Re: jason gastrich

"I wipe my ASS on Mohammed's FACE!"


<abu_abdulrahman2002@xxxxxxxxx>
???????:1132580215.101821.71980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Originally Posted by redlaw
> Case for Faith:
>
> 1.When the Gospels were written, many in the church could remember
> what Jesus actually said and did.
>
> False. The Gospels were written (at the earliest) between 70-100 CE in
> an era when few people lived past 50. More significantly, they were
> written for an audience outside Palestine who were witnesses of nothing
> and who had no ability whatsoever to verify anything. The chances of
> running into someone who had been a witness of a hypothetical
> historical Jesus were remote at best, but even if some creaky old
> survivor of the Roman destruction of Jersusalem had managed to make his
> way into a meeting of obscure proto-Christian cultists reading Mark or
> Matthew. what was he going to say? That he never saw Jesus come back
> from the dead? This old chestnut that the Roman Empire was just
> crawling with "witnesses" who surely would have refuted all Christian
> claims about Jesus is one of the most ridiculous apologist arguments in
> existence. And please don't give me any jive about an empty tomb or
> tell me these ubiquitous "witnesses" would have just been waiting to
> point out where the body was buried. The Empty Tomb is probably a
> Markan invention, and there is simply no reason to believe that Joe
> Witness, who had no reason whatever to care, would have known what
> happened to the body of some (in the witness's mind) nutball preacher
> who got himself crucified 50 years before?
> Even if someone HAD known of a tomb. there would have been no way for
> those early converts in Asia Minor or in Rome to go and see it for
> themselves. Jerusalem had been destroyed, and anyway, what would they
> have even seen? A tomb with a body in it? A bone box? What possible
> means could they have used to identify the remains?
>
> Moreover, why on earth should we assume that a surviving witness (of
> what, exactly, I'm still not sure) would be listened to at all? Hpw do
> you know someone didm't refute the Gospels? Why would there be a record
> of it? Are we supposed to believe that the entire movement of early
> christianity would have come to a halt because some old codger said he
> never saw a resurrection? Can you see how absurd that is? Since when
> have religious people ever responded even to hard facts and evidence,
> much less the protestations of a single naysayer? There are millions of
> people who believe in creationism. Do you think people were any less
> credulous or any more empirical 2000 years ago?
>
> Quote:
> 2.The early church consisted mainly of people steeped in Jewish
> tradition.
>
> Dubious. The movement pretty much failed among Jews. It succeeded
> mostly among Gentiles, partially because they were not steeped in
> Jewish tradition and were not able to recognize the blatant
> manipulations and misrepresentations of Jewish Scripture and Messianic
> expectation.
>
> It's also irrelevant. How would it prove anything even if true?
>
> Quote:
> 3.The early church was severely persecuted.
>
> What do you mean by "early?" There is certainly no historical evidence
> that this happened to contemporaries or direct followers of a
> Historical Jesus. And like your second point, this is also irrelevant.
> Lots of religious groups have been persecuted. That doesn't make them
> true.
>
> Quote:
> 4.Believers were scattered throughout the empire at an early date.
>
> What is your evidence for this and how is it relevant?
>
> Quote:
> 5.Rather than renounce their faith, many leaders of the early church
> accepted suffering and martyrdom.
>
> There isn't a shred of historical evidence for this and it wouldn't
> prove anything even if it was true.
>
> Quote:
> Sounds like a pretty good case to me,
>
> In that case, i've got some land in Florida you might be interested in.
>
>
> Quote:
> remeber circumstantial evidence is as legitimate as direct through the
> eyes of the law.
>
> Nothing on your list constitutes circumstancial evidence. It's just a
> list of claims which are not only dubious and completely unsupported.
> but which would not constitute persuasive evidence of anything anyway.
> I'm not even sure what you're hoping to prove. You titled your OP,
> "Case for faith" but that's rather vague. Your list is standard
> boilerplate "evidence" for the resurrection but as you can (hopefully)
> now see, it's incredibly weak.
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: jason gastrich
    ... what Jesus actually said and did. ... Quote: ... 2.The early church consisted mainly of people steeped in Jewish ... There is certainly no historical evidence ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... witnesses to the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. ... That much evidence demands that intelligent people consider it. ... you have no credibility from here. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... witnesses to the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. ... That much evidence demands that intelligent people consider it. ... you have no credibility from here. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Heres what I dont understand...
    ... >> B.G. Kent wrote: ... > No..I said proof...not a book quote. ... Since the "scholars" you mention who think Jesus was first, ... source for evidence (not to mention that fact that they are assuming ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Skeptics are the easiest people to please.
    ... His proposition is that there is more historical evidence for the ... evidence for Jesus than for Pythagoras or Caesar or George Washington" ... Is that evidence of Jesus historicity? ...
    (talk.origins)