Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Raf said:

Because if something actually happened, especially something of historical significance, there should be more evidence of its occurrence than a fairy tale concocted by a fiction writer (or four). 

One should expect that the evidence for a significant event that actually took place should be of greater weight than the "evidence" or indicators it did not.

 

Is the resurrection itself historically significant event?  It probably didn't actually happen.  So no, there's no evidence, and it's not historically significant.

Christianity itself majorly influenced history, or events in history.  Christianity itself would be historically significant. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity cannot have it both ways.

The most significant event in the history of the world should have a more reliable footprint than the contradictory accounts of non witnesses writing mutually exclusive stories two or three generations after the events allegedly transpired!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Is the resurrection itself historically significant event?  It probably didn't actually happen.  So no, there's no evidence, and it's not historically significant.

Christianity itself majorly influenced history, or events in history.  Christianity itself would be historically significant. 

If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TLC said:

If there were no belief in the resurrection, I don't see much reason why Christianity would have survived past the first century (if that that long, even.)   

Sure.  But there was belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

Sure.  But there was belief.

Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?

Edited by TLC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No dispute there.

There are people who believe Muhammad ascended into heaven on a winged horse, that joseph Smith received the book of Mormon on golden plates, that L. Ron Hubbard had ascertained spiritual information leading to the development of Scientology. The fact that people believed those things doesn't make them true. It doesn't mean they happened.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TLC said:

Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?

No one is suggesting there were no believers in the first century. I would even go so far as to concede these two people existed, although there is no extra-biblical reason to make that assumption. So what? Paul talked them into Christianity. What does that prove? L Ron Hubbard talked oodles of people into Scientology. Why did they believe? because Scientology is true? Or because they were gullible as f?

The existence of believers does not establish the authenticity of what they believed. If it did, literally all religions would be true!

 

Edited by Raf
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TLC said:

Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?

Seriously? Are you now suggesting that it's true just because two people you cited believed it?

Ya know, this "discussion" is really devolving into the kind of circular nonsense that we got from Mike until his most recent exit... which was during tax season 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raf said:

No one is suggesting there were no believers in the first century. I would even go so far as to concede these two people existed, although there is no extra-biblical reason to make that assumption. So what? Paul talked them into Christianity. What does that prove? L Ron Hubbard talked oodles of people into Scientology. Why did they believe? because Scientology is true? Or because they were gullible as f?

The existence of believers does not establish the authenticity of what they believed. If it did, literally all religions would be true!

 

I would argue that the people who fell for LRon's BS are no more gullible than we were to fall for VeePee's BS. Scientists have documented that every human is subject to getting conned at some time or other in their lives... aka universal gullibility.

And his painstaking exploration of the various ways we can unwittingly get exploited, betrayed, or deceived serves as a reminder of just how crucial it is to understand the dynamics of gullibility--as well as the fact that none of us is totally immune to it. 



But I digress. Is that too much of a diversion from the original topic? Edited by Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TLC said:

Why did (and do) some (such as Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them) believe it?

If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc.

 

The Hero With A Thousand Faces

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Raf said:

I understand, but it needs to be said out loud. Trust me on this one.

Yes, I agree. I may have stated it poorly when I said they were Campbell's concepts. The concepts exist, with or without Campbell. What he did was identify them and assemble them into a form that could be understood. Not a small task, by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was anticipating a "how could Jesus fit Campbell's mythic hero archetype when Campbell didn't come up with it until the 20th Century" argument.

It is significant to note Campbell merely identified the archetypes. They didn't originate with him.

Like Isaac Newton developed a theory of gravity; he didn't create gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Raf said:

I was anticipating a "how could Jesus fit Campbell's mythic hero archetype when Campbell didn't come up with it until the 20th Century" argument.

It is significant to note Campbell merely identified the archetypes. They didn't originate with him.

Like Isaac Newton developed a theory of gravity; he didn't create gravity.

You always say it better than me. You should probably think about a career in journalism when you grow up . :biglaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...