Religious

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As far as the resurrection, it's the best attested historical fact of antiquity ever recorded!

No, it is not. That's the lie that Christianity is built upon. The only "attestations" are the gospels and Christianity itself has repudiated all but four of those. Those four were written decades after the alleged event. Their authors are anonymous. The earliest copies of the canonical gospels either do not credit any author or have "according to ..." written in the margin. There is absolutely no reason to believe they describe an actual event.

Originally Posted by boxcar

All of Christianity rests upon the cornerstone of Christ's resurrection. (Even Paul admitted this!)

Indeed.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yet, why isn't there an ancient record that solidly refutes the resurrection?

Nor is there one ancient record that affirms it. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The resurrection is certainly an extraordinary claim. Where's the extraordinary evidence? There is none.

Originally Posted by boxcar

God only knows that Christ, his apostles and his disciples had enough enemies who would have loved to utterly destroy the Christian "sect".

That's the Christian version, supported by nothing except Christian propaganda.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Surely someone would have have been able to prove that the resurrection was a hoax! But they couldn't because no one could produce the body!

Because there was no body to produce. The event never happened.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why didn't any of the Jewish historians (who were unbelievers) produce historical evidence in their writings that the resurrection was a hoax?

Because they never heard of it. And if they did hear of it, it was just another "dying and rising god" cult. Why bother?

Are there any ancient historians who produce evidence that Osiris was not resurrected? Or Baldr, or Quetzalcoatl, or Izanami?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is no way to prove historical events beyond all doubt.

Glad to hear you admit that. So we are back to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Glad to hear you admit that. So we are back to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

No, we're back to what I wrote earlier about the probabilities of likelihood and unlikelihood.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, it is not. That's the lie that Christianity is built upon. The only "attestations" are the gospels and Christianity itself has repudiated all but four of those. Those four were written decades after the alleged event. Their authors are anonymous. The earliest copies of the canonical gospels either do not credit any author or have "according to ..." written in the margin. There is absolutely no reason to believe they describe an actual event.
Indeed.
Nor is there one ancient record that affirms it. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The resurrection is certainly an extraordinary claim. Where's the extraordinary evidence? There is none.
That's the Christian version, supported by nothing except Christian propaganda.
Because there was no body to produce. The event never happened.
Because they never heard of it. And if they did hear of it, it was just another "dying and rising god" cult. Why bother?

Are there any ancient historians who produce evidence that Osiris was not resurrected? Or Baldr, or Quetzalcoatl, or Izanami?

But there is an ancient record that attests to the resurrection: It's called the New Testament.

And Jesus was crucified. The bible and extra-biblical works attest to that historical event.

So...we're back to square one: Where is the body? Why didn't the Christ-hating Jews produce the body? After all, they knew where he was buried as did the Roman guards Pilate sent to guard the tomb. It was no secret as to where Jesus was buried. All the Romans or the Jews had to do was produce the body to squash the Jesus movement.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

As a theologian Gervais is a good comedian.

The fascinating part of the discussion always comes down to the beginning, because once the current universe was put into motion, science does a very good job of explaining how we got to where we've gotten. And of course nobody has resolved the question of what happened before expansion started. As long as you aren't worried about the second before expansion you can make it comfortably without a god, and that is where Gervais is.

I think the biggest problem atheists have is the obvious flaws of the Christian God. It's difficult to worship something that acts contrary to what humans call humanity as often as this god did. The message of love in the new covenant seems trumped by the fact that he has left us all on our own when he could make an appearance and resolve so many things. People think, if it were me, I would do it. I would set the world straight. He is a god that demands unflinching adoration, but doesn't offer real loyalty in return. I have a belief that atheists deep down wish there was such a thing as the god they conceive in their minds, the god who treats his children as the best of us would treat ours.

God and science made it too hard to believe in the ideal supreme being, and that being doesn't seem to care that it happened. Humans are incredibly flawed. The atheist believes any true god would know that and intervene as any concerned parent would.

Everyone would be happy if there was a god as they would conceive. I don't think the current god is going to make that any easier than he has lately.

Stay tuned, HOH. There are only two comings of Jesus. At the second advent, he'll set the entire world straight. Have no doubts about that.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thaskalos and any others: What are your thoughts regarding the information in this interesting slideshow...be sure to examine all of the slides...I find them quite interesting but I know our Christian and Jewish friends will not think so....

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Ex...ent-bloodlines

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But there is an ancient record that attests to the resurrection: It's called the New Testament.

Try to keep up. That's Christian propaganda.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And Jesus was crucified. The bible and extra-biblical works attest to that historical event.

Definition of extra-biblical : Pertaining to information or content outside the Bible.

Name one "extra-Biblical" work that attests to the resurrection.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...we're back to square one: Where is the body?

Try to keep up. There is no evidence that there ever was a body.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why didn't the Christ-hating Jews produce the body? After all, they knew where he was buried as did the Roman guards Pilate sent to guard the tomb. It was no secret as to where Jesus was buried. All the Romans or the Jews had to do was produce the body to squash the Jesus movement.

Try to keep up. It's all fiction.

Definition of fiction : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story.

You believe this fiction because it's your coping mechanism, the way you deal with your own mortality, by denying you are mortal.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are there any ancient historians who produce evidence that Osiris was not resurrected? Or Baldr, or Quetzalcoatl, or Izanami?

I'll debunk one of these so-called resurrected gods: Osiris

The “resurrection”[1]:According to Egyptian tradition, Isis and her sister, Nephthys, lament over Osiris’ scattered, dead body and their lament catches the attention of the sun-god, Ra. Ra sends Anubis down from heaven and along with Isis, Nephthys, Thoth, and Horus, he pieces together the scattered Osiris. With help from Isis, Osiris is revived to the position of Lord of the Underworld, Lord of Eternity, Ruler of the Dead.

Similarities to the resurrection story of Jesus:
Both died, both were brought back to some kind of existence after life

Dissimilarities to the resurrection story of Jesus:Life: Osiris allegedly ruled on earth as a god-king over all of Egypt, Jesus did not rule as an earthly king, but proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven as having arrived on earth

Death: Osiris was duped into his demise, Jesus sacrificially and willingly died for all mankind

Resurrection: Osiris was pieced back to together by other gods out of Isis’ desire for her dead husband, Jesus was raised to a new life having conquered physical death giving hope to all mankind

Afterlife: Osiris was raised to the position of Ruler of the Underworld, Jesus was raised to a new body, the firstborn of the resurrected, and rules with God over all creation

What about the dating of these stories? Who is influencing who? A couple of quotes from two articles:

– The key here is dating. Most of the alleged parallels between Christianity and mystery religions, upon close scrutiny will show that Christian elements predate mythological elements. In cases where they do not, it is often Jewish elements which predate both Christianity and the myth, and which lent themselves to both religions.[2]

– In the case of all three, there is no evidence earlier than the second century A.D. for the supposed “resurrection” of these mystery gods.[3]

– For a discussion of certain parallels between the Osiris cult and Christianity, where “any theory of borrowing on the part of Christianity from the older faith is not to be entertained, for not only can it not be substantiated on the extant evidence, but it is also intrinsically most improbable.” see S. G. F. Brandon. “The Ritual Perpetuation of the Past,” “Numen”, vi (1959), 122-129 (quotation is from p. 128).[4]

Also, the Osiris myth directly relates to the corn crop cycle. As taken from The Golden Bough,

The foregoing survey of the myth and ritual of Osiris may suffice to prove that in one of his aspects the god was a personification of the corn, which may be said to die and come to life again every year.

So...here's the deal: How many billions of followers does Osiris have today?
Not many, huh? Could this be because that deaths that resemble grade C horror flicks are not very believable? And what exactly was the great significance to Osiris' "death and resurrection" to mankind? Do we even know that Osiris existed in the first place? Maybe the whole tale sounded a wee bit CORNY? Could any or all of these questions have anything to do with historians' ancient lack of interest?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Try to keep up. That's Christian propaganda.

Definition of extra-biblical : Pertaining to information or content outside the Bible.

Name one "extra-Biblical" work that attests to the resurrection.

You really should quit while you're only behind a few miles behind in this one mile race!

I'll call you and raise you 4.
Josephus, the NT Apocrypha, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Tacitus

And spare me the usual liberal drivel about Historian Joe and the alleged edit job, will ya. You asked for one. Now I have given 5 all told.

Try to keep up. There is no evidence that there ever was a body.
Try to keep up. It's all fiction.

You should take your own advice. All your objections are inventions of a stressed out, anti-God, anti-supernatural imagination.

Definition of fiction : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story.

You believe this fiction because it's your coping mechanism, the way you deal with your own mortality, by denying you are mortal.

I cope just fine, thank you. It you who suppresses truth in unrighteousness. Not a healthy thing to do at all -- either in the short term or for the long -- most especially the latter!

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

As a theologian Gervais is a good comedian.

The fascinating part of the discussion always comes down to the beginning, because once the current universe was put into motion, science does a very good job of explaining how we got to where we've gotten. And of course nobody has resolved the question of what happened before expansion started. As long as you aren't worried about the second before expansion you can make it comfortably without a god, and that is where Gervais is.

I think the biggest problem atheists have is the obvious flaws of the Christian God. It's difficult to worship something that acts contrary to what humans call humanity as often as this god did. The message of love in the new covenant seems trumped by the fact that he has left us all on our own when he could make an appearance and resolve so many things. People think, if it were me, I would do it. I would set the world straight. He is a god that demands unflinching adoration, but doesn't offer real loyalty in return. I have a belief that atheists deep down wish there was such a thing as the god they conceive in their minds, the god who treats his children as the best of us would treat ours.

God and science made it too hard to believe in the ideal supreme being, and that being doesn't seem to care that it happened. Humans are incredibly flawed. The atheist believes any true god would know that and intervene as any concerned parent would.

Everyone would be happy if there was a god as they would conceive. I don't think the current god is going to make that any easier than he has lately.

Thanks for the considerate response, Halv. Between the "freethinkers" here, e.g., an unresponsive Boy-In-The-Scientism-Bubble and a Sam Harris wannabe, I appreciate it.

The "problem of evil" isn't a dealbreaker for me, for reasons having to do with our different interpretations of, granting the existence of a "capital G" god, whether and/or how God has "intervened".

The strongest argument for Actor's determinism is the inevitable, and ultimately boring cycle of regurgitated objections by the skeptics here.

Have a great evening.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, I'm blown away. We actually agree on something. I will remember you fondly as I toast you in spirit later on when I have a brewski.

Make it a Labatt Blue (probably not in FL, right?) and I'll join you from a distance.

We agree on much, but internet debating is an exercise in pride, mostly. So the contested things get priority.

If I was as active as you on the forum, I personally would have to constantly monitor my spiritual health, and "shake the dust" quite often. Take care of your family--the rest, me included, are Just-A-Guy-Behind-A-Keyboard who needn't affect your peace.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Make it a Labatt Blue (probably not in FL, right?) and I'll join you from a distance.

We agree on much, but internet debating is an exercise in pride, mostly. So the contested things get priority.

If I was as active as you on the forum, I personally would have to constantly monitor my spiritual health, and "shake the dust" quite often. Take care of your family--the rest, me included, are Just-A-Guy-Behind-A-Keyboard who needn't affect your peace.

Good question on the brewski. Next time I go to Total Wine, I will check it out. My favorite craft beer is Blue Monk (brewed locally here). I also favor Warsteiner and Yuengling.

You're right, generally, about forums. But I do shake that dust every time I leave the office.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Thaskalos and any others: What are your thoughts regarding the information in this interesting slideshow...be sure to examine all of the slides...I find them quite interesting but I know our Christian and Jewish friends will not think so....

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Ex...ent-bloodlines

Interesting slide show, but I'm not certain what it is doing in this thread.
The creator of those slides is seeing symbolism that may or not be there, even if he or she is convinced that it is there.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Interesting slide show, but I'm not certain what it is doing in this thread.
The creator of those slides is seeing symbolism that may or not be there, even if he or she is convinced that it is there.

"The letters IHS are believed to represent Jesus....but, in fact, they derive from the Irish sea god Iesu (or Esus).....upon whom the Christian Jesus is partly based."

You do understand that the deity Jesus is a historical concatenation and synthesis of previous deities.....Not the unique creation of a Divine Father in order to execute some master plan to redeem humanity unto himself....

[PaceAdvantage]

Even with the new board, and it being quite snappy now, this thread still takes a long time to open due to its size.

I'm thinking it's time to create a Religious Part II and close this one.

What do you all think?