At What Point?

[Dutch Uncle]

Jesus you are a toxic pile of human excrement.

QED

 

[Dutch Uncle]

that's how atheists are almost exactly like holy rollers in some ways. They have absolute certainty in their truth claims.

Possibly there was a coordinated conspiracy to produce writings that were nothing but lies and deceptions.

I don't claim it as a fact. There is always a possibility of rational alternative explanations

Cut the holy rollers shit. It's childish and tiresome.

You do not have a rational position. You are just indecisive.

Cypress isn't a Holy Roller and neither am I.

What is about stating "I don't claim it as a fact. There is always a possibility of rational alternative explanations" makes someone a "Holy Roller"? Just because he doesn't believe, as ardent atheists do, that the NT is entirely fabricated and that the events described therein never happened?

 

[Hume]

Cypress isn't a Holy Roller and neither am I.

What is about stating "I don't claim it as a fact. There is always a possibility of rational alternative explanations" makes someone a "Holy Roller"? Just because he doesn't believe, as ardent atheists do, that the NT is entirely fabricated and that the events described therein never happened?

I was referring to his silly game of saying everyone but him is making false claims.

 

[Litmus]

Now, having been given facts you never were aware of before, your only retort is to proclaim Paul is lying.

Holy Rollers say the NT is inerrant and literally true.

Militant atheists believe the NT is a pack of lies and deceptions.

That's fine, everyone is free to choose.

I've never heard any reputable religious historian announce there is no historicity anywhere in the NT.

I am in the middle between unyielding fundamentalism and strident atheism. I don't think semitic people of the ancient Near East even knew how to write analytical history, biography, journalism. Those are inventions of the Greeks, Romans, and Enlightenment era Europeans. I think NT is a mixture of parable, allegory, embellishments, myth, and events, sermons, and activities some of which are based on real people and events.

why do you argue so much about a near death experience being plausible, when Jesus may not have been real?

 

[Cypress]

Because he is said to have literally vanished in front of them per one account. Not sure how one "exegetes" that away. In Acts "he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. ....”

Care to exegete that one away?

You are perfectly free to say it was a made-up story by a later writer who didn't see or know the facts of the matter. It doesn't have to be a lie except that is all you have left yourself with.

Or you can try to come up with an example of how someone could fly up into the sky in first century Palestine.

So ... No explanation from you on how it's completely impossible for them to genuinely believe he went to heaven, after he theoretically disappeared and died from his injuries.

Jesus was a convicted criminal in the Roman empire, he had no incentive to hang around in the pubs drinking wine with his disciples... and he would have had every reason to furtively flee Judea incognito.

Nope. You can't cite the embellishment from one or two gospels as historical evidence. The criteria of multiple attestation is a basic principle of historical analysis. The crucifixion of Jesus appears widely in all the gospels, some of the canonical epistles, and in the apocrypha. That's one reason it's considered a historical event.

The earliest version of the gospel of Mark, which is the closest in time to Jesus ministry, and therefore presumed to be the most historically reliable, doesn't make any fancy embellishments about Jesus' resurrection and ascension to heaven. It simply says when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb to check on the body, it was gone. End of story. Although later scribes added some embellishments at the end of Mark

 

[Kafka]

that the NT is entirely fabricated and that the events described therein never happened?

No one is saying that (well, who knows what is going on in Hume's head).

I certainly don't believe it is pure fiction. I just think the miracles and the raising from the dead are probably just made up stories. I assume that the preaching and message of Jesus could easily be slotted into that time and may actually reflect the teachings of yet one more itinerant teacher of which there were many at the time spreading another Jewish Apocalyptic sect like so many others.

The difference between Cypress and I is that I am willing to accept that the stories of the miraculous stuff were added later and may have been what the writers actually believed happened those many years prior.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I was referring to his silly game of saying everyone but him is making false claims.

Everyone? He never said that to me. Do you have a quote where @Cypress is claiming everyone but himself is making false claims?...or are you just exaggerating?

 

[Hume]

Everyone? He never said that to me. Do you have a quote where @Cypress is claiming everyone but himself is making false claims?...or are you just exaggerating?

I find both of you insufferably stupid.

 

[Kafka]

So ... No explanation of how it's completely impossible for them to believe he went to heaven, after he theoretically disappeared and died from his injuries.

You rely on the Gospels and Acts as support for the concept that the people who experienced the Resurrection actually experienced seeing some guy walk out of his tomb (or come back to visit them after so doing). You need this to be a literal experience for them which you then go to great lengths to provide a physical explanation.

I'm fine with that (for the millionth time)

What I'm not fine with is your continued selective defense of the Gospels as providing actual events which may or may not be as advertised but actually happened to the Disciples such that they would think it real.

And that's why it becomes incredibly important to know why they thought a man LITERALLY flew up into the sky or LITERALLY disappeared in front of them.

You can't say "Aww, that's made up but the OTHER stuff isn't."

Jesus was a convicted criminal in the Roman empire, he had no incentive to hang around in the pubs drinking wine with his disciples, and he would have had every reason to furtively flee Judea incognito.

So scuppered off like a conman. Not sure I particularly like that explanation because it makes liars of all the Disciples and Paul. Two things you seem to be 100% against.

The earliest version of the gospel of Mark, which is the closest in time to Jesus ministry, and therefore presumed to be the most historically reliable, doesn't make any fancy embellishments about Jesus' ascension to heaven. It simply says when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb to check on the body, it was gone.

So scuppered off like a conman. Again, your dim view of the early Church is troubling.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress, you're trying to reason with a person who is incapable of it.

Consider all of his lies about his education, his degrees, his multiple name changes like Fredo. I do not see him being a rational person.

Good point. Someone who lies about having sock puppets, and has about 20 different names or accounts here cannot be trusted to post in good faith

 

[Kafka]

Good point. Someone who lies about having sock puppets, and has about 20 different names or accounts here cannot be trusted to post in good faith

argumentum ad hominem. (Even more ironic because you are talking to Doc Dutch AKA Dutch Uncle AKA Dutch Commander....the list goes on)

But let's get back to your hypothesis that Jesus scampered off like a conman after the "Resurrection". I can't see how a teacher who had such good teachings would do that and I'm curious why the Disciples would lie about him going to heaven. So I'm having some difficulty with your theory of "Conman Jesus".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point. Someone who lies about having sock puppets, and has about 20 different names or accounts here cannot be trusted to post in good faith

Sock hunting is my favorite sport on JPP. Usually, they turn out to be whacky in one way or the other.

Perry was pretty easy. Same for Sybil. My operating theory is that the whackier they are, the easier they are to catch.

 

[Kafka]

Sock hunting is my favorite sport on JPP. Usually, they turn out to be whacky in one way or the other.

Perry was pretty easy. Same for Sybil. My operating theory is that the whackier they are, the easier they are to catch.

Yeah, I just heard that Dutch Commander used to be called Doc Dutch and before that Dutch Uncle. So skeevy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

argumentum ad hominem. (Even more ironic because you are talking to Doc Dutch AKA Dutch Uncle AKA Dutch Commander....the list goes on)

QED

What Perry is too whacky to notice is that none of my username changes were meant to deceive and were obviously clear enough for rational people to know it was me such as the same avatars, signatures and reason for changing.

Notice too that he can't stay on topic even though he demands it of others.

Yeah, I just heard that Dutch Commander used to be called Doc Dutch and before that Dutch Uncle. So skeevy.

QED

 

[Kafka]

What Perry is too whacky to notice is that none of my username changes were meant to deceive

Special pleading. I have no evidence to support your claim.

Notice too that he can't stay on topic even though he demands it of others.

QED

OK. LEt's talk about Cypress's hypothesis of Jesus scuppering off like a conman after waking up in the Tomb. I don't buy it, but you might be able to explain it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I find both of you insufferably stupid.

Why? What have I posted that makes you think I'm stupid?....although I can see how certain people, especially those with an agenda to push, find my disagreements as insufferable.

Are you going to paint me as "Holy Roller" simply because I do not believe the story of Jesus to be completely fabricated? That, like Cypress, I think there are physical reasons of why Jesus could have survived being crucified for half a day, even with a spear stuck into his side? Even if he died of his wounds later due to 1st century medicine?

 

[Cypress]

Sock hunting is my favorite sport on JPP. Usually, they turn out to be whacky in one way or the other.

Perry was pretty easy. Same for Sybil. My operating theory is that the whackier they are, the easier they are to catch.

You definitely have a PhD in sock hunting

 

[Cypress]

Jesus you are a toxic pile of human excrement.

You're off the edge of the map, Perry Phd. Are you going to start screaming again in large font, bold red letters?

 

[Cypress]

Why? What have I posted that makes you think I'm stupid?....although I can see how certain people, especially those with an agenda to push, find my disagreements as insufferable.

Are you going to paint me as "Holy Roller" simply because I do not believe the story of Jesus to be completely fabricated? That, like Cypress, I think there are physical reasons of why Jesus could have survived being crucified for half a day, even with a spear stuck into his side? Even if he died of his wounds later due to 1st century medicine?

I don't think it is a completely impossible hypothesis. I don't think it is utterly bat shit crazy. It's certainly not one that should incite rage, resentment, grievance in a discussion about religion. Mark did write that Pontius Pilate was surprised at how quickly Jesus died and was taken off the cross.

Here is what I do think:
Unrepentant Holly rollers are emotionally invested in the inerrancy of the stories of the bible. They have become stuck on a 16th century idea Luther promoted.
Strident Atheists have an emotional investment in believing the New Testament is an unredeemable pack of lies and deceptions. Einsein famously said something like professional atheists are angry at Christianity for reasons commonly more emotional than rational.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You definitely have a PhD in sock hunting

I even have a certificate as real as Perry's!

Meanwhile, back on topic:

So, at what point do we tell our children that there is no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, or that babies don’t come from storks?

Where do we start providing them with critical thinking skills where they can begin to separate fact from fiction?

That people really can’t walk on water, that one boat can’t fit all animals, that rainbows are from the refraction of light, that people aren’t resurrected?

Where do schools draw the line on perpetuating myths without being at risk for offending someone’s theology?

The same age we tell them about sex, pedophiles, murder and show them pictures of the executions by Hamas in Israel.