Jesus's death was faked - Page 3

I am not that anxious. I am not attempting to convince. I am questioning peoples' existing views.

Allright. Another question: if history is so unreliable, why did you talk about Ceasar crossing the Rubicon so much? And if nothing is absolute, while this may be nice to think and comforting to believe, It makes for very poor debate, as everyone would just say everyone was right and be done. Also, let me ask this: is it a relative truth that there is a war in Iraq now? Is it a relative truth that over 3,000 people died on 9/11/2001? Are those people only partially (relatively) dead? Do they only appear to be dead to some people? Is my grandpa still walking alive somewhere, despite my watching the coffin be lowered into the grave, indeed, my carrying it there? Do people survive 50. bullets to the head sometimes? Does this website not exist? If these are true, then, and only then, will I begin to consider your ideas. Until you walk my relatively dead grandfather to my door as proof, relative truth is only idle talk.

Also, I read the first line of the link you had in your huge post, and needed no further reading to show something-you copied and pasted that post from the link! I didn't think that it sounded like you, with your complete disdain of history and truth, and it wasn't. If you copy and paste or quote something, give the person you copied credit.

quote:

---

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Jesus maintained His physical human body. He did not go back to Heaven and become spirit....He did rise from the dead His soul would have returned to His corpse and made it live again
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------


Now your contradicting yourself. Jesus's body apparently physically disappeared. In the bible, it says that Jesus was resurrected.

---

No, Jesus body wasn't in the grave. Explain how he contradicted himself. All he said is that Jesus still has his body, which explains why it isn't in the grave. He, still in His body, ascended into Heaven. No contradiction that I can see.

I dont know about relative truth but I believe nothing can be certain. Anything is possible kind fellow.
Everyone believes in something.
If atheist choose to take this reality we are in precedent over a belief then that is fine. It makes sense to use the reality we have now to position a belief because we are actually here.
If a theist wants to believe this is all fake or created temporarily thats fine also.
If I want to believe you are a monkey randomly hitting a keyboard in perfect sequence with what Im saying then thats cool too.
If we are dreaming or are actually living the matrix thats fine because anything is possible.
Anything.
Much <3

quote:

---

No, Jesus body wasn't in the grave. Explain how he contradicted himself. All he said is that Jesus still has his body, which explains why it isn't in the grave. He, still in His body, ascended into Heaven. No contradiction that I can see.

---

Its illogical so why try?

godsnotanidea:

quote:

---

Another question: if history is so unreliable, why did you talk about Ceasar crossing the Rubicon so much?

---

The Caesar Crossing is part a comparison with Jesus's resurrection regarding that exaggerated claims is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history. Read the speech again, you'll see the connection:
"we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians.[6] And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion...It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence".

quote:

---

Also, let me ask this: is it a relative truth that there is a war in Iraq now? Is it a relative truth that over 3,000 people died on 9/11/2001? Are those people only partially (relatively) dead? Do they only appear to be dead to some people? Is my grandpa still walking alive somewhere, despite my watching the coffin be lowered into the grave, indeed, my carrying it there? Do people survive 50. bullets to the head sometimes? Does this website not exist? If these are true, then, and only then, will I begin to consider your ideas. Until you walk my relatively dead grandfather to my door as proof, relative truth is only idle talk

---

Those events that you refer to, may be individual truth to many, yet that doesn't qualify or even justify them as an universal absolute. Yet it only becomes individual relative truth if it is part of one's reality. If you are confused or wish to discuss this topic godsnotanidea, there are certainly other appropriate threads to do so.

The information regarding the speech was referenced.

quote:

---

No, Jesus body wasn't in the grave. Explain how he contradicted himself. All he said is that Jesus still has his body, which explains why it isn't in the grave. He, still in His body, ascended into Heaven. No contradiction that I can see.

---

its illogical and thus contradictory as Zato mentioned.

quote:

---

its illogical and thus contradictory as Zato mentioned.

---

How is it illogical for God to lay claim to a body? Jesus died and His spirit left a dead body, then He returned to said body and was resurrected.

quote:

---

How is it illogical for God to lay claim to a body? Jesus died and His spirit left a dead body, then He returned to said body and was resurrected.

---

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=54956-u-frmid=17-u-page=8

honseslty as i said before, weather summit contradicts himself, or wether u have asteong piont of veiw over the physical resuection of jesus ect. What ever u say in this world is pure speculation. eg. u clearly think he had a physical resrection others think differsrntly, in your mind you are absoliutely right, to others u r wrong. to them they r right. Speculation my good fellows, a man once said to fly u must be lighter than air, 2 days later the wright brothers take to air. Speculation on the matter, thats all.

Timmo

I read part of your link. No more was needed, as I am quite familiar with evolution. Lets put it this way. The simplest form of ameoba has information in its nucleus equal to 1000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica. The claim that this information was created randomly is equal to the claim that an explosion in a print shop creating 1000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica. It just doesn't happen. Also, the genetic code is a language. Not just a good analogy, or a mathematic similarity, but a language. Please, tell me if spanish becomes recreated by a random explosion in space. Plus, if evolution is true, then human thought is just random chemical reactions. If this is so, then thought is discredited as being a source of knowledge. If this is so, then tell me, how did we discover evolution. By thought. So then, evolution discredits itself. I have plenty more proof, but I don't feel like writing it all down.

quote:

---

Those events that you refer to, may be individual truth to many, yet that doesn't qualify or even justify them as an universal absolute. Yet it only becomes individual relative truth if it is part of one's reality. If you are confused or wish to discuss this topic godsnotanidea, there are certainly other appropriate threads to do so.

---

I think we need to establish whe fact that truth exists before we can have a meaningful discussion. If these are individual truts, then show me the person for whom the war in Iraq does not exist.

quote:

---

its illogical and thus contradictory as Zato mentioned.

---

What is contradictory about it, especially considering that you refuse to believe in logic!

Is logic real or not, summit? If not, then you should have no problem accepting the Resurection. If so, then your entire idea of individual truth is kaput. Your choice.

godisnotanidea: You obviously read the wrong post. I was refering to this:
Jesus dying for our sins cannot be logically supported as God's motives are illogical. If one believes that Jesus died for our sins this is an illogical choice.

So if God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an arch-power that encompasses God and gives reason for god's existence which appears to refute the idea that God could be the creator of logic.

The God as first-cause argument is slightly undermined. If there is no logical reason why God exists then it is more likely that there is no logical reason why the Universe exists, or why Jesus died for our sins, and that instead of assuming that the organisational force is a 'god', it's simpler and more rational to assume that it is the universe itself.

quote:

---

The claim that this information was created randomly is equal to the claim that an explosion in a print shop creating 1000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britanica.

---

This is not an 'evolution' thread. But considering you have mentioned due to confusion, justify your feeble claim. This randomness is determined by agents of natural conditions for genetic equalibrium- mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, nonrandom mating and natural selection.

quote:

---

is discredited as being a source of knowledge

---

that isn't so. Thought is a mechanism to gather, extract and absorb, reason and reflect knowledge within the brain.

quote:

---

we need to establish whe fact that truth exists

---

what truth? Whatever you say is provisional. Your opinion is your individual truth. Your context will affect your individual truth.

quote:

---

What is contradictory about it

---

It appears that whether God exists for logical reasons or not a fundamental contradiction occurs. The only answer is that creator-gods cannot possibly exist. If God is placed "beyond logic" this is a contradiction. And if it is said that Human logic is incapable of realizing such metaphysical truths, then this also undermines any argument that can be made by one human to another, for the existence of god. Therefore Jesus dying for our sins is illogical.

quote:

---

Is logic real or not, summit?

---

logic is part of my individual truth. Yet it isn't part of your core beliefs considering God is illogic.


Back to the original topic now.

God holds the ability to be logical or illogical as He sees fit. To be able to chose logic or not is greater than being forced to behave one way or the other. God exists because He wants to. For Him to want to connect to His creation is rather illogical. But love is often illogical why should anyone ever care about anyone but themselves? Love causes undue amounts of pain. Living is also an illogical choice if you do not wish to feel pain. Logic has its advantages but anyone who is only logical has no feelings.

Bubbism is a little different then other religions because it can actually be logical, even though all the answers are not clearly seen.

But I think Budda and Jesus were just different tools from the same tool box.

The death of Jesus is just about as stupid as you can get, but people are not logical and thats why sometimes one must be a myrtr inorder to spread a teaching.

I'm not so sure what to think about the resurection of Jesus, I'm half tempted to believe the story is made up - but I must study it carefully before I really decide on this.

Good, I can use logic. Before, and on a different thread, you refused to accept first principles, which are the core of all logic. Now, how exactly does that make logic one of your beliefs? Please explain this to me, as I am curious as to how you can reject the core of something and still claim the rest.

I mentioned evolution because YOU MADE A LINK TO A THREAD ABOUT EVOLUTION!!! Obviously, this brings evolution under fire, which is why I attempted to refute it.

quote:

---

Thought is a mechanism to gather, extract and absorb, *reason and reflect knowledge within the brain.
*emphasis mine

---

My point exactly. Reason cannot come from non-reason. Since thought is a mechanism of reason, it follows that random chemical reactions (non-reason) cannot produce thought (reason).

How is God illogical? Just because God existed first does not mean he existed without reason. As etherealmeekie said, love is often illogical. Emotion is not logical, yet someone without emotion is said to be a monster, cold, heartless, and overall not pleasant. Logic is a tool. A very powerful tool, perhaps the most powerful one available to humanity, but, nevertheless, a tool. Perhaps logic is a part of God; this would eliminate all need for God to create logic, as logic would have existed as a part of Him already. Indeed, it is God's nature to be all knowing, thus making logic part of him. That would make your claim equal to saying that if God existed without powers at first and had to make his powers. Sound logical?