CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion

Yeah, I think we can safely conclude that Washington crossed the Delaware and defeated the English at Trenton. There are even historic records that show English government securities took a nose dive on the market due to public insecurity following the monumentous feat.Oh, by the way, it was the Potomac across which the fable-makers claim Washington tossed a silver 8 reales coin.

First to Mary Magdalene. Also, John, Peter (Simon), Thomas, and others. Luke 24:34, Mark 16:9, 12, 14. John 20:18, 20. Matthew 28:9 to list a few. Is that DIRECT testimony? You've already rejected it so there's no sense in listing more.

I never discounted Washington crossing the Delaware. It was the silver dollar thing that Purpledawn asked about. Glad you cleared that up for him/her.

We don't even believe what modern political thinkers have to say TODAY; why would we consider what they said 2000 years ago? (unless they're from our own party!) Joke! Just a joke! Nevermind! This message has been edited by Juhrahnimo, 01-19-2005 14:32 AM

quote:

---

Luke 24:34, Mark 16:9, 12, 14. John 20:18, 20. Matthew 28:9 to list a few. Is that DIRECT testimony? You've already rejected it so there's no sense in listing more.

---

How do we know that they are even the authors?Secondly, what sources, other than the gospels, do we have for a resurrected Jesus. Afterall, the disciples had a vested interest in making Jesus into the Christ. You would think that their would be Roman records trying to arrest Jesus again after he escaped the grave. Supposedly, Jesus showed himself to hundreds of people who all convinced, and yet where are their writings.The only writings we have are the gospels. Even if written by the apostles themselves they can not be considered to be unbiased. Even then, it was common literary tradition to write an account in the name of one of the participants in the story.

And NOT experiencing something doesn't make it false.

quote:

---

Who weren't there. Whose earliest accounts still weren't written until some 60 years after the events they describe. Whose later accounts are based not on testimony but on the earlier Gospels.

---

John was at the cross, and also one of the first to see Him risen, as he outran another guy to get ahead first. This is the guy they later tried to boil in oil, but he wouldn't die, so they stuck him on a lonely island, where he wrote the greatest revelation, that closes the bible, the one that deals so much with our time.
-Now, (jeronimo), I hope I heard you wrong, and you weren't backpeddling, or trying to fuzz out the heart of the new testament, that we were witnesses, and, then, to tell the good news all around.

We don't. But, So do most atheist scientists who support evolution. That doesn't negate their testimony. Not after the angels appeared to them and rolled away the stone. Those Romans had to head for the bathroom. When those soldiers told what happened, you would think they would have been executed; UNLESS their boss actually thought the case was true (which he did, as well as the high priests). "Cosmo" authored a great post above. Red herring.
And even IF all those people would have sat down and written out their accounts, would you believe them? So, then it doesn't really matter, does it? You choose to believe or reject.

The question is what it is most reasonable to accept, and to reject. I've made a pretty good argument that the Bible must be rejected by resonable people as "proof" of the ressurection. But we know they existed and that they died because we have the records of that. We know some particulars of their lives, so we can ascertain whether or not their testimony was cocerced, or motivated by malice. And we can always try to compare that testimony to other, independant sources.But there's no independant source for the ressurection of Jesus. There's only the four gospels, repeatedly redacted and based, for the most part, on each other. I'm not inclined to take your opinion over that of the majority of scholars. Expects in textual analysis have concluded the opposite of your opinion. Of course it's all just opinion. I'm unable to defend one position over another; I can merely tell you whose opinion I'm going to defer to on this, a matter that I'm not really concerned about. Heh. What's your contingency plan for when you're at the Throne of Judgement, and it turns out that it was the Muslims who were right all along?Anyway, I'm not worried. If God insists on acting like he doesn't exist then I can hardly be blamed for taking him at his word. But that's off-topic. Reasonable people set reasonable guidelines that determine what they accept or reject. Only those driven by dogma accept or reject what they'd like to be true.

Um, Cosmo. Nice post, but that last line: Was that meant for me? Juhrahnimo sounds like jeronimo, so that's what tipped me off (). If so, I don't get it. What post are you reffering to? If not, nevermind. Nice post.

quote:

---

So do most atheist scientists who support evolution. That doesn't negate their testimony.

---

News to me - we never take a scientist at their word, that why we have replication.

The majority only rules in elections, etc. And not always; ask Al Gore about that. You can also check with Elijah (not currently available) who was outnumbered by the majority, 400 to 1. Ok, so let's say you're hired as God's publicist. You tell God that he's not being accepted because he's acting like he doesn't exist. What would your recommendations be? What would your operating plan look like (for improving his image maybe)?Perhaps look at Charles Knight's post # 67 above where he says: Would that be sufficient? I'm not saying I could arrange this or anything, but let's just talk this through a little.

Not everything can be replicated. Ancient evidence (like fossil bones) can only be examined and interpreted. But that's not part of this thread. Please direct your post to the right thread and I may join.

Sorry, wasn't ignoring this post. There's been a flurry of posts that I've been answering lately.
Anyway, I ref this point in post 102 above. You can respond to it (namely the "operating plan" or whatever you want call it). Let's say you're also hired at God publicist. What would you have God do to prove his existence to the world? What would your proposed operating plan look like?

quote:

---

Let's say you're also hired at God publicist. What would you have God do to prove his existence to the world? What would your proposed operating plan look like?

---

1. Appear to the world2. THE END.