Win Prizes Ask an Atheist II

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Roylion]

What's your definition of "dead"?

I would define 'dead' as being the state of the body after the heart has stopped beating for a period of time and the brain starves from lack of oxygen. From the moment of death, gut bacteria, present when living, begin to digests the intestine.

They eventually break out of the intestine and start digesting the surrounding internal organs, often within 24 hours. Flies begin to lay eggs around wounds and natural body openings, then they hatch and move into the body, most often within 24 hours.

Rigor mortis appears approximately 2 hours after death in the muscles of the face, progresses to the limbs over the next few hours, completing between 6 to 8 hours after death.

The whole network of neurons then disintegrates, dissolved from massive cell death and the pooling of blood acids. Gases and fluids pool in the extremities and body cavities and the body starts to decompose.

Once that all occurs are you 'truly' dead. If Jesus was truly dead (in the above described state) after two-three days, he was never resurrected from that state.

That’s right . If miracles were commonplace then there is more than enough historical evidence of a resurrection.

I reject totally the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. No-one, including the human called Jesus, has ever risen from being truly dead, despite what some have claimed. All humans - every single last one of them throughout all of human history - has ended up dying. None have ever been resurrected from the dead.

As Carl Sagan once said..."extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Extraordinary claims are those that are:
1) not entirely reasonable to believe
2) not consistent with our everyday experience
3) not supported by a large body of evidence confirming such things are possible

So the evidence presented needs to be commensurate to the claim being made.

People coming back from being dead for three days is not a reasonable thing to just accept. It goes against our everyday experience of people staying dead once they die, and it is not supported by any confirming evidence, other than an author's say so. Using as evidence that "goddidit" or that it was a "miracle" isn't enough. Hence the only way it can be believed / accepted as having actually happened is by faith.

Everything we know about human behaviour points to this man Jesus coming back to life and motivating the hell out of his followers ( not so much before his crucifixion but definitely afterwards )

No it doesn't. I've provided other explanations for this elsewhere.

….except of course there is the scientific fact that you can’t come back to life after you die.

You cannot. Not if you are truly dead.

 

[Boston tiger]

[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]]]]]" data-quote="SBD Gonzalez" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

What's your definition of "dead"?

In the Jesus case … stone motherless dead .. beyond cpr etc.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

In the Jesus case … stone motherless dead .. beyond cpr etc.

Well then if he was dead he was dead.

If, as was claimed, he "rose from the dead", he clearly wasn't dead, unless you want "dead" to mean something different to dead in this one instance. Can't have it both ways.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I would define 'dead' as being the state of the body after the heart has stopped beating for a period of time and the brain starves from lack of oxygen. From the moment of death, gut bacteria, present when living, begin to digests the intestine.

They eventually break out of the intestine and start digesting the surrounding internal organs, often within 24 hours. Flies begin to lay eggs around wounds and natural body openings, then they hatch and move into the body, most often within 24 hours.

Rigor mortis appears approximately 2 hours after death in the muscles of the face, progresses to the limbs over the next few hours, completing between 6 to 8 hours after death.

The whole network of neurons then disintegrates, dissolved from massive cell death and the pooling of blood acids. Gases and fluids pool in the extremities and body cavities and the body starts to decompose.

Once that all occurs are you 'truly' dead. If Jesus was truly dead (in the above described state) after two-three days, he was never resurrected from that state.

Yep that's the clinical definition. I'm coming at it from the direction of the fundamentals of meaning.

 

[Boston tiger]

That's great.

Let's go through the evidence again.

Which one of these so called "facts" will we try first?

Joseph of Arimathea?
Empty tomb?
Experiences of the risen Jesus?
Disciples belief?

All of these "facts" are based on the hidden premise that the New Testament is an unvarnished historical record. They were hardly composed by unbiased observers and cannot be externally verified when it comes to their core claims about Jesus. Most arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are based on theological assumptions and perspectives and rarely on historical evidence.

As Richard Carrier said...

"Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980s? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well, no."

Any naturalistic explanation for the facts such as the empty tomb is much more probable, not to mention plausible, than the divinely-orchestrated miraculous resurrection story outlined in the Gospels.

And of course we've gone through all of this before.

I know it’s not your quote but Christianity didn’t start after the Gospels were written. The world war 2 soldier analogy just doesn’t work .
You already have a vibrant church you can wander down and ask and check things . You would ask those still alive about this soldier or next of kin. You would be exploring why his fellow soldiers suddenly became in credibly brave after stating they saw him resurrected and …asking sons and daughters why their fathers : mothers were so adamant he was resurrected etc . The Gospels give names of actual people so you could really do some research.
Stop looking at history through Protestant eyes Roy. Christianity didn’t start because of something written. It may seem a small point but it’s important.

 

[Vdubs]

Well then if he was dead he was dead.

If, as was claimed, he "rose from the dead", he clearly wasn't dead, unless you want "dead" to mean something different to dead in this one instance. Can't have it both ways.

The marvel of Christianity, and the uniqueness is that we worship the man who God did raise from the DEAD. You don't accept it, being a mere mortal, it is hard to accept, but there is enough support for this to have occurred, as has been described in this thread. You can have it both ways when it comes to Christ. Why else the support for him? Nobody else in history has claimed He was the Son of God, and that after 3 days, He would rise from the dead, and actually did so. No religion purports this. Jesus was and is unique, and worthy of the following He has.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The marvel of Christianity, and the uniqueness is that we worship the man who God did raise from the DEAD. You don't accept it, being a mere mortal, it is hard to accept, but there is enough support for this to have occurred, as has been described in this thread. You can have it both ways when it comes to Christ. Why else the support for him? Nobody else in history has claimed He was the Son of God, and that after 3 days, He would rise from the dead, and actually did so. No religion purports this. Jesus was and is unique, and worthy of the following He has.

So you're saying "dead" can also mean "not dead". Do you agree?

 

[Roylion]

I know it’s not your quote but Christianity didn’t start after the Gospels were written.

I'm well aware that Jesus had a small band of followers before the Gospels were written.

You already have a vibrant church you can wander down and ask and check things .

A very small church. Paul was writing 20 years after Jesus' death. Mark was written 30 years at least after Jesus' death. Matthew and Luke were written 50 years after Jesus' death.

The world war 2 analogy soldier just doesn’t work . You would ask those still alive about this soldier or next of kin. You would be exploring why his fellow soldiers suddenly became credibly brave after stating they saw him resurrected

There is no evidence that the sudden bravery of the apostles occurred. Many of the stories of martyrdom of the apostles are later traditions. As Ive already stated, many people are prepared to die for their beliefs. Muhammad received persecution for his message, and Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered, imprisoned at Liberty Jail, and eventually shot and killed at Carthage Jail. In Smith's case few Christians see his killing as evidence of the authenticity of his beliefs.

and …asking dins and daughters why their fathers were so adamant he was resurrected etc . The Gospels give names of actual people so you could really do some research.

The stories of the post resurrection appearances show a clear progression. Paul wrote his epistles long before any of the gospels, and the earliest of the gospels was Mark rather than Matthew, followed by Luke and John. When the works are placed in chronological order, a clear pattern emerges in which the earliest accounts of the resurrection are the vaguest, while the most detailed ones are the latest:

The earliest resurrection narrative (written about 20 years after Jesus’s death, though possibly based on an earlier credo) is 1 Corinthians 15 says only that Jesus died, was buried, rose after three days, and appeared to various people. There is no mention of the empty tomb, of Jesus’s wounded hands and feet, or any of the other details. It’s not even entirely clear that Paul believes in a physical resurrection (in the sense of Jesus’s body coming back to life) as opposed to a spiritual one (in the sense of Jesus’s ghost appearing to people).

Mark 16 (written about 30 years after Jesus’s death) tells the story that Salome and the Marys enter Jesus’s tomb to find a young man sitting there, who tells them that Jesus "is risen; he is not here" and that the Apostles will see him in Galilee. The earliest manuscripts do not describe anyone actually seeing Jesus.

Then Matthew & Luke (both written about 50 years after Jesus’ death) combine Mark’s empty tomb story with actual descriptions of resurrection appearances. Both believe in a physical, bodily resurrection portraying Jesus eating, drinking, and displaying his wounded hands and feet.

Then John’s gospel (written about 60 years after Jesus’s death) is the most detailed, complete with the empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and even a miracle that Jesus supposedly performed. It also includes the 'doubting Thomas' story about how one of the Apostles had to be convinced of the resurrection by physical evidence.

Placing the accounts in chronological order makes that the resurrection look less like a single, consistent story that the early Christians all believed from the beginning and more like a vague claim that gradually took on more details as it passed from person to person. The New Testament books are not strong evidence that the earliest Christians believed in the resurrection story as we know it, let alone that such a resurrection actually happened.

Stop looking at history through Protestant eyes Roy.

I'm not a Protestant.

Christianity didn’t start because of something written. It may seem a small point but it’s important.

Here's what Ehrman says...

"The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he was crucified, and so he couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who’s squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him. And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; he’s a spiritual Messiah. That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection.

But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection. It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul who even claimed to have experienced one himself to add weight to his story. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we the Gospels of the New Testament appeared, written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later."

Neither the empty tomb nor the trial and crucifixion, nor the so called behaviour of the Apostles are any evidence of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

Many religious movements in the past have created unusual new beliefs in order to rationalize away failed prophecies and disappointments.

 

[Roylion]

but there is enough support for this to have occurred, as has been described in this thread.

No there is not. It is the least plausible explanation of any of the so called historical facts used as evidence for the resurrection.

Nobody else in history has claimed He was the Son of God,

Historically, many rulers have assumed titles such as the 'son of God', the 'son of a god' or the 'son of heaven' In Psalms 2:7 God refers to King David as his son just as he refers to King Solomon as his son in 2 Samuel 7:14. Chinese emperors, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Egyptian pharoahs, Roman emperors all claimed to the sons fo god. King Kanishka I of the Kushan Empire used the title devaputra meaning "son of God".

David Icke for example in 1991, on Terry Wogan's TV chat show claimed he was the son of God. Ariffin Mohammed, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Sergey Torop, Marshall Applewhite, Apollo Quiboloy, Laszlo Toth, Jim Jones amongst many others have all claimed to be god.

Hong Xiuquan claimed in the 19th century that he was the literal son of God and younger brother to Jesus.

The above is only a short selection.

and that after 3 days, He would rise from the dead, and actually did so.

There is no supporting evidence for this claim.

 

[Vdubs]

So you're saying "dead" can also mean "not dead". Do you agree?

i know exactly what dead means- have been involved in countless resuscitations over the years.
In this case, who are we to categorically state that God could not reverse the death that Jesus suffered.
He was after all, the Son of God, not like you and me.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

i know exactly what dead means- have been involved in countless resuscitations over the years.
In this case, who are we to categorically state that God could not reverse the death that Jesus suffered.
He was after all, the Son of God, not like you and me.

OK so you want "dead" to also mean "not dead". Your choice, so own it.

 

[Roylion]

i know exactly what dead means- have been involved in countless resuscitations over the years.

You've been involved with those that are clinically dead. That is the heart has stopped beating, blood has stopped flowing and breathing has ceased. Clinical death is reversible. Biological death is brain death which is irreversible death. If Jesus was truly dead (biologically dead - which I have described earlier) which he would have been after three days, then he was not resurrected.

He was after all, the Son of God, not like you and me.

Yet another disputable claim to truth.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Thinking of signing out of this thread. Just goes round and round in circles.

People are welcome to believe anything they want. Literally anything. Go right ahead!

But the moment you try to impose those beliefs on me, or the moment you start to expect special exceptions and concessions from government and society, and most of all, the moment you refuse to own up meaningfully and sincerely to the truly awful, awful things done by others in the name of your religions, I will come down like a ton of bricks.

 

[Total Power]

Ask an atheist.

Don't make it about the thread now, since anyone can claim anything..going by religious books there's more evidence of multiple gods than one. Since you consider faith to be your only evidence what makes other 'faiths' less than yours? they also have faith. Why are there gods not real but only yours? you telling 4 billion hindus/Muslims are wrong and you are right?

 

[Total Power]

i know exactly what dead means- have been involved in countless resuscitations over the years.
In this case, who are we to categorically state that God could not reverse the death that Jesus suffered.
He was after all, the Son of God, not like you and me.

Imagine, such a big event and no one bothered to write about it till about 60 years after this death, that even in the Gospels only.

The story of resurrection came from Paul, that's all that needs to be said about that issue.

 

[Total Power]

I know it’s not your quote but Christianity didn’t start after the Gospels were written. The world war 2 soldier analogy just doesn’t work .
You already have a vibrant church you can wander down and ask and check things . You would ask those still alive about this soldier or next of kin. You would be exploring why his fellow soldiers suddenly became in credibly brave after stating they saw him resurrected and …asking sons and daughters why their fathers : mothers were so adamant he was resurrected etc . The Gospels give names of actual people so you could really do some research.
Stop looking at history through Protestant eyes Roy. Christianity didn’t start because of something written. It may seem a small point but it’s important.

You do realise Christianity was a small cult before the Romans got involved yes? That included the Arians and the Gnostics who believed Jesus was only a human yes? If it wasn't for Constantine you wouldn't be sitting here talking about Christianity.

The Gospels actually names real people LOL:

Dear oh dear, BT you have hit an all time now. Quran also names actual people, so does the Hindu Epic, but you dismiss that without reading it. Quran even goes a step further, there's real names of people who witnessed Mo, split the room...unlike resurrection where no names been mentioned.

But all other belief systems are not real, only mine are.

Oh shut up.

Trinity was never mentioned before this, so Christians had no idea how Jesus could be God and also be asking the father some questions. Eusebius said to convince the public 'falsehoods' won't be a sin as it will do greater good to mankind.

 

[Vdubs]

Don't make it about the thread now, since anyone can claim anything..going by religious books there's more evidence of multiple gods than one. Since you consider faith to be your only evidence what makes other 'faiths' less than yours? they also have faith. Why are there gods not real but only yours? you telling 4 billion hindus/Muslims are wrong and you are right?

Christianity may just be more right than the others from a Christian perspective. It makes more sense to me. God will judge each individual on the sincerity of their faith, from my understanding- I can make no pronouncements on how He will judge anyone at all.
I never make any pronouncements about other religions, that is your domain, comparing and contrasting is not for me.
'This life is too short.
We know what we know, and that suffices.

 

[Vdubs]

Thinking of signing out of this thread. Just goes round and round in circles.

People are welcome to believe anything they want. Literally anything. Go right ahead!

But the moment you try to impose those beliefs on me, or the moment you start to expect special exceptions and concessions from government and society, and most of all, the moment you refuse to own up meaningfully and sincerely to the truly awful, awful things done by others in the name of your religions, I will come down like a ton of bricks.

That's the thing here- nobody is trying to impose their beliefs on you. I know what I know, but there are plenty here who are convinced I am of low IQ, have blind faith, can not understand the burden of proof.
If all people accepted what you just said, it would be fine.
As far as those atrocities, of course we all have to live under that knowledge, but I can also accept there's been so much good in the world that has come out of having religious faith. That is never recognised here. I am no longer a Catholic for instance, but to undersell the vast good that has come out of the Catholic church will definitely outweigh what gets brought up time after time?

 

[Total Power]

Christianity may just be more right than the others from a Christian perspective. It makes more sense to me. God will judge each individual on the sincerity of their faith, from my understanding- I can make no pronouncements on how He will judge anyone at all.

This is it, obedience over righteousness. No one can be a sincere Christian, cause if you are a sincere Christian, you will end up in jail.

Bible clearly states what's acceptable what's not, if i spill it all out for you, you will squirm again, calling me a literalist, yet when i state these verses you usually do not reply to these. Stop cherry picking based on your own morality. Either God said these or he didn't.

What the Bible states is simply not true. Paul said that cause he was a fraud but he was wrong. Jesus never said obedience is important, Paul said that, this is why you are a Pauline Christian without realising it.

Dis-obeying someone means that you don't respect their authority or judgement. In no case ever, except Christianity, does not obeying someone mean that you don't love them. This is "special pleading".

"One does not love God, at least the Christian God, if they do not obey Him." This is the kind of statement that would come from a mentally abusive parent or spouse. "You don't love me if you don't obey me! Now, do what you were told."

I think there's a very strong case to be made for a large-scale case of Stockholm syndrome amongst theists.

I never make any pronouncements about other religions, that is your domain, comparing and contrasting is not for me.
'This life is too short.

Faith, it's a funny thing. Everyone thinks their religion is the right religion, you included, yet what's the difference? there's more evidence of Krishna existing that Jesus. Which god is more acceptable? the one that states be nice, be compassionate, be kind, you don't have to worship me..or....worship orelse you go to hell? worship comes first...cause you a horrible person.

The answer is obvious.

We know what we know, and that suffices.

Sure, this is why you believe in what you believe but i am not here to blow smoke up your arse.

 

[Vdubs]

Imagine, such a big event and no one bothered to write about it till about 60 years after this death, that even in the Gospels only.

The story of resurrection came from Paul, that's all that needs to be said about that issue.

There are two aspects to the gospel evidence: (i) Jesus’ tomb was empty on the first Easter Day; and (ii) Jesus appeared alive to many people after his death. There is some disagreement in small details between the gospels. However, if all witnesses in a court case agreed in every detail you would suspect a conspiracy, so this disagreement in the gospels points to their being independent accounts from different sources rather than the fabrication of conspirators.
The best evidence comes from chapter 15 of Paul’s first letter to the Christians in Corinth, written in about 55 AD. Here Paul gives a list of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, including, last of all, himself.
Some significant points emerge from the evidence:

1. The first witnesses were women. Sadly, women then were thought unreliable and were not allowed to testify in court. Hence, you just wouldn’t invent a story with women as your first witnesses.
2. All Jesus’ twelve disciples, apart from Judas, were witnesses, as were Matthias who replaced Judas, Joseph, Matthias’ competitor for Judas’ place, and Jesus’ brother James.
3. Paul recounts Jesus’ appearance to 500 people at one time, most of whom were still alive to testify when he was writing, a mere 22 years later.
4. Finally, Paul himself met Christ on the Damascus road. This changed him completely, from ardent opponent of the faith to the most zealous disciple of all.

Introducing his list of resurrection appearances Paul says, ‘I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ … was raised on the third day.’ When did Paul receive this information? Well, Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion experience, and met Peter and James there. Given that his conversion was at most three years after Christ’s death, he must have received the information from Peter and James no more than six years after the event.
Alternative explanations for the evidence mostly involve a conspiracy, such as the disciples stealing the body. Indeed, that was the first theory at the time, deliberately circulated by the Jewish authorities. It implies that the disciples would have colluded in a lie.
Some died for their belief in the resurrection. While some people do die for false beliefs, nobody dies for something he knowsto be false, which would be the case for the disciples if they had invented the story. Moreover, surely someone would have broken ranks and squealed if they had conspired to spread a lie.
Scientists believe their theories on the basis of evidence. There is considerable evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Many scientists have closed their minds to such evidence, historical evidence of testimony of witnesses. They suppose that the universe is a closed system in which only the rigid laws of physics operate and miracles are in principle impossible. But if we don’t close down beforehand what we think can happen, if we have open minds actually to look at the evidence in detail, if we are prepared to be surprised, then it becomes perfectly possible for a scientist to believe in the resurrection. I know many who do, some being amongst our most distinguished scientists. Indeed, having an open mind to follow where the evidence leads is a much more scientific attitude than deciding beforehand what you think can or can’t happen.

​

• 
• 

• 
• 

 

[Total Power]

There are two aspects to the gospel evidence: (i) Jesus’ tomb was empty on the first Easter Day; and (ii) Jesus appeared alive to many people after his death. There is some disagreement in small details between the gospels. However, if all witnesses in a court case agreed in every detail you would suspect a conspiracy, so this disagreement in the gospels points to their being independent accounts from different sources rather than the fabrication of conspirators.
The best evidence comes from chapter 15 of Paul’s first letter to the Christians in Corinth, written in about 55 AD. Here Paul gives a list of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, including, last of all, himself.
Some significant points emerge from the evidence:

1. The first witnesses were women. Sadly, women then were thought unreliable and were not allowed to testify in court. Hence, you just wouldn’t invent a story with women as your first witnesses.
2. All Jesus’ twelve disciples, apart from Judas, were witnesses, as were Matthias who replaced Judas, Joseph, Matthias’ competitor for Judas’ place, and Jesus’ brother James.
3. Paul recounts Jesus’ appearance to 500 people at one time, most of whom were still alive to testify when he was writing, a mere 22 years later.
4. Finally, Paul himself met Christ on the Damascus road. This changed him completely, from ardent opponent of the faith to the most zealous disciple of all.

Introducing his list of resurrection appearances Paul says, ‘I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ … was raised on the third day.’ When did Paul receive this information? Well, Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion experience, and met Peter and James there. Given that his conversion was at most three years after Christ’s death, he must have received the information from Peter and James no more than six years after the event.
Alternative explanations for the evidence mostly involve a conspiracy, such as the disciples stealing the body. Indeed, that was the first theory at the time, deliberately circulated by the Jewish authorities. It implies that the disciples would have colluded in a lie.
Some died for their belief in the resurrection. While some people do die for false beliefs, nobody dies for something he knowsto be false, which would be the case for the disciples if they had invented the story. Moreover, surely someone would have broken ranks and squealed if they had conspired to spread a lie.
Scientists believe their theories on the basis of evidence. There is considerable evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Many scientists have closed their minds to such evidence, historical evidence of testimony of witnesses. They suppose that the universe is a closed system in which only the rigid laws of physics operate and miracles are in principle impossible. But if we don’t close down beforehand what we think can happen, if we have open minds actually to look at the evidence in detail, if we are prepared to be surprised, then it becomes perfectly possible for a scientist to believe in the resurrection. I know many who do, some being amongst our most distinguished scientists. Indeed, having an open mind to follow where the evidence leads is a much more scientific attitude than deciding beforehand what you think can or can’t happen.

​

• 
• 

• 
• 

Another copy pasted reply, do you wish to do this all over again after you pretty much ran with tail between your legs?

I am happy to prove this is bullshit all over again..do you wish to engage?

This reply is just as bullshit as other apologist reply that i have seen.

 

[Vdubs]

Another copy pasted reply, do you wish to do this all over again after you pretty much ran with tail between your legs?

I am happy to prove this is bullshit all over again..do you wish to engage?

This reply is just as bullshit as other apologist reply that i have seen.

no need, all you do is your version of copy paste- you have no original material, but any Christian that does it you call bs!

 

[Total Power]

no need, all you do is your version of copy paste- you have no original material, but any Christian that does it you call bs!

What is not original in what i write? all replies are my replies. You post from apologist sites, i don't. They are called 'apologists' for a reason.

If you are out of depth, simply say so.

 

[Vdubs]

What is not original in what i write? all replies are my replies. You post from apologist sites, i don't.

There are 2 sides to arguments here.
1. YOURS,
and that's it.

 

[Total Power]

There are 2 sides to arguments here.
1. YOURS,
and that's it.

Evidence. If i press you on the writing above, you will run away. Cause you haven't read what they have written. The resurrection story, had 4 different accounts in 4 gospels. All came from the mouth of Paul and written down 100+ years after his death which evolved from gospel to gospel as the story evolved too.

I am happy to debate you, i am happy you can copy paste, however i am not happy when you blind copy paste.