Bohm said:
Sufficient/extraordinary is just wordplay.
I agree. folks on your side of the debate don't seem to know what you want, when your own words are flipped on you. Hence the verbose backpedaling in the rest of your post.
Why I Shouldn't Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
by XJW4EVR 127 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
XJW4EVR
-
J. Hofer
for extraordinary claims "he said so" is not sufficient. what's the evidence you keep talking about anyway?
-
XJW4EVR
Smiddy said:
If christianity is so important to the salvation of mankind,and the resurrection is a core doctrine,then why is God (and or) jesus just interested in giving this" so important" information to a handfull of people in a minority religous sect in the middle east,then leaving it up to imperfect human beings to decipher,debate,question, it all for 2000 years .
Some things just don`t add up
You are right it doesn't add up that this event which occured in a cultural backwater, to a handfull of what we would view as "rubes" would change the world in less than 300 years. Yes, it just doesn't add up.
-
J. Hofer
in those first 300 years they couldn't even agree on basic points of their belief. that faith was invented on the go. if they couldn't agree on who/what jesus was in the first centuries after he supposedly died and was resurrected (hell, they couldn't even agree on his resurrection), something indeed does not add up.
-
bohm
XJW: Let me get this straight. you asked a question, i gave a honest argument, and since you apparently didnt have the brains for a coherent reply, you opted for just calling it verbose backpadeling.
a common chimpanzee might have shit the keyboard, but at least it would not have come across as a delusional twat .
-
PSacramento
in those first 300 years they couldn't even agree on basic points of their belief. that faith was invented on the go. if they couldn't agree on who/what jesus was in the first centuries after he supposedly died and was resurrected (hell, they couldn't even agree on his resurrection), something indeed does not add up.
There was indeed much debate about how things should go and that shows us that there was NO dictatorship or "governing body", but a group of diverse people that were being "driven" by their belief that soemthing extraordinary happened.
Of course that belief was expressed in different waysm but the core was that Christ had died and that he was resurrected.
-
J. Hofer
that's the core that survived, yeah. but it's documented, that as early as marcion (~ 85-160 ) many (in some parts of the world the majority of) christians didn't believe in the resurrection story.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
I'm gonna pull a fast one and drop some Thomas Paine Age of Reason since it was his work that first led me to question the "authority" of the Bible.
Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or any thing else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his own writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.
The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.
But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
-
XJW4EVR
Well Bohm, sticks and stones....
-
AllTimeJeff
My question to atheists, agnostics & skeptics is simple. Why shouldn't I believe in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? I'm specifically asking about the resurrection. Please don't insult my intelligence and tell that Jesus did not exist, as no serious scholar, even the most liberal ones, do not believe this. Instead tell me why I should not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
If the question is why you shouldn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, please do not labor under the idea that you owe ANYONE an explanation.
I do believe that Jesus existed as a man.
Jesus is not alive today. I do not accept your testimony that he is alive. Nor do I accept the bible's account that he is alive.
Your challenge seems to be a sneaky way to try and debate a belief you clearly have no intent on honestly "putting on the table." I can only speak for myself, but since you want to debate the matter of Jesus being alive, I cannot engage in this debate, as I doubt, not so much Jesus being alive, but your intellectual honesty in the matter. Why would I debate with a person who simply won't admit "I can't prove to you with evidence that Jesus is alive right now"
I am alive. I am in Flippers picture thread a few times. Got any pictures of Jesus?
My point is, you won't consider contrary evidence, so why should I consider the bible (again) for the 20th time?
Anyway, tangent. Sorry.
Believe that Jesus is alive. Tell him I said hello.....