was arrested, didn't show up at his crucifixion, didn't provide care for the dead body, and Peter panicked and denied Jesus at the first sign of trouble.

Not exactly the sign of men who were steadfast in loyalty to Jesus and determined to carry on his teachings.

It seems to me something unusual caused them to rally and provide the fuel that caused Christianity to spread like wildfire. I don't think any miracles happened, but a near death experience could be a rational explanation for why the disciples rallied.

the moral perfection of his teachings is why he spread, and how it resonates instantly with the good in us all.

of course in your mason frame, it only spread because cowards were inspired by ignorance.

fuck that and fuck you.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is odd that the disciples scattered like cockroaches after Jesus was arrested, didn't show up at his crucifixion, didn't provide care for the dead body, and Peter panicked and denied Jesus at the first sign of trouble.

Not exactly the sign of men who were steadfast in loyalty to Jesus and determined to carry on his teachings.

It seems to me something unusual caused them to rally and provide the fuel that caused Christianity to spread like wildfire. I don't think any miracles happened, but a near death experience could be a rational explanation for why the disciples rallied.

They clearly went to ground after the arrest and trial but, IMO, that's normal in an authoritarian society when the authoritarians are hunting you.

Agreed on the fact they continued to spread the message of Jesus, albeit in secret since this is also normal given the circumstances. Look at how many years passed with Christians being hunted like the Falon Gong before Emperor Constantine. The "sign of the fish", the ichthys, is a reminder of the persecution. The article on tolerance below points this out in a modern and amusing way.

Evolution of religious bigotry

The cowardice and intolerance of slapping a Darwin fish on your car bumper.

www.latimes.com

...It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which not only means fish but serves as an acronym, in Greek, for “Jesus Christ the Son of God [Is] Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt with a stick or a finger as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.

In America, the easiest place to find this ancient symbol is on the back of cars. Recently, however, it seems as if Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these too. The fish symbol is “updated” with little feet coming off the bottom, and “IXOYE” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing random motorists that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims....

 

[Kafka]

the moral perfection of his teachings is why he spread, and how it resonates instantly with the good in us all.

of course in your mason frame, it only spread because cowards were inspired by ignorance.

fuck that and fuck you.

This post is a thing of beauty. It starts with how Jesus' teachings resonate with the good in us all and then winds up with "fuck you".

Perfection.

 

[Litmus]

This post is a thing of beauty. It starts with how Jesus' teachings resonate with the good in us all and then winds up with "fuck you".

Perfection.

Please consider a sizable donation the site.

 

[Cypress]

You would think Paul wouldn't disagree with the Jerusalem Church on anything but he did. Why would Paul think he could disagree with the guys who hung with JC?

If you keep changing your story, there's no point continuing this.

You said it was the second generation authors writing the gospels who made up the resurrection story. Not the eyewitness among the apostles. You insinuated that supposedly the second generation authors could get away with the lie because all the eyewitness were gone.

But that was not correct. There were still eyewitnesses alive when the earliest Christian literature was being composed.


Which means you have to believe in a coordinated conspiracy, that was maintained for decades.


You're free to believe that.


I don't know what happened, but I have a rational medical explanation that fits the accounts in all the independent written sources compiled in the NT, without resorting to miracles or conspiracies

 

[Kafka]

If you keep changing your story, there's no point continuing this.

You are correct. It is a matter of faith for you and I will honor that.

I don't know what happened, but I have a rational medical explanation that fits the accounts in all the independent written sources compiled in the NT

I never said a coordinate conspiracy because that is not necessary. I even tried to explain it to you a couple of times now but you insist on continuing to ignore that in preference to your strawman.

Your inability to let go over your strawman is really what makes this discussion pointless. But usually I find when you run up against a wall in a debate you normally start mischaracterizing and/or simply ignoring that which you don't like or understand.

 

[Cypress]

the moral perfection of his teachings is why he spread, and how it resonates instantly with the good in us all.

of course in your mason frame, it only spread because cowards were inspired by ignorance.

fuck that and fuck you.

I think the spread of Christianity required both a radical and compelling message of spiritual equality, and the story of the resurrection.

Christianity would not have spread like wildfire without both.

 

[Cypress]

You are correct. It is a matter of faith for you and I will honor that.



I never said a coordinate conspiracy because that is not necessary. I even tried to explain it to you a couple of times now but you insist on continuing to ignore that in preference to your strawman.

Your inability to let go over your strawman is really what makes this discussion pointless. But usually I find when you run up against a wall in a debate you normally start mischaracterizing and/or simply ignoring that which you don't like or understand.

Thanks for confessing that you keep changing your story when factual statements you make turn out to be wrong (aka, supposedly no eyewitnesses were alive when earliest Christian literature was written,). That's very trollish.

 

[Kafka]

If you keep changing your story, there's no point continuing this.

More mischaracterization.

You said it was the second generation authors writing the gospels who made up the resurrection story.

I said it was likely the author of the SOURCE used by the Gospel writers and even then it could have arisen in any number ways that wasn't some grand conspriacy.

Not the eyewitness among the apostles.

Remind me where those were written down by those APostles?

You insinuated that supposedly the second generation authors could get away with the lie because all the eyewitness were gone.

Your imaginary version of my argument is very hateful it seems. Why do you default to characterizing people you disagree with in such consistently hateful ways?

Which means you have to believe in a coordinated conspiracy, that was maintained for decades.

Strawman. This has been explained to you many times now.

 

[Kafka]

Thanks for confessing that you keep changing your story when factual statements you make turn out to be wrong (aka, supposedly no eyewitnesses were alive when earliest Christian literature was written,). That's very trollish.

Why do you insist on lying about my posts? I am genuinely curious because I thought part of this discussion was the value of the moral teachings as opposed to the literal resurrection. Yet here you are lying non-stop in defense of your preferred explanation.

All because you can't imagine anyone else could disagree with you on a point.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

fuck that and fuck you.

This post is a thing of beauty. It starts with how Jesus' teachings resonate with the good in us all and then winds up with "fuck you".

Perfection.

Funny because it's true. Fredo writes a lot about Jesus and "How great thou art" then twists it into a hateful rant like he's gearing up to become a suicide bomber to kill the infidels.

 

[Hume]

I think the spread of Christianity required both a radical and compelling message of spiritual equality, and the story of the resurrection.

Christianity would not have spread like wildfire without both.

Yes, fear of death.

 

[Litmus]

I think the spread of Christianity required both a radical and compelling message of spiritual equality, and the story of the resurrection.

Christianity would not have spread like wildfire without both.

I disagree.

but nice fallback position, mason-tard.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think the spread of Christianity required both a radical and compelling message of spiritual equality, and the story of the resurrection.

Christianity would not have spread like wildfire without both.

A message that was contrary to the OT God of vengeance and obedience.

Agreed it spread due to both factors. IMO, like democracy in the modern world over authoritarianism, Christianity spread because it was a more enlightened message than what others were pushing.