Protestantism
Read the article this discussion is about
Mithras and Christ
- Migisi
- pink101
- Migisi
-
Brian Tubbs
-
Brian Tubbs
- Migisi
- Migisi
- pink101
-
Brian Tubbs
-
Brian Tubbs
« Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
)
»
Brian Tubbs
- Tomb
Has a burial tomb been irrefutably located, identified, and proved to be the one Jesus was allegedly buried in?
You know as well as I that the words "irrefutably" and "proven" are loaded. If the standard of proof is absolute, then the answer is "no." Of course, how many things can be absolutely proven beyond refutation or doubt? Think about that question before answering too quickly.
If the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," then we're down to two likely locations - and (if you throw in James Cameron's "Lost Tomb" documentary) one additional, though unlikely possibility.
Unless you're going to speak up for Cameron's location (and you'd once again be in the minority - even quite a few skeptics of Christianity have dismissed Cameron's hypothesis), I won't waste time on that one.
So, we're down to two locations - and they both have in common the fact that they're empty.
For more on the historicity of the empty tomb, I recommend the article below...
»
Brian Tubbs
- Early Christian Bias
Migisi, your comments about the bias and lack of trustworthiness of the early Christian writers is based on a faulty premise. It simply doesn't work CHRONOLOGICALLY.
You're looking at Christianity - as it later became institutionalized. And then you're assuming that people twisted and changed certain "facts" of history to advance their agendas and empower themselves. That works....IF....you buy into the Dan Brown claim that Constantine invented Christianity and affirmed the deity of Christ in some Nicene conspiracy in 325 AD. Of course, Dan Brown's claim is historically invalid. The evidence just isn't there to support it.
Resurrection claims surrounding Jesus can be traced back to the third decade - the very decade of Jesus' crucifixion! That's a remarkable and (for you) inconvenient fact of history. I realize, of course, that claims don't equate to reality, but they DO prove that the resurrection wasn't a myth LATER invented by "priests" or conspiratorial power-brokers trying to empower themselves.
And finally...bias in and of itself doesn't mean a person can't speak the truth. And having an "agenda" doesn't mean a person is incapable of presenting accurate information.
» Migisi - Tomb
In response to Tomb posted by BrianTubbs:.
You know as well as I that the words "irrefutably" and "proven" are loaded.
.
Yep, I know they're loaded. You use them a lot to qualify your so-called 'evidence'.
.
Of course, how many things can be absolutely proven beyond refutation or doubt?
.
Exactly.
.
So, we're down to two locations - and they both have in common the fact that they're empty.
.
Two empty tombs prove one thing -- there's nothing in them. If I discover two empty buckets, how can I know what - if anything - was carried in either before I found them? There's no physical evidence inside them. Heck, the buckets may never have been used at all. Emptiness is not evidence.
-- posted by Migisi
» Migisi - Early Christian Bias
In response to Early Christian Bias posted by BrianTubbs:.
And then you're assuming that people twisted and changed certain "facts" of history to advance their agendas and empower themselves. That works....IF....you buy into the Dan Brown claim...
.
I contemplated the truth-twisting and Bible interpolations by comparing the gospel accounts of the same event, and studying Church history - well before Dan Brown wrote his first words down. I am an ex-Catholic, and was required to study Church history.
.
Are you saying that, throughout Christian history, not one apostle, disciple, priest, monk, Pope, king, or preacher today has advanced their religio-political agendas and empowered themselves by corrupting what was written or orally transmitted? If so, you must believe that every Christian over the last 2008 years was/is sinless and divine.
.
Resurrection claims surrounding Jesus can be traced back to the third decade - the very decade of Jesus' crucifixion!
.
Crucifixions and resurrection claims of gods and their champions existed WAY before Jesus' time, and continued thereafter.
.
I realize, of course, that claims don't equate to reality,...
.
We agree.
.
...but they DO prove that the resurrection wasn't a myth LATER invented by "priests" or conspiratorial power-brokers trying to empower themselves.
.
As I said, resurrection myths had been created well BEFORE Jesus' time (I presented examples before). The suffering/dying/rising savior myth was merely transferred to Jesus in order to make him divine and promote a new belief system.
.
And finally...bias in and of itself doesn't mean a person can't speak the truth. And having an "agenda" doesn't mean a person is incapable of presenting accurate information.
.
From my life observations, the biased speak ~~their~~ version of the truth. And to promote their a specific agenda, their information is often tainted and slanted in favor of that truth. But these are just my observations.
-- posted by Migisi
» pink101 - Early Christian Bias
In response to Early Christian Bias posted by Migisi:.
Then, there's Jack and the Beanstalk.
.
Don't forget that one.
.
I was with some people during my vacation. A child asked her mother, "Who wrote the Bible?"
.
No answers were given.
.
I related your thoughts about primitive people sitting around a camp fire. Then, the mother said, "Your father and I believe that it is the actual Word of God."
.
What choice does the child have?
.
-- posted by pink101
»
Brian Tubbs
- Extremes
Pink, you're dealing (again) in extremes. To refute the idea that the Bible is "the Word of God," you present it as a "Jack-in-the-Beanstalk" tale woven by primitive people around campfires.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings drafted by a wide assortment of individuals - approximately 40, in fact, over a span of 1,500 to 2,000 years. Evangelical Christians like myself believe that God inspired these writers - making the Bible the "Word of God." However, even if you reject that (and you obviously do), you still (to be at least REMOTELY fair) need to treat the Bible with the intellectual respect it deserves. To say that it's a tale spun by primitive campfire peoples is insulting and (need I even say?) historically ridiculous.
»
Brian Tubbs
- Truth, Evidence, etc.
Migisi, if you challenge the reality of objective truth and/or the ability of people to possess tangible knowledge, then it's frankly impossible to prove anything in that framework. Such a framework is illogical and ultimately untenable, but it is your right to hold onto it - as precarious and as unreasonable as it might be.
Assuming that you're willing to come at least a LITTLE bit in my direction...
I don't believe that one should have to prove something 100% beyond ALL doubt in order to provide sufficient reason for others to accept it as 'true." If you disagree, then I would submit that virtually nothing is 100% provable beyond all doubt, and therefore we're stuck in extreme skepticism (see above).
A much more effective and logical framework is the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard for truth. Yes, I'm aware that people are flawed, and therefore mistakes will sometimes be made. But it's still a much better standard.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.