An interesting issue of religious freedom

[chesters1]

your still "talking" about "evidence" for this or that ,there's none jesus existed at all bar hearsay!

anyway those that say "he" didnt die are this lot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya

saying that both christians and moslems and no doubt jews (who tend to hate everyone just in case) hate them.They are the lot we have living up the road causing bad news when they have their knees ups

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3098725.stm

since this "green and pleasant"report the main gathering is now at alton blocking up their roads for miles but the old site has the campers and supply the mess they call food ,walk up there and your still in a police state!

Edited March 29, 2010 by chesters1

[Vagabond]

My personal view is still that suggestions that he did not actually die are special pleading - but I acknowledge that without more evidence we can't be 100% certain.

 

OK, that's your personal view - but surely ANY positive interpretation (including the acceptance of the "resurrection" as true) is "special pleading" ? What do you mean by "special pleading"?

 

ie why is my interpretation "special pleading" and yours not?

[Vagabond]

this post is fast becoming a Star-trek "fact file" type

 

True, but does that matter ?

 

People go on Mastermind and other quiz shows, offering as their "specialist subject" Mr Spock, or Darth Vader, or Harry Potter. Some win serious money as a result. (off topic, I would offer William Brown )

 

Here the challenge was "does the account of "resurrection" as written in the Greek Scriptures have an alternative explanation?"

 

I found one. Doesn't mean I believe either version to be true.

[DavyR]

(off topic, I would offer William Brown )

 

Is the answer to question 5 "Bott's Digestive Sauce"?

[chesters1]

True, but does that matter ?

 

People go on Mastermind and other quiz shows, offering as their "specialist subject" Mr Spock, or Darth Vader, or Harry Potter. Some win serious money as a result. (off topic, I would offer William Brown )

 

Here the challenge was "does the account of "resurrection" as written in the Greek Scriptures have an alternative explanation?"

 

I found one. Doesn't mean I believe either version to be true.

 

 

Yes but its acknowledged the books are fiction take Sherlock Holmes for instance if after 150 years whispers about "him" were found spoken of around campfires this fictional character could be believed to be fact (strange americans stand bemused looking for 221b as it is) the places in the books are mostly real (a place half a mile away is in one !crooksbury hill) the surrounding characters could Gel (there is a Scotland yard and of course policemen) this chap though solved crimes not chuck out money lenders from steps.

so if gullible or desperate or empty people travel to london looking for "his" house KNOWING Holmes is fictional ,i expect bronze aged camp fire squatters would believe anything a story teller told them the story teller was most probably a wandering one the listeners probably a village ,wanderer = knowledge so what he says must be true ,the villagers probably never travelled far cannot have proof the story is a fake thus it must be true once more! for years after even the visit of the knowledgeable traveller himself will be verging on biblical never mind the stories he told!

jesus and his life and most bits of the bible follow the ancient journey thread ,a person ,people ,thing (the hobbit follows this well used concept just as one example) go on a "journey" they come up against several obstacles (usual around 7) and conquer them and carry on and become stronger until the final scene where the majority "win" but some (including holmes) perish but in a "good" way .

its a far older concept than the bible the bibles just a exaggerated version in several books strung together for greed and power not just idle campfire gossip.

the greeks of course had their own hero's who went on journeys Jason won jesus lost ,the greeks had Gods but theres no money in having a selection the canny jews plumped just for one and put down anyone suggesting there were more ,they got a bit of grief with the Roman choices of gods but once only the ruler of "Rome" was the only God suddenly owning this god had profit on the horizon just as the roman ruler exploited his oneness the "church" saw its chance and 2000 years later its still getting power and money from this little scam.

islam (a little late on the act) saw the power of the church and dreamt up their own version for power control and filthy lucre as well ofcourse islam the word means submission not to an imaginary god ofcourse thats impossible but to the men that say that god exists and profit from it (profit!!! or prophet).

theres no difference in most religions ,islam and the jewish faith still put to death anyone that disagrees their version of god is real (the original islamic leader welcomed different faiths but thats not money raising having a choice is it) the church was just as cruel in the past as the present middle eastern ones are now so christianity is certainly not leading by example.China of course needs no religion ,dissidents are swept away or executed merely for dissing the state god is irrelevant they already have the power to do what they want without the god excuse

Edited March 29, 2010 by chesters1

[Vagabond]

Is the answer to question 5 "Bott's Digestive Sauce"?

 

 

...only partially - you would need to name a principal ingredient also - eg Black Beetles.

[corydoras]

OK, that's your personal view - but surely ANY positive interpretation (including the acceptance of the "resurrection" as true) is "special pleading" ? What do you mean by "special pleading"?

 

ie why is my interpretation "special pleading" and yours not?

Beat's me. It sounds like the kettle calling tha pot black, at best.

[The Flying Tench]

OK, that's your personal view - but surely ANY positive interpretation (including the acceptance of the "resurrection" as true) is "special pleading" ? What do you mean by "special pleading"?

 

ie why is my interpretation "special pleading" and yours not?

What I understand by special pleading is introducing a new factor into a case without adequate basis or supporting evidence. So perhaps I should have said that, in my view, all the arguments I have heard that he was still alive involve special pleading.

 

The 'case' in my statement was whether Jesus was dead when he was put into the tomb (rather than the broader issue of whether he rose again). In support of the case we can say:

 

1.The only available records say he was dead (the gospel records plus Josephus)

 

2.The Romans performed thousands of crucifixions, and I am not aware of any case in the whole of history being reported where someone revived after being taken off the cross

 

3. I don't have immediate evidence at my fingertips, but I have the impression that if someone crucified had still been alive afterwards, and escaped, the soldiers involved would have paid with their lives. Certainly I understand that happened if someone escaped from gaol.

 

4. The only recorded explanation of what happened to the body was that the disciples stole it (Mt 28:13). There is no assertion I am aware of in the records of the time that anyone suggested he had not died.

 

5. There is the statement already referred to in John 19:34 that blood and water flowed from his side when it was pierced with a spear. It is not clear why such a statement would be made up, and I am not aware of a better explanation of what that was about than that is was the clot and serum which had separated, which I understand happens at death.

 

Although I acknowledge the point about Pilate being surprised he was dead so soon, your introduction of the alleged bribe by Joseph of Arimathea seems to me something you have introduced arbitrarily with no supporting evidence. It would be different if there was a statement in some early text that it had been claimed that there was such a bribe. It would not be acceptable in a modern court case to say 'He was rich, therefore there could well have been a bribe'. Such an assertion would not be admissable without some supporting evidence.

 

I don't think the claim that he was dead could conceivably be called 'special pleading' according to my understanding of the term, for the reasons 1-5 given.

 

Whether he rose from the dead is, of course, a different issue. I don't personally think it could be called 'special pleading', as it is not something that has been introduced arbitrarily. It was, after all, what was claimed in most of the records we have, and there is the fact that his closest friends were prepared to die for their belief that it had happened. But that is not to presume that it is true. Before that conclusion could be made all the evidence for and against would have to be examined.

Edited March 29, 2010 by The Flying Tench

[Vagabond]

introduction of the alleged bribe by Joseph of Arimathea seems to me something you have introduced arbitrarily with no supporting evidence.

 

The release of the body of someone convicted of what amounted to high treason was extremely unusual - you discounted this at first, now you ignore it.

 

I find this release significant. Its a bit like Holmes's "the dog which didn't bark in the night-time" - which you could parody as "the body which did not stay on the cross"

 

The bribe is just one possible reason for the premature release - you yourself suggest another - that Pilate was conscience-stricken. Given the ethos of the Middle East, I would be surprised at any irregularity which happened without money changing hands. Hence my deduction of a bribe.

 

It is on this very suspicious release that my case rests, not on the alleged bribe.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Vagabond

[DavyR]

5. There is the statement already referred to in John 19:34 that blood and water flowed from his side when it was pierced with a spear. It is not clear why such a statement would be made up, and I am not aware of a better explanation of what that was about than that is was the clot and serum which had separated, which I understand happens at death.

 

This chap's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier) reasoning is persuasive enough for me:

 

"... John records a spear wound. It has been said that the description of the wound pouring out blood and water (19:34) suggests a mortal wound, being a blow near the heart (McDowell, citing James Thompson, E.H. Day, and William Stroud: 1st ed., p. 198, § 10.4A.1B.1C; 2nd ed., pp. 223-5, § 9.6A.1B.1C). Of course, this is probably an invention--there was a belief that the messiah came "with water and blood" (1 John 5:6-8), representing baptism and death. Consequently, several church fathers (Ambrose, Augustin, and Chrysostom in particular) understood this spearing passage symbolically, not literally: the blood represented the eucharist; the water, baptism. Perhaps also this referred to the Jewish tradition of the time that the rock in the wilderness that Moses smote twice "poured out blood at the first stroke, and water at the second" (Shemoth Rabba, folio 122), the sign of God's grace and the gift of life (and Christ was understood by Paul as representing this rock: 1 Cor. 10:4). Moreover, John is alone in having Jesus perform a transmutation of water to wine (at Cana, 2:1ff.), and this is unlikely to be coincidence. The same symbolism is no doubt intended there. Thus, the wound thus testified to the fact that this was the messiah, and it could therefore be an invention for that purpose. John himself already reports a scriptural reason to invent the spearing (19:37), and makes suspiciously excessive assertions of its truth (19:35).

 

But even supposing this wound to be genuine, anyone who knows anything about anatomy will agree that the only place in the body where a noticeable amount of water or any clear liquid would ever be visible, along with blood, to a medically ignorant soldier a spear's length away, is the large intestine (and even then only abnormally, e.g. diarrhea), suggesting a wound that is unlikely to be fatal until many days later. I conclude this after consulting several real doctors, contrary to McDowell's citation of Michael Green (1st ed., p. 199, § 10.4A.1B.1C; 2nd ed., p. 225, § 9.6A.1B.1C), since we do not know that the blood did not spurt (the description is too brief and vague for such claims), and blood pouring from a vein does not spurt in any case--only that from an artery does. Moreover, the effect of a flow of distinctly separated serum and clotted blood, visible to a distant layman, is exceedingly unlikely. Unabsorbed water from the large intestine is far more likely in such a case, and even that would only occur if Jesus were suffering from some sort of medical condition that would cause an abnormal accumulation of water there. One might imagine a blow to a full bladder as having the same visible effect, but there are two reasons to discount this: struck from below, the bladder is well-guarded behind one of the thickest bones in the human body and thus is unlikely even to be targeted by a soldier, much less actually pierced from that angle, and it is inconceivable that a man who endured hours of beatings and crucifixion would be able to hold his water throughout."

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...tion/2.html#vii