Why I am a bible god atheist

Originally posted by FMF
The real question is whether there's any reason to believe any of it. The fact that you believe it does not corroborate any of it.

Sure. Little ole me - Johnny come lately? Why should it have weight because of me 20 centuries latter saying " I believe this." ?

During the first 800 to 1200 years after Jesus life on earth, could you produce writing of Jewish rabbis arguing that no such Person as Jesus of Nazareth ever lived ?

Early evidence that records protests that a Jesus of at least strong characteristics
was a total fiction. We don't see too much of that.

We see some saying Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier who fornicated with Mary.
We see Jesus was a evil magician.
We see Jesus was a false prophet.
We see Jesus was TOO GOOD to be physical.

We don't see much "Jesus ?? Who in the world is Jesus ?? Never heard of Him."

Originally posted by sonship
Sure. Little ole me - Johnny come lately? Why should it have weight because of me 20 centuries latter saying " I believe this." ?

During the first 800 to 1200 years after Jesus life on earth, could you produce writing of Jewish rabbis arguing that no such Person as [b]Jesus of Nazareth ever lived ?

Early evidence that records protests that a ...[text shortened]... e physical.

We don't see much "Jesus ?? Who in the world is Jesus ?? Never heard of Him."

Everything written about him that was included in the Bible was written by people trying to set up a religion.

Originally posted by FMF
Everything written about him that was included in the Bible was written by people trying to set up a religion.

I'm not going to tit for tat with you too much more this morning. Look up the name Gary Habermos . Look at some of his debates with the likes of people like Richard Carrier.

Here's one: ( and Habermas is as unsanctimonious a guy as you can find who is an expert on the subject )

Dr. Gary Habermas - The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars - Gary Habermas at UCSB

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
I'm not going to tit for tat with you too much more this morning. Look up the name [b] Gary Habermos . Look at some of his debates with the likes of people like Richard Carrier.[/b]

I have in the past. You think these kinds of debates on YouTube clips make your case?

Originally posted by FMF
I have in the past. You think these kinds of debates on YouTube clips make your case?

Not impressed with you not being persuaded.

Originally posted by sonship
Not impressed with you not being persuaded.

You're the proselytizer, not me. And you've resorted to YouTube clips, the merits of which you are absolutely notorious for not arguing whenever the discussion goes even a little bit bell shaped.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There is a difference between having the prospect of everlasting live and recieving immortality. I wonder if you can discern what it is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is a difference between having the prospect of everlasting live and recieving immortality. I wonder if you can discern what it is.

Sure, the prospect is a situation where you MAY have everlasting life and receiving immortality is LIVING everlasting life.

But either way, it ain't gonna happen.

What do you expect to do with your memories after say, the first couple thousand years, assuming humans have enough memory capacity to remember 2000 years of living, which we probably can't do anyway, but supposing that is our limit, then after 2000 years, what then? You get a memory reset, end up not knowing a thing about the past 2000 years?

You figure your god will put your memory in the cosmic cloud with quadrillions of other people's memories so you always have yours on tap. What happens if that cloud screws up and you all of a sudden have some lady's memories and she has yours? Would you even know? Would you even know you used to be male?

Would you still have genitalia in your heaven? Would you be able to procreate? Or would the reproductive thing be over at that point in time where everyone has forgotten what sex you used to belong to, androgynous now?

Originally posted by sonship
Sure. Little ole me - Johnny come lately? Why should it have weight because of me 20 centuries latter saying " I believe this." ?

Well, when you say "I believe this" you then seek to back it up with a whole series of assertions and unsubstantiated claims [or frequent attempts some kind of argumentum ad populam involving "20 centuries" like now].

It's your beliefs and claims I am asking you to justify, not those of people who are not here to explain them.

You are making truth claims about reality as it pertains to me, and you do so here on this forum which I also inhabit.

You can't just say 'other people believe it too' or words to that effect.

If you think that your constant "I believe this" assertions don't have weight, why is it you rely on such an approach so heavily?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, when you say "I believe this" you then seek to back it up with a whole series of assertions and unsubstantiated claims [or frequent attempts some kind of argumentum ad populam involving "20 centuries" like now].

It's your beliefs and claims I am asking you to justify, not those of people who are not here to explain them.

You are making truth claims ...[text shortened]... I believe this" assertions don't have weight, why is it you rely on such an approach so heavily?

And what are you doing is saying pretty much "Whatever explanation you give, I can come up with an alternative one. You have not forced me to believe you. "

That I do not desire to perpetually see you demonstrate this, necessarily appears as me ceasing to argue endlessly. You're not accepting the Bible's teaching. You can always propose and alternative way of thinking.

And that was not a video clip. It was a well structured lecture of some depth and length.

There are good reasons to explain the cultural shift of a portion of the Jewish population in Jerusalem. Suddenly over ten thousand changed from customs reaching back over 1,000 years because Jesus rose from the dead.

A Saturday Sabbath was suddenly made secondary to an eighth day "Lord's day" in which a notable miraculous event occurred. Jesus rose on the first day of the new week. And thousands of Jerusalem Jews began to switch their highest sacred priorities to "the Lord's Day" to commemorate the risen Son of God.

And again, because of my personal experience, I believe that they were busy not only commemorating but living in the realm of the indwelling Christ as Paul had taught -

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

The sudden change in a sizable number of Jerusalem Jews was because they were experiencing and celebrating a Jesus who had resurrected and was spiritually available to enjoy.

It is also no small matter that we have a letter of a man telling his audience that upwards of five hundred contemporary witnesses could still vouch that Jesus had been raised from the dead (though some had died).

Now what's your job? Your job is to show that you can imagine an alternative explanation.

IE.
1.) Maybe the First Corinthian letter was forged after the fact to give an impression of authenticity.

2.) Maybe five hundred people had a mass hallucination.

3.) Maybe a mass propaganda effort to concoct a hoax was afoot?

4.) Maybe none of these witnesses can be trusted because they loved Jesus.

5.) Maybe it would be more believable had they been Atheists and remained Atheists also afterwards.

6.) Maybe early church scholars coordinated to produce "Pauline epistles".

7.) Maybe since there were Apocryphal writings about Jesus too, NO authentic records about Jesus exist.

8.) Maybe the New Testament scholars are wrong and the First Corinthian letter was written AFTER the Gospels were written, which were hoaxes themselves.

9.) Maybe there are significant discrepancies between what Paul taught about this and what Jesus taught. Let's find some.

10.) Maybe the twelve disciples forged letters and created a Paul.

11.) Maybe the line about the five hundred witnesses was inserted into an authentic Pauline letter, only many years latter. So we should read chapter 15 from verse 1 and skip the next eight to ten verses which are added in latter.

12.) Maybe there were not five hundred witnesses at all and Paul was bluffing.

13.) Maybe there are letters from some of these five hundred stating that Paul was out of his mind. And these have been suppressed by the Christians of the early centuries.

14.) Maybe the existence of other religions proves that this didn't happen.

15.) Maybe ...

15.) But Maybe ...

What you are probably going to demonstrate to me that a resurrected Son of God does not have to be the only answer. And by me not arguing with you ad infinitum that of course proves your MAYBE is truer than the New Testament.

Originally posted by sonship
And what are you doing is saying pretty much "Whatever explanation you give, I can come up with an alternative one. You have not forced me to believe you. "

No not at all. I'm just saying that you making assertions and claims about reality based on what appeals to your imagination and on things you want so desperately to be true, all rooted in some ancient mythology you just so happen to like, is a pretty threadbare "ministry". If your God figure really has revealed Himself to all mankind, He has surely given you more to work with, right?

Originally posted by sonship
Now what's your job? Your job is to show that you can imagine an alternative explanation.

There is no reason why I should find and offer you explanations for the things your superstitious nature has led you to believe.

Originally posted by sonship
It is also no small matter that we have a letter of a man telling his audience that upwards of five hundred contemporary witnesses could still vouch that Jesus had been raised from the dead (though some had died).

Way more than "five hundred contemporary witnesses" will "vouch" for the "miracles" people like Benny Hinn perform on stage. It would be a small matter to obtain a letter from a man telling his audience that this is so.

Originally posted by sonship
Maybe a mass propaganda effort to concoct a hoax was afoot?

If there were "a mass propaganda effort" then you will be able to point me to supposed eye-witness testimony about Jesus' resurrection that appears in sources other than those written by people setting up a new religion. The supposed "propaganda" would appear everywhere and in multiple forms. You are claiming there were "five hundred witnesses"; where is their testimony?