Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[SpecterGT260]

All you can do is claim that I'm misrepresenting you and am making straw-man argument; why not show us how I'm misrepresenting you and making straw-man arguments so we can all see. Or are you too scared to have your lies exposed again

I have done so several times. You claimed that the resurrection was authenticated. You then tried to make a distinction between authenticated and "better authenticated" which is absurd. Regardless of the arbitrary distinctions you want to draw, I disagree with the statements you made. We have plenty of non-oral evidence for plenty of things that happened in history. The information (evidence) of the resurrection, even according to the bible itself, has only one original source: The women at the tomb. Everything else is repetitions of their account which is by definition hearsay. Furthermore, there is no tangible evidence that has roots outside of oral tradition that Jesus, the man, ever actually walked the earth. I stated this as a way of getting you to think about what your statements about authentication imply and how they are wrong. I, personally, believe he did (or maybe I don't. You seem to never be wrong and you've claimed that I don't... so...) but I am also aware that the evidence for this fact is lacking.

There does exist a finite non-zero possibility that the entirety of the christian tradition was fabricated. Now, just because you are somewhat slow on the uptake, I am not stating this because I am giving a statement of my position. I state it to demonstrate how your statements reach beyond what is reasonable based on what we actually know.

I hope, sincerely, that you get it now. But I know your type and know that you probably figured it out awhile ago and you're just dumb enough to think you can browbeat someone into submission if you're just stubborn enough.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mehc012]

Try to save yourself through lies and insults because it's all you can do to salvage whatever little credibility you have left. Pathetic; deluded; cowardly; foolish. thumbdown

Wait, now he's talking to himself...

 

[Frank22]

I have done so several times. You claimed that the resurrection was authenticated. You then tried to make a distinction between authenticated and "better authenticated" which is absurd. Regardless of the arbitrary distinctions you want to draw, I disagree with the statements you made. We have plenty of non-oral evidence for plenty of things that happened in history. The information (evidence) of the resurrection, even according to the bible itself, has only one original source: The women at the tomb. Everything else is repetitions of their account which is by definition hearsay. Furthermore, there is no tangible evidence that has roots outside of oral tradition that Jesus, the man, ever actually walked the earth. I stated this as a way of getting you to think about what your statements about authentication imply and how they are wrong. I, personally, believe he did (or maybe I don't. You seem to never be wrong and you've claimed that I don't... so...) but I am also aware that the evidence for this fact is lacking.

There does exist a finite non-zero possibility that the entirety of the christian tradition was fabricated. Now, just because you are somewhat slow on the uptake, I am not stating this because I am giving a statement of my position. I state it to demonstrate how your statements reach beyond what is reasonable based on what we actually know.

I hope, sincerely, that you get it now. But I know your type and know that you probably figured it out awhile ago and you're just dumb enough to think you can browbeat someone into submission if you're just stubborn enough.

Think about what you're saying: you would have to be arguing that there is no distinction between authenticated and better authenticated. Either you're extremely dumb or you're just trying to troll at this point. As far as Christ's resurrection is concerned; we have, for example, the pre-Pauline creed in 1st Corinthians 15:7-11, which is dated by some historians to be as early as 18 months after the death of Christ, and it mentions a crucifixion, death, resurrection and a list of 500 eyewitnesses, who would comprise the early Christian church. We also have the martyrdom of the disciples in very grotesque ways, all of whom claimed roses Jesus alive after his crucifixion (which is authenticated). I've already mentioned several sources that mention Jesus's existence within 100 years after his death, some even writing about him disparagingly. And I hope, based on that, you will realize how sincerely extremely ill-informed you are.

 

[SpecterGT260]

So the credible historian I quoted was lying when he said Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history? Do you even know what authenticated means? Authentication requires two elements: historical evidence and agreement. Christ's resurrection has more evidence supporting it than most of the facts of ancient history, and thus it can be regarded as better authenticated. However, because the majority of scholars do not agree that it ocurred it can never be regarded as authenticated. All you can do is claim that I'm misrepresenting you and am making straw-man argument; why not show us how I'm misrepresenting you and making straw-man arguments so we can all see. Or are you too scared to have your lies exposed again .

1) we have an appeal to authority. This is in fact a fallacy in the context of such an argument as this.

2) knock off the "or are you scared" tactics. obviously not. I've been doing this dance with you in spite of your obvious mental deficiencies all night. Are you some sort of high schooler or just a community college washout who thinks hes smart for passing a couple intro level courses? Either way, my point is that this only adds to the absurdity of your posts.

3) the resurrection has literally no evidence outside of the account of the women at the tomb. You keep talking about the evidence... but reiterating information from a single source does not constitute evidence. The 1 A.D. New York Times headlines, Huffington Post stories, and Larry King interview with the women do not constitute "evidence". Again, there is nothing outside of stories (and on this one we are talking about a story originated with just a couple of people) to support the validity of this event.

Now, would you like to show us some of this evidence or would you rather spend more time linking random scholars and thus demonstrating that you have no working understanding of what the word "evidence" means? You were right in saying that christianity isn't a blind faith, but you have been wrong on about everything else. We don't have much outside of the stories to convince us. That is where faith comes in. I wouldn't define this as "blind" by any means, but it definitely isn't based on something that is "authenticated" either.

 

[Frank22]

Wait, now he's talking to himself...

That's your attempt at an insult? Wow; you're sad.

 

[mehc012]

Think about what you're saying: you would have to be arguing that there is no distinction between authenticated and better authenticated. Either you're extremely dumb or you're just trying to troll at this point. As far as Christ's resurrection is concerned; we have, for example, the pre-Pauline creed in 1st Corinthians 15:7-11, which is dated by some historians to be as early as 18 months after the death of Christ, and it mentions a crucifixion, death, resurrection and a list of 500 eyewitnesses, who would comprise the early Christian church. We also have the martyrdom of the disciples in very grotesque ways, all of whom claimed roses Jesus alive after his crucifixion (which is authenticated). I've already mentioned several sources that mention Jesus's existence within 100 years after his death, some even writing about him disparagingly. And I hope, based on that, how sincerely extremely ill-informed you are.

No, we're saying that something "better authenticated" means "both of those things are authenticated, but there is more evidence for that one, so it is better authenticated".

And again, those things don't prove a resurrection; they show that he may not have died OR that he was resurrected OR that someone else took his place.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I've already mentioned several sources that mention Jesus's existence within 100 years after his death, some even writing about him disparagingly. And I hope, based on that, how sincerely extremely ill-informed you are.

This is what you aren't getting. These things are not in reference to the man. They are in more direct reference to the stories about him. How the hell would someone write about the man in a first person sense 100 years after he died? The works you are referencing are similar to the book of Luke which is more of an assessment of works and stories which preceded it. Such iterative "evidence" isn't actually evidence. Nor was it meant to be. Things like the creeds are better but they are still in no fashion definitive. This was my point. You are coming in here making a claim of certainty based on some wealth of evidence and you seem to be missing that the bulk of the "evidence" is actually just building upon its self as more and more "scholars" throw their vote in favor of prior works or analyses. That still isn't evidence.

 

[Frank22]

Good try on the bolded...the term is actually "ratiocination", though.

And yes, while you were posting this I did admit that it was not strictly an ad hominem, though it was a condescending attack. See, I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong or have misspoken, which you seem to lack.

Sorry, but "better authenticated" implies "authenticated". While you eventually made your point clear (though you never gave any examples of these "many events in history", you just kept repeating your mantra), you keep claiming that you never said the resurrection was authenticated, when your original statement, without the further qualifications you came up with, did in fact say exactly that.

I was just saying that a quote discussing "God's sign" is one heavily influenced by faith. Also, it's not actually possible to prove a resurrection years later; even if there was a death certificate and then a freaking notarized document signed by him 3 days later, we have no way of knowing whether he was correctly pronounced dead or simply made an astounding recovery from severe wounds, or whatever.

And I will do just fine on the MCAT, thanks. I have a knack for standardized testing.

Oh so I added an "n" in ratiocination; what a brilliant observation. So you think better authenticated means authenticated? Does that mean because a chemical reaction has less Gibbs Free Energy than another it is spontaneous? Grow up; you know the difference between better authenticated and authenticated.

 

[mehc012]

Oh so I added an "n" in ratiocination; what a brilliant observation. So you think better authenticated means authenticated? Does that mean because a chemical reaction has less Gibbs Free Energy than another it is spontaneous? Grow up; you know the difference between better authenticated and authenticated.

No, because "less" has an entirely different meaning than "better".
And yes, I now know what you meant to say when you said "better authenticated". That doesn't mean I think "better authenticated" means what you think it does. Plus, you still seem incapable of admitting that your original post was unclear.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Oh so I added an "n" in ratiocination; what a brilliant observation. So you think better authenticated means authenticated? Does that mean because a chemical reaction has less Gibbs Free Energy than another it is spontaneous? Grow up; you know the difference between better authenticated and authenticated.

look out, guys! Someone is throwing out intro to chemistry at us. The dazzling sparkly shiny intellect. It's too much for me!

 

[Frank22]

This is what you aren't getting. These things are not in reference to the man. They are in more direct reference to the stories about him. How the hell would someone write about the man in a first person sense 100 years after he died? The works you are referencing are similar to the book of Luke which is more of an assessment of works and stories which preceded it. Such iterative "evidence" isn't actually evidence. Nor was it meant to be. Things like the creeds are better but they are still in no fashion definitive. This was my point. You are coming in here making a claim of certainty based on some wealth of evidence and you seem to be missing that the bulk of the "evidence" is actually just building upon its self as more and more "scholars" throw their vote in favor of prior works or analyses. That still isn't evidence.

I specifically mentioned the pre-Pauline creed in 1st Corinthians the 15th chapter, which was formed within a few years, if not a few months after Christ's death. Think about what you're saying: 10 of the remaining 11 disciples were martyred for Christ and claimed they saw him alive after his crucifixion. Would you be willing to be stoned, beheaded, and/or speared to death for what you knew was a lie? Also shortly after Jesus's death the early Christian church exploded; what happened after his death that so rapidly made so many people to convert to Christianity? The answer is in Corinthians; Jesus appeared to some 500 men and women after his death, most of whom were still alive when that epistle was written. Even Saul of Tarsus, who had Christians put to death, claimed to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion. You really have NO idea what you're talking about; stop being so stubborn, pay attention, and you will learn something.

 

[Frank22]

No, because "less" has an entirely different meaning than "better".
And yes, I now know what you meant to say when you said "better authenticated". That doesn't mean I think "better authenticated" means what you think it does. Plus, you still seem incapable of admitting that your original post was unclear.

Yeah good excuse. Sad that you only understand when I give a scientific analogy.

 

[mehc012]

Yeah good excuse. Sad that you only understand when I give a scientific analogy.

What? First of all, I said this before:

Sorry, but "better authenticated" implies "authenticated". While you eventually made your point clear (though you never gave any examples of these "many events in history", you just kept repeating your mantra)

Second, your scientific analogy (metaphor) was terrible and didn't apply at all, so it certainly didn't help my understanding.

Third, the fact that 'less' and 'better' have entirely different meanings is not an excuse, it's directly pertinent to the question you asked ("Does that mean because a chemical reaction has less Gibbs Free Energy than another it is spontaneous?") My answer was no, and that was an explanation of my answer, not an excuse. Seriously, I would think that someone with as expansive a vocabulary as your own would appreciate the distinction between those terms.

 

[Frank22]

What? First of all, I said this before:


Second, your scientific analogy (metaphor) was terrible and didn't apply at all, so it certainly didn't help my understanding.

Third, the fact that 'less' and 'better' have entirely different meanings is not an excuse, it's directly pertinent to the question you asked ("Does that mean because a chemical reaction has less Gibbs Free Energy than another it is spontaneous?") My answer was no, and that was an explanation of my answer, not an excuse. Seriously, I would think that someone with as expansive a vocabulary as your own would appreciate the distinction between those terms.

The fact that "better" and "less"mean different things is entirely irrelevant; they indicate a relationship between two objects rather than a relationship between the object and some universal scale. You can say that someone is taller than someone else, but that doesn't mean that he or she is tall. You can just as well say that someone is smarter than someone else, but that doesn't mean he or she is smart. You can just as well say that something is better authenticated than something else, but that doesn't mean it's authenticated. In the case of Christ's resurrection, the missing element is the agreement of the vast majority of the scholarly community. In terms of sheer evidence, Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. Do you understand now?

 

[SpecterGT260]

I specifically mentioned the pre-Pauline creed in 1st Corinthians the 15th chapter, which was formed within a few years, if not a few months after Christ's death. Think about what you're saying: 10 of the remaining 11 disciples were martyred for Christ and claimed they saw him after his crucifixion. Would you be willing to be stoned, beheaded, and/or speared to death for what you knew was a lie? Also shortly after Jesus's death the early Christian church exploded; what happened after his death that so rapidly made so many people to convert to Christianity? The answer is in Corinthians; Jesus appeared to some 500 men and women after his death, most of whom were still alive when that epistle was written. You really have NO idea what you're talking; stop being so stubborn, pay attention, and you will learn something.

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't presume to know what was going on in their heads. I've heard of stranger things... I'm also not saying that I think it's a lie (and a tiny piece of my brain commits suicide every time I have to remind you of that...). But I don't consider their actions to be evidence. I'm saying I don't require hard tangible evidence to hold my beliefs, where you would rather play pretend that things that would not constitute evidence are substantiated by some obscure and clumsy use of the word "authenticated".

Also, Corinthians was not a historical record. It was a letter written by Paul to an early church in Corinth in order to address misinterpretations and practices that were going on there which he felt were not in accord with the teachings of Jesus. Paul writes about the resurrection to the members of the church.

Now.. Paul, the author of the book you are mentioning, was first known as Saul. He was actually a pharisee and religiously (pun?) persecuted members of the early christian church before he converted himself. But for some reason you seem to think he wrote these almost immediately after the death of christ. He didn't. Timeline aside, the existence of such letters of interpretation from a single man do not carry the weight towards validating the event that you seem to think they do. They are, again, examples of hearsay. And, again, I personally believe them. I just think you're a complete fool for thinking they represent more than that. Your arrogance and general level of conduct gives a bad name to the faith and your behavior here and in other threads has you seated right next to those westboro asshats. Why don't you go take a nap or eat a snickers or something before you choke on that foot you keep shoving in your mouth.

 

[mehc012]

The fact that "better" and "less"mean different things is entirely irrelevant; they indicate a relationship between two objects rather than a relationship between the object and some universal scale. You can say that someone is taller than someone else, but that doesn't mean that he or she is tall. You can just as well say that someone is smarter than someone else, but that doesn't mean he or she is smart. You can just as well say that something is better authenticated than something else, but that doesn't mean it's authenticated. In the case of Christ's resurrection, the missing element is the agreement of the vast majority of the scholarly community. In terms of sheer evidence, Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. Do you understand now?

It's not irrelevant...having less Gibb's energy is a discrete, quantifiable thing. "Better" applies the same adjective (in this case authenticated) to both and then compares them on that.

As to your next examples...no, saying that someone is taller than someone else does not mean they are tall. However, saying that someone is taller than Michael Jordan (a tall person) does say that. The problem with your specific case is that "authenticated" is a somewhat binary statement. You can be better or worse authenticated, but the comparison is only really valid between two authenticated things. A non-authenticated thing is not "more poorly authenticated" than an authenticated thing; it's just NOT authenticated.

And again, you keep pulling out "most of the facts of ancient history". Well, no...the 'facts' of ancient history are authenticated (or else they wouldn't be facts), while the resurrection is not.

 

[Frank22]

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't presume to know what was going on in their heads. I've heard of stranger things... I'm also not saying that I think it's a lie (and a tiny piece of my brain commits suicide every time I have to remind you of that...). But I don't consider their actions to be evidence. I'm saying I don't require hard tangible evidence to hold my beliefs, where you would rather play pretend that things that would not constitute evidence are substantiated by some obscure and clumsy use of the word "authenticated".

Also, Corinthians was not a historical record. It was a letter written by Paul to an early church in Corinth in order to address misinterpretations and practices that were going on there which he felt were not in accord with the teachings of Jesus. Paul writes about the resurrection to the members of the church.

Now.. Paul, the author of the book you are mentioning, was first known as Saul. He was actually a pharisee and religiously (pun?) persecuted members of the early christian church before he converted himself. But for some reason you seem to think he wrote these almost immediately after the death of christ. He didn't. Timeline aside, the existence of such letters of interpretation from a single man do not carry the weight towards validating the event that you seem to think they do. They are, again, examples of hearsay. And, again, I personally believe them. I just think you're a complete fool for thinking they represent more than that. Your arrogance and general level of conduct gives a bad name to the faith and your behavior here and in other threads has you seated right next to those westboro asshats. Why don't you go take a nap or eat a snickers or something before you choke on that foot you keep shoving in your mouth.

I don't know what a "historical record" is, but Corinthians is a historical letter, and Paul converted after he claimed to see Jesus alive after his death, just like the disciples claimed to see him alive after his death, and just like those 500 men and women did. Of course Paul didn't write those letters immediately after Jesus's death; he hadn't converted yet. BUT, the creed in 1st Corinthians 15:7-11 is a creed that emerged prior to Paul's conversion, making it an extremely early and reliable source. You are just using specious arguments to make points that don't exist; how could you possibly say that lack of "tangible" evidence is lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection for an event that would have occurred some 2,000 years ago. Or for that matter make such a petty point that Corinthians is not a historical record. You are the one who is arrogant and foolish; you pretend to be knowledgeable about Christianity and get angry and insult when your claims are refuted.

 

[Frank22]

It's not irrelevant...having less Gibb's energy is a discrete, quantifiable thing. "Better" applies the same adjective (in this case authenticated) to both and then compares them on that.

As to your next examples...no, saying that someone is taller than someone else does not mean they are tall. However, saying that someone is taller than Michael Jordan (a tall person) does say that. The problem with your specific case is that "authenticated" is a somewhat binary statement. You can be better or worse authenticated, but the comparison is only really valid between two authenticated things. A non-authenticated thing is not "more poorly authenticated" than an authenticated thing; it's just NOT authenticated.

And again, you keep pulling out "most of the facts of ancient history". Well, no...the 'facts' of ancient history are authenticated (or else they wouldn't be facts), while the resurrection is not.

We aren't trying to quantify authentication, so it is irrelevant. The fact that authentication is binary is irrelevant as well; we have more evidence for Christ's resurrection than we do for most historical facts, and the only reason it isn't authenticated is because of a lack of universal agreement. In that sense, it is better authenticated, and I have said this at least 5 times now; I do not know why you find it so hard to understand.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't know what a "historical record" is, but Corinthians is a historical letter, and Paul converted after he claimed to see Jesus alive after his death, just like the disciples claimed to see him alive after his death, and just like those 500 men and women did. Of course Paul didn't write those letters immediately after Jesus's death; he hadn't converted yet. BUT, the creed in 1st Corinthians 15:7-11 is a creed that emerged prior to Paul's conversion, making it an extremely early and reliable source. You are just using specious arguments to make points that don't exist; how could you possibly say that lack of "tangible" evidence is lack of evidence for Christ's resurrection for an event that would have occurred some 2,000 years ago. Or for that matter make such a petty point that Corinthians is not a historical record. You are the one who is arrogant and foolish; you pretend to be knowledgeable about Christianity and get angry and insult when your claims are refuted.

You really don't get it I'm not angry. I'm just cranking up the sarcasm 1) to match your tone and 2) because if it isn't going to be constructive it might as well be entertaining.

I fail to see the significance (related to your point) of Paul tipping his hat to other works within his letters. Nobody is suggesting or arguing that Paul didn't write the letters or that the letters weren't written when they are said to have been. But just like the other things you've said, it doesn't substantiate the resurrection itself. Belief in that is, in fact, faith based. My argument this entire time has been that there may be plenty out there to authenticate these individual accounts (in that the accounts were made) but none of this authenticates the content of the accounts. This is the distinction you seem to really struggle with.

 

[Koalafied]

A few months ago, I remember watching this relevant documentary via the treadmill TV while doing cardio at LA; definitely an interesting and thorough workout.

You can watch the whole documentary on y-tube in free-D.

 

[imperturbable]

We aren't trying to quantify authentication, so it is irrelevant. The fact that authentication is binary is irrelevant as well; we have more evidence for Christ's resurrection than we do for most historical facts, and the only reason it isn't authenticated is because of a lack of universal agreement. In that sense, it is better authenticated, and I have said this at least 5 times now; I do not know why you find it so hard to understand.

Use a different word than "authenticated" to get your point across, and then tell us again how the longest game of "telephone" validates your religion because there's a lot of "evidence" for it, cross-referenced by "many" historians and "accounts" throughout history. There's a lot of evidence in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about, and many posters agree with me so therefore my opinion of you is better authenticated than most other opinions.

 

[Frank22]

You really don't get it I'm not angry. I'm just cranking up the sarcasm 1) to match your tone and 2) because if it isn't going to be constructive it might as well be entertaining.

I fail to see the significance (related to your point) of Paul tipping his hat to other works within his letters. Nobody is suggesting or arguing that Paul didn't write the letters or that the letters weren't written when they are said to have been. But just like the other things you've said, it doesn't substantiate the resurrection itself. Belief in that is, in fact, faith based. My argument this entire time has been that there may be plenty out there to authenticate these individual accounts (in that the accounts were made) but none of this authenticates the content of the accounts. This is the distinction you seem to really struggle with.

No you don't get it; Paul was putting Christians to death and claimed to see the resurrected Jesus. He then went on to be crucifed for him and his bones have recently been uncovered. 500 men and women who initiated the Christian Church very shortly after Jesus's death did as well, and Jesus appeared to them too. All of the apostles also claimed to see Jesus alive as well, and went on to be martyred for him too. Even the roman historian Tacitus, who wrote disparagingly of the early Christians wrote that Jesus performed miracles and claimed that he was a "scorcerer." No historical evidence can fully substantiate anything, but the aforementioned evidence provides strong evidence for the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead. The statement "Paul was tipping his hat to other works" is meaningless.

 

[Frank22]

Use a different word than "authenticated" to get your point across, and then tell us again how the longest game of "telephone" validates your religion because there's a lot of "evidence" for it, cross-referenced by "many" historians and "accounts" throughout history. There's a lot of evidence in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about, and many posters agree with me so therefore my opinion of you is better authenticated than most other opinions.

When 12 people claim to see someone alive after he had died and are willing to be stoned, beheaded, crucified, and speared to death for that claim, and some 500 men and women do as well and form the early church, and another guy who is putting to death Christians to death says he sees the same guy alive as well and is crucified for him, and when his enemies even acknowledge that he performed miracles in their letters, along with other evidence that is pretty strong evidence that he was alive again after he died. And it doesn't matter that a lot of posters agree with you because they're not New Testament scholars, and that's a risible comparison.

 

[Wordead]

When 12 people claim to see someone alive after he had died and are willing to be stoned, beheaded, crucified, and speared to death for that claim, and some 500 men and women do as well and form the early church, and another guy who is putting to death Christians to death says he sees the same guy alive as well and is crucified for him, and when his enemies even acknowledge that he performed miracles in their letters, along with other evidence that is pretty strong evidence that he was alive again after he died. And it doesn't matter that a lot of posters agree with you because they're not New Testament scholars, and that's a risible comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

 

[SpecterGT260]

Use a different word than "authenticated" to get your point across, and then tell us again how the longest game of "telephone" validates your religion because there's a lot of "evidence" for it, cross-referenced by "many" historians and "accounts" throughout history. There's a lot of evidence in this thread that you don't know what you're talking about, and many posters agree with me so therefore my opinion of you is better authenticated than most other opinions.

This is actually a really good way of making the point. Now, I don't think you and I are on the same side of the fence here overall (I could be wrong) but I do agree that using such circumstantial evidence and labeling it as "proof" is simply inappropriate. That is my major point to Frankfurter, here.

No you don't get it; Paul was putting Christians to death and claimed to see the resurrected Jesus. He then went on to be crucifed for him and his bones have recently been uncovered. 500 men and women who initiated the Christian Church very shortly after Jesus's death did as well, and Jesus appeared to them too. All of the apostles also claimed to see Jesus alive as well, and went on to be martyred for him too. Even the roman historian Tacitus, who wrote disparagingly of the early Christians wrote that Jesus performed miracles and claimed that he was a "scorcerer." No historical evidence can fully substantiate anything, but the aforementioned evidence provides strong evidence for the belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead. The statement "Paul was tipping his hat to other works" is meaningless.

Your argument is slowly degrading from "Look at these massive words and historical anecdotes that I totally didn't just google!" and turning into a disjointed appeal to authority. Nearly 1000 people willingly killed themselves at Jonestown. What a dozen people did after the fact is not "validating evidence" of anything. This is where belief (MY belief) comes into play. I am not so insecure in my faith that I have to pretend such hearsay and circumstantial evidence is anything more than it is. And to be honest I pity you for feeling it so necessary and for missing some pretty major points in the religion you claim to know so well as you ramp up your abuse in a desperate attempt to preserve your pride. Call me a hypocrite if you want here, but I personally see a pretty big difference between your prideful abuse and my behavior which very rarely has anything to do with self preservation or face-saving and is more directed at giving someone a taste of their own medicine.

You also seem to forget that ancient writers couldn't exactly follow Jesus's tweets or subscribe to his facebook page. He wasn't posting youtube videos or making late night infomercials to expand his following. So writers like the one you cite here more than likely never directly observed Jesus. They responded to the stories and in their time it was more commonly accepted that people could perform magic so a "sorcerer" or "conjurer" was a more likely label than "trickster" or "conman" like we get today. I don't know if Tacitus ever met or directly observed Jesus, and I'm not interested in looking it up, but my point is that just because someone from the time period wrote about him doing these things doesn't really mean anything given the route that the faith spread which was via "telephone". In fact, the "telephone effect" is precisely why Paul had to write the letters to Corinth in the first place.

When 12 people claim to see someone alive after he had died and are willing to be stoned, beheaded, crucified, and speared to death for that claim, and some 500 men and women do as well and form the early church, and another guy who is putting to death Christians to death says he sees the same guy alive as well and is crucified for him, and when his enemies even acknowledge that he performed miracles in their letters, along with other evidence that is pretty strong evidence that he was alive again after he died. And it doesn't matter that a lot of posters agree with you because they're not New Testament scholars, and that's a risible comparison.

We have stories. You are discounting the importance of faith in all of this which... is downright idiotic for someone so stubborn in his own professed glorious knowledge on the subject. I'm not arguing that he didnt exist or that he didn't perform miracles. I'm arguing that the accounts of these things do not constitute evidence of anything other than the accounts. If you intend to preach to the choir then such things will suffice. If you plan to hold this discussion with anyone who doesn't share your worldview (and most of us who aren't still children don't tend to combat each other with homophobia so I am going to assume that this will be a major thing here...) you need to understand the shortcomings of your argument.

 

[Kal EI]

For all the professing Christians, I like to throw out a quote by Jesus:

By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Not...

By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you are able to win arguments, prove your beliefs, show superior intellect, insult others, etc.

It's unfortunate that Christians get so caught up in these fights that they end up breaking the #1 thing that the whole religion was founded on. To the Christians: If you are taking shots at people or insulting people - then I really question if you're serving your God or your ego.

 

[SpecterGT260]

For all the professing Christians, I like to throw out a quote by Jesus:



Not...



It's unfortunate that Christians get so caught up in these fights that they end up breaking the #1 thing that the whole religion was founded on. To the Christians: If you are taking shots at people or insulting people - then I really question if you're serving your God or your ego.

I share your sentiments but I disagree that it has to be one or the other. Jesus himself has a few pretty epic public rebukings within the text of the new testament. I like to believe that there just wasn't a greek word for "butthurt".

 

[Frank22]

This is actually a really good way of making the point. Now, I don't think you and I are on the same side of the fence here overall (I could be wrong) but I do agree that using such circumstantial evidence and labeling it as "proof" is simply inappropriate. That is my major point to Frankfurter, here.


Your argument is slowly degrading from "Look at these massive words and historical anecdotes that I totally didn't just google!" and turning into a disjointed appeal to authority. Nearly 1000 people willingly killed themselves at Jonestown. What a dozen people did after the fact is not "validating evidence" of anything. This is where belief (MY belief) comes into play. I am not so insecure in my faith that I have to pretend such hearsay and circumstantial evidence is anything more than it is. And to be honest I pity you for feeling it so necessary and for missing some pretty major points in the religion you claim to know so well as you ramp up your abuse in a desperate attempt to preserve your pride. Call me a hypocrite if you want here, but I personally see a pretty big difference between your prideful abuse and my behavior which very rarely has anything to do with self preservation or face-saving and is more directed at giving someone a taste of their own medicine.

You also seem to forget that ancient writers couldn't exactly follow Jesus's tweets or subscribe to his facebook page. He wasn't posting youtube videos or making late night infomercials to expand his following. So writers like the one you cite here more than likely never directly observed Jesus. They responded to the stories and in their time it was more commonly accepted that people could perform magic so a "sorcerer" or "conjurer" was a more likely label than "trickster" or "conman" like we get today. I don't know if Tacitus ever met or directly observed Jesus, and I'm not interested in looking it up, but my point is that just because someone from the time period wrote about him doing these things doesn't really mean anything given the route that the faith spread which was via "telephone". In fact, the "telephone effect" is precisely why Paul had to write the letters to Corinth in the first place.



We have stories. You are discounting the importance of faith in all of this which... is downright idiotic for someone so stubborn in his own professed glorious knowledge on the subject. I'm not arguing that he didnt exist or that he didn't perform miracles. I'm arguing that the accounts of these things do not constitute evidence of anything other than the accounts. If you intend to preach to the choir then such things will suffice. If you plan to hold this discussion with anyone who doesn't share your worldview (and most of us who aren't still children don't tend to combat each other with homophobia so I am going to assume that this will be a major thing here...) you need to understand the shortcomings of your argument.

Again if we expunge your insults we are left with a few sentences worth of pathetic argumentation. At this point, it should be clear that you don't know what you're talking about to anyone who has bothered to keep up with the discussion.

 

[Frank22]

For all the professing Christians, I like to throw out a quote by Jesus:



Not...



It's unfortunate that Christians get so caught up in these fights that they end up breaking the #1 thing that the whole religion was founded on. To the Christians: If you are taking shots at people or insulting people - then I really question if you're serving your God or your ego.

If I were an atheist, I know I wouldn't want a Christian pretending to be an atheist and hurting my beliefs in doing so. I also wouldn't want someone to pretend that he is knowledgeable in my beliefs when he has no idea what he is talking about, and Specter has done both.

 

[Frank22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

How is that in any way, shape, or form a comparison to the evidence I provided?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Again if we expunge your insults we are left with a few sentences worth of pathetic argumentation. At this point, it should be clear that you don't know what you're talking about to anyone who has bothered to keep up with the discussion.

You completely bury the needle on my irony detector.

If I were an atheist, I know I wouldn't want a Christian pretending to be an atheist and hurting my beliefs in doing so. I also wouldn't want someone to pretend that he is knowledgeable in my beliefs when he has no idea what he is talking about, and Specter has done both.

The way you twist and bend the reality around you to protect your fragile perspective borders on amazing. It's unfortunate that you think that my attempts to make your arguments valid to those who don't already believe what you do are seen as damaging to the religion as compared to your behavior here. You are (and remain) wrong. But it's been clear for the better part of a day that you just won't see that. Why don't you go back to making fun of community college students (just as Christ commanded, right?) in the dental forums and leave this sandbox free of your nonsense? That may be better for everyone.

 

[Frank22]

You completely bury the needle on my irony detector.



The way you twist and bend the reality around you to protect your fragile perspective borders on amazing. It's unfortunate that you think that my attempts to make your arguments valid to those who don't already believe what you do are seen as damaging to the religion as compared to your behavior here. You are (and remain) wrong. But it's been clear for the better part of a day that you just won't see that. Why don't you go back to making fun of community college students (just as Christ commanded, right?) in the dental forums and leave this sandbox free of your nonsense? That may be better for everyone.

Christ did not command Christians to make bad arguments to hurt their faith as you have. You're really a sad human being; you pretend to be a Christian to hurt the faith, continue to argue when you know you're wrong, rely on lies and insults to keep yourself afloat. You don't deserve to be medical school.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Christ did not command Christians to make bad arguments to hurt their faith as you have. You're really a sad human being; you pretend to be a Christian to hurt the faith, continue to argue when you know you're wrong, rely on lies and insults to keep yourself afloat. You don't deserve to be medical school.

There it is! Burnette's law is satisfied. Or... I think it is. I am in medical school. I am not actually the embodiment of medical school. As someone who will likely never enter into a professional degree-granting program, I can understand how you would be confused.

/thread.

 

[Frank22]

There it is! Burnette's law is satisfied. Or... I think it is. I am in medical school. I am not actually the embodiment of medical school. As someone who will likely never enter into a professional degree-granting program, I can understand how you would be confused.

/thread.

I know you're in medical school, and you don't deserve to be; you have no integrity, are a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. And don't worry about me; if someone as dumb as you can get into a "professional degree-granting" program I'm not concerned.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way

 

[Kal EI]

Christ did not command Christians to make bad arguments to hurt their faith as you have. You're really a sad human being; you pretend to be a Christian to hurt the faith, continue to argue when you know you're wrong, rely on lies and insults to keep yourself afloat. You don't deserve to be medical school.

I know you're in medical school, and you don't deserve to be; you have no integrity, are a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. And don't worry about me; if someone as dumb as you can get into a "professional degree-granting" program I'm not concerned.

I'm still not sure how you're being Christ-like here. I remember him saying to judge not, to love one another, to serve the poor, to love God. When did Christ tell people to make arguments, tell people what they deserve, say they lack integrity, or to call them dumb?

There are many commands he gave, which one's are you following? It seems you're arguing for correct beliefs instead of trying to be a disciple. You can present your case without being abrasive.

 

[Koalafied]

I am a devout Christian and am going into dentistry; wherein lies the crevasse between healthcare and Christianity?

Regardless of your "devout," do you even know what it means to be a Christian?

 

[loris]

We aren't trying to quantify authentication, so it is irrelevant. The fact that authentication is binary is irrelevant as well; we have more evidence for Christ's resurrection than we do for most historical facts, and the only reason it isn't authenticated is because of a lack of universal agreement. In that sense, it is better authenticated, and I have said this at least 5 times now; I do not know why you find it so hard to understand.

Thomas Arnold, the scholar you quoted, died in 1842. I don’t think his opinion regarding historical facts is still accurate. As science has gotten more advanced, so has archeology. We frequently use technological advances to establish historical facts. We can identify ancient food remnants and mummy GI contents based on chemical composition, genetic analysis, and pollen analysis. We can date artifacts using radiocarbon dating and we can determine whether a deceased British colonist spent their childhood in England or the U.S. by examining the radioisotopes in their tooth enamel. We can analyze DNA to identify genetic disorders, microbial infections, historical relationships, and physical traits; we even determined that some Neanderthals carried a mutation for red hair (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence...nderthals/neanderthal-genes-red-hair-and-more). We aren’t even forced to rely purely on ancient art to know how people made their tools and clothes because there are a number of excellently preserved bodies and artifacts in ice, bogs, deserts, and tombs. Otzi from the Copper Age is a great example of this (http://www.iceman.it/en/milestones); we figured out his diet, his tools, the season he died, what environment he was walking in 12hrs before death from partially digested pollen, his lactose intolerance, his infection with lyme disease, and we even knew that he was involved in the copper smelting process because of traces of copper and arsenic in his hair.

There are tons of stories of miraculous events from different cultures; even if we can prove that some of the people mentioned were real humans, we can’t use stories to definitively prove that a miraculous event occurred.

For example, Akhenaten, the husband of Nefertiti and the father of King Tut, rejected contemporary Egyptian polytheism and believed that there was only one supreme god, the sun-disk Aten, and that Akhenaten was Aten’s messenger and only son. He changed his name to Akhenaten to reflect his new religion, destroyed rival temples, and restricted or eliminated references to other Egyptian gods. Although he had a following during life, he was eventually vilified by other Egyptians after death and his religious views were largely rejected and buried. His own son Tutankhamun was largely responsible for reinstating the traditional polytheistic views.

It is universally accepted that Akhenaten was a real person. In addition to art and written records, there is ample physical evidence that includes his tomb, the city that he built in honor of Aten, and a family tree verified by DNA evidence from royal mummies. Although we have records that show Akhenaten thought he was the son of the sun god Aten, there is no physical incontestable evidence that supports that he actually was the son of a supreme being or that the god Aten even existed. If you want to believe his word that he was, then you have to take a leap of faith. That is the basis of all religions.

Also, for the posters who keep referring to atheism as a new concept or the product of MTV, it’s actually not. It’s as natural a human reaction to the universe as religion and has even existed in relatively isolated cultures like the Pirahã. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

 

[Frank22]

I'm still not sure how you're being Christ-like here. I remember him saying to judge not, to love one another, to serve the poor, to love God. When did Christ tell people to make arguments, tell people what they deserve, say they lack integrity, or to call them dumb?

There are many commands he gave, which one's are you following? It seems you're arguing for correct beliefs instead of trying to be a disciple. You can present your case without being abrasive.

Lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith isn't lacking in integrity? It is one thing to simply be nescient about the historical facts, but it is another entirely to lie about your religious affiliation then make very bad (and factually incorrect) arguments against the faith.

 

[Frank22]

Thomas Arnold, the scholar you quoted, died in 1842. I don’t think his opinion regarding historical facts is still accurate. As science has gotten more advanced, so has archeology. We frequently use technological advances to establish historical facts. We can identify ancient food remnants and mummy GI contents based on chemical composition, genetic analysis, and pollen analysis. We can date artifacts using radiocarbon dating and we can determine whether a deceased British colonist spent their childhood in England or the U.S. by examining the radioisotopes in their tooth enamel. We can analyze DNA to identify genetic disorders, microbial infections, historical relationships, and physical traits; we even determined that some Neanderthals carried a mutation for red hair (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence...nderthals/neanderthal-genes-red-hair-and-more). We aren’t even forced to rely purely on ancient art to know how people made their tools and clothes because there are a number of excellently preserved bodies and artifacts in ice, bogs, deserts, and tombs. Otzi from the Copper Age is a great example of this (http://www.iceman.it/en/milestones); we figured out his diet, his tools, the season he died, what environment he was walking in 12hrs before death from partially digested pollen, his lactose intolerance, his infection with lyme disease, and we even knew that he was involved in the copper smelting process because of traces of copper and arsenic in his hair.

There are tons of stories of miraculous events from different cultures; even if we can prove that some of the people mentioned were real humans, we can’t use stories to definitively prove that a miraculous event occurred.

For example, Akhenaten, the husband of Nefertiti and the father of King Tut, rejected contemporary Egyptian polytheism and believed that there was only one supreme god, the sun-disk Aten, and that Akhenaten was Aten’s messenger and only son. He changed his name to Akhenaten to reflect his new religion, destroyed rival temples, and restricted or eliminated references to other Egyptian gods. Although he had a following during life, he was eventually vilified by other Egyptians after death and his religious views were largely rejected and buried. His own son Tutankhamun was largely responsible for reinstating the traditional polytheistic views.

It is universally accepted that Akhenaten was a real person. In addition to art and written records, there is ample physical evidence that includes his tomb, the city that he built in honor of Aten, and a family tree verified by DNA evidence from royal mummies. Although we have records that show Akhenaten thought he was the son of the sun god Aten, there is no physical incontestable evidence that supports that he actually was the son of a supreme being or that the god Aten even existed. If you want to believe his word that he was, then you have to take a leap of faith. That is the basis of all religions.

Also, for the posters who keep referring to atheism as a new concept or the product of MTV, it’s actually not. It’s as natural a human reaction to the universe as religion and has even existed in relatively isolated cultures like the Pirahã. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

In fact, within the last 100 years findings within archaeology have resolved copious purported "discrepancies" within the Gospel narratives. Of course one will find claims of supernatural phenomena within all cultures, but that doesn't hurt the historicity of Christ's resurrection; Jesus's crucifixion is a historical fact, and if we can show that he was alive again after his death, we can show that he was resurrected. There is very strong reason to believe he was alive again after he died.

 

[Frank22]

Regardless of your "devout," do you even know what it means to be a Christian?

It certainly doesn't mean lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith! Do not make Jesus out to be some sort of over sentimental whimp; he preaches kindness and love for others, but also speaks authoritatively and powerfully. That being said, rebuking is still permissible within the Christian faith, so long as its non-violent. Too many people today make the Christian faith out to be some sort of hippie-like religion preaching finding "love in Christ." Yes, we believe salvation is found in Christ, but that doesn't mean we're mindless zombies who believe what we do on the basis of blind faith.

 

[Kal EI]

It certainly doesn't mean lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith! Do not make Jesus out to be some sort of over sentimental whimp; he preaches kindness and love for others, but also speaks authoritatively and powerfully. That being said, rebuking is still permissible within the Christian faith, so long as its non-violent. Too many people today make the Christian faith out to be some sort of hippie-like religion preaching finding "love in Christ." Yes, we believe salvation is found in Christ, but that doesn't mean we're mindless zombies who believe what we do on the basis of blind faith.

Your conduct is hurting the faith (calling people dumb, liars and being generally abrasive).

 

[Frank22]

Your conduct is hurting the faith (calling people dumb, liars and being generally abrasive).

Calling a liar a liar is not being abrasive. A word to the not so wise: just because someone knows what he or she is talking about doesn't mean he or she is more guilty than the person who doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It certainly doesn't mean lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith!

It is interesting that you are so sure of yourself here. To be perfectly honest with you, I'd be pretty good and offended except for the base level of intelligence you have displayed here and elsewhere. You don't appear to be able to help yourself. But for what its worth, I am absolutely not lying about it and have no intentions of hurting my faith. I do intend to subvert the message that you spin because I see it as very very wrong and inconsistent with what Christianity is and what is taught. You speak very matter of fact and with an authoritative tone and you're being called out for being full of crap. I could call you a brood of vipers but I think it would hit just a little too close to the point I'm hinting at right now and, well.... I can't just spell it out for you, can I?

The very very fortunate thing is that your input means precisely nothing in the grand scheme of things. So if you want to convince yourself that I am lying (a statement that is based on literally nothing other than your need for it to be true to protect your fragile worldview) so be it. It's pretty clear that nobody, not a single person, is buying the crap you're saying. You're sitting out there on your opinions all alone and when someone actually tries to engage you on your own points you write him off as a liar and concoct a story about him to make yourself feel better. FYI, concocting such a story is also technically lying. Irony abounds with you, Frankfurter

 

[mehc012]

In fact, within the last 100 years findings within archaeology have resolved copious purported "discrepancies" within the Gospel narratives. Of course one will find claims of supernatural phenomena within all cultures, but that doesn't hurt the historicity of Christ's resurrection; Jesus's crucifixion is a historical fact, and if we can show that he was alive again after his death, we can show that he was resurrected. There is very strong reason to believe he was alive again after he died.

That doesn't prove that he was dead; only that he was thought to be dead, or that someone took his place and the disciples went along with it, or any other number of more plausible possibilities than divine intervention and/or resurrection, as I said about a page ago.

Come on, man, people don't even believe what they see on video these days...yet we should suddenly suspend our skepticism for a few records written thousands of years ago, and assume that
a) they are accurate accounts of first-person eyewitnesses
b) they were in no way affected by the mysticism surrounding the event
c) records of his death are 100% accurate - maybe he looked dead. Maybe he sustained life-threatening injuries which kill people 99.9% of the time, and they assumed he was a goner, but he beat the odds. Maybe it looked worse than it was. Even these days it is possible to write someone off only to find that they pull through. It's not frequent, but it is a more plausible conclusion given the limited evidence than resurrection is.

In fact, I think I'll end with that: historical evidence is limited by its very nature. Therefore, we must draw our conclusions based on what few facts we have (acknowledging the lens of the recorder) and what we know is possible. Given the inherent, undeniable implausibility of a miracle such as the resurrection, there are many, many incredibly convoluted, normally-implausible scenarios which still provide better explanations than a resurrection...and several not-so-implausible ones. There is not enough evidence to point to any one timeline, but in the face of such inexplicit evidence, it is also impossible to concretely demonstrate a zero-probability event. Doesn't mean it didn't happen; just means we can't really prove it.

 

[mehc012]

Also, I want to make it clear that I am NOT advocating that everyone disbelieve in the resurrection. Belief is a matter of faith, which does not require hard evidence. I am, however, disagreeing that there is hard evidence for it. (and as a side note, if there were such hard evidence, it would no longer be a matter of faith).

This is also why arguing against an 'authenticated' resurrection in no way diminishes someone's faith or adherence to christianity. The faithful do not need hard facts available to believe that the event occurred, and therefore such an argument in no way demonstrates a lack of belief or faith...it only demonstrates critical thinking skills.

 

[Frank22]

It is interesting that you are so sure of yourself here. To be perfectly honest with you, I'd be pretty good and offended except for the base level of intelligence you have displayed here and elsewhere. You don't appear to be able to help yourself. But for what its worth, I am absolutely not lying about it and have no intentions of hurting my faith. I do intend to subvert the message that you spin because I see it as very very wrong and inconsistent with what Christianity is and what is taught. You speak very matter of fact and with an authoritative tone and you're being called out for being full of crap. I could call you a brood of vipers but I think it would hit just a little too close to the point I'm hinting at right now and, well.... I can't just spell it out for you, can I?

The very very fortunate thing is that your input means precisely nothing in the grand scheme of things. So if you want to convince yourself that I am lying (a statement that is based on literally nothing other than your need for it to be true to protect your fragile worldview) so be it. It's pretty clear that nobody, not a single person, is buying the crap you're saying. You're sitting out there on your opinions all alone and when someone actually tries to engage you on your own points you write him off as a liar and concoct a story about him to make yourself feel better. FYI, concocting such a story is also technically lying. Irony abounds with you, Frankfurter

How can you write so many paragraphs saying absolutely nothing?

 

[Frank22]

That doesn't prove that he was dead; only that he was thought to be dead, or that someone took his place and the disciples went along with it, or any other number of more plausible possibilities than divine intervention and/or resurrection, as I said about a page ago.

Come on, man, people don't even believe what they see on video these days...yet we should suddenly suspend our skepticism for a few records written thousands of years ago, and assume that
a) they are accurate accounts of first-person eyewitnesses
b) they were in no way affected by the mysticism surrounding the event
c) records of his death are 100% accurate - maybe he looked dead. Maybe he sustained life-threatening injuries which kill people 99.9% of the time, and they assumed he was a goner, but he beat the odds. Maybe it looked worse than it was. Even these days it is possible to write someone off only to find that they pull through. It's not frequent, but it is a more plausible conclusion given the limited evidence than resurrection is.

In fact, I think I'll end with that: historical evidence is limited by its very nature. Therefore, we must draw our conclusions based on what few facts we have (acknowledging the lens of the recorder) and what we know is possible. Given the inherent, undeniable implausibility of a miracle such as the resurrection, there are many, many incredibly convoluted, normally-implausible scenarios which still provide better explanations than a resurrection...and several not-so-implausible ones. There is not enough evidence to point to any one timeline, but in the face of such inexplicit evidence, it is also impossible to concretely demonstrate a zero-probability event. Doesn't mean it didn't happen; just means we can't really prove it.

Assuming any possibility is more likely than a resurrection is begging the question; i.e., assuming there is no God. Unlike you, I'm not willing to bet my eternal soul that a Jewish carpenter living 2,000 years ago managed to make 33% of the world believe that he is God incarnate by getting lucky.

 

[mehc012]

Assuming any possibility is more likely than a resurrection is begging the question; i.e., assuming there is no God. Unlike you, I'm not willing to bet my eternal soul that a Jewish carpenter living 2,000 years ago managed to make 33% of the world believe that he is God incarnate by getting lucky.

And that is why you have faith, and I don't. THIS IS WHY people are objecting to your 'concrete' arguments/evidence: they presuppose faith. That's not to say that anyone who disagrees with you lacks faith...they just recognize that if and argument is dependent on faith, it cannot be satisfactorily factually verified.

 

[SpecterGT260]

How can you write so many paragraphs saying absolutely nothing?

I just try to put very minimal effort into being over your head. So far its been quite easy.