snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Religion » Math proves Jesus was Resurrected? (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Math proves Jesus was Resurrected?
Methuselah
Happy Holly Days


Icon 206 posted      Profile for Methuselah     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.

* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.

No, atheism is a rejection of the existence of a deity or deities. If one believes that supernatural events can occur outside of the control or presence of a deity, then one can accept supernatural events and still be an atheist.

--------------------
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Methuselah:
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.

* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.

No, atheism is a rejection of the existence of a deity or deities. If one believes that supernatural events can occur outside of the control or presence of a deity, then one can accept supernatural events and still be an atheist.
Yep. I know one atheist who believes in reincarnation! He believes it is all "natural" and that no divine intelligence is behind it.

(I think he's a bit loony, frankly!)

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, I don't recall ever saying I rejected, nor even that I don't believe in, any specific or non-specific supernatural things (including deities). (This reads like a disclaimer. But all I want to say is I wonder where David gets the idea that I'm atheist or that I don't believe in the supernatural.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Your friend may be a looney, Silas, but if people believe in such strange things as String Theory without any implicit deities (albeit perhaps for better reasons), then why not reincarnation? Since we don't know the nature of consciousness... okay it doesn't make much sense to me but it doesn't sound any loonier than other supernatural beliefs.

If by "supernatural" we mean "unknowable except through revelation by forces which are also unknowable except through such revelation" then, recursive as it may be, I'm willing to accept that such things must be. Whether or not they are revealed is a much more complicated subject, which brings to the table the central conundrums of how knowledge and consciousness are even possible without revelation. (I have just woken up in the middle of the night to have a hot cup of coffee and begin working on my nine o'clock lecture so I'd better not get started on that!)

Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
Your friend may be a looney, Silas, but if people believe in such strange things as String Theory without any implicit deities (albeit perhaps for better reasons), then why not reincarnation?



I don't know of anyone who "believes" in string theory; they only work with it on a hypothetical basis.

(I do, in contrast, believe in the Big Bang, as the evidence, coupled with the lack of any other explanation, suffices to overcome my doubts.)

quote:
Since we don't know the nature of consciousness... okay it doesn't make much sense to me but it doesn't sound any loonier than other supernatural beliefs.


It's loony because it is not supported by any evidence. At least KingDavid8 has the Bible to work with, just as UFO-chasers and Ghost-hunters and Bigfoot-followers have *something* they can point at. But reincarnation? Phoo; their so-called evidence makes the Bigfoot evidence appear robust in comparison!

quote:

If by "supernatural" we mean "unknowable except through revelation by forces which are also unknowable except through such revelation" then, recursive as it may be, I'm willing to accept that such things must be. Whether or not they are revealed is a much more complicated subject, which brings to the table the central conundrums of how knowledge and consciousness are even possible without revelation. (I have just woken up in the middle of the night to have a hot cup of coffee and begin working on my nine o'clock lecture so I'd better not get started on that!)

Now there's a good question: what does "supernatural" mean? I tend to apply it to high-order phenomena (as opposed to micro-scale quantum weirdness) that involves "action at a distance" without the benefit of matter, energy, or the fundamental forces of physics.

ESP is supernatural, as the brain simply doesn't generate enough energy to broadcast a signal over any appreciable distance. Ghosts and the soul are supernatural, because they are said to be composed of something other than matter. Symbolic magic (voodoo curses, rain dances, etc.) is supernatural, as it supposes a new "force" that applies between objects that have some form of representative similarity.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
shifty rob
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for shifty rob     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
As a spectator on this thread, I would like to pass on kudos to the major participants in the past few pages (Silas, Ganzfield, KingDavid8, et. al.) for your postings. You have all managed to keep it civil yet entertaining. Both sides have managed to thoughtfully present their ideas, perform additional research to bring new ideas into the discussion, and avoid personalizing the issues.

Well done so far! 4 pages ago, I wouldn't have bet on it going this way.

--------------------
"They got a name for the winners in the world; I want a name when I lose" -Steely Dan

Posts: 480 | From: Tampa Bay, FL | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jimbolaya
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jimbolaya     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Granted Biblical scholars aren't 100% that Matthew copied from Mark, but most agree this is the case. The detail would have been filled in by verbal stories or by the "Q" document. Some do believe that Matthew was first. But only a minority of Bible historians believe that Matthew was an eyewitness.


But all evidence says Matthew was a witness to the resurrection, and that Mark's primary source was Peter, also a witness to the resurrection, and Mark was likely a witness to the resurrection himself, though he wasn't an apostle. Even Luke (though probably not a personal witness to the resurrection) used several sources, including Mary the mother of Jesus, who were witnesses to the resurrection.

Witness to the resurrection? No one was there. All the gospels agree on that.


Okay, so you're someone who thinks that the apostles were lying about what they wrote.

Not at all, I was referring to the police investigation - although I may not have been clear. I believe they believed. I just CAN'T make myself believe, based on available evidence, that we have the words of ANY eyewitnesses to Jesus. (Maybe Paul, but his own version is different then Luke's account in ACTS).


quote:
quote:
But who wants to hear a story about crucifixion gone wrong?

The Jewish authorities, Nero...

Nothing was written because no one else would have cared or remembered. To them he was just another uppity person, now silenced.



In the thirties, sure. But in the sixties, around or just after the time the Gospels (all but John's) were written, the Romans considered Christianity a threat and would have gladly used conflicting eyewitness accounts as a weapon against Christianity.

How much of a Threat? Enough to travel to all the way to the HolyLands to find witnesses in favor of Rome? Why use difficult and 30yr old witness accounts when you have lions and free entertainment? I'm sure Rome had bigger fish to fry then another uprising or religion.

Why were so very few Jews converted by Jesus? As I recall most of the early Church were gentiles, Greeks, etc. This would seem to support a theory that most in the region didn't care or didn't know about the new "Christian religion". Or maybe the people of the Holy Land just weren't very impressed, except for a small group.

Posts: 11 | From: Spring Hill, FL | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
I never said I was an atheist.

I'm pretty sure you did. I was wondering if you were at first and then you said something (I don't remember exactly what) that convinced me that you were.

I could go through this 7-page forum and try to figure out what it was, but how 'bout you just make it easier on me and tell me if you are or not. Are you?

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
Plus, you probably reject almost all supernatural claims yourself (considering the tremendous range of claims throughout history not even concerned with Christianity) ... I think you even admitted as much. So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.

* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.

No, it isn't. An atheist is one who believes there are no deities, but I've never heard of an atheist who accepts the validity of supernatural events. That would be kind of like someone who doesn't believe in aliens, but believes in alien abductions.

Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events. If you or Silas are atheists who believe in supernatural events, I'll gladly stand corrected.

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:

ESP is supernatural, as the brain simply doesn't generate enough energy to broadcast a signal over any appreciable distance. Ghosts and the soul are supernatural, because they are said to be composed of something other than matter. Symbolic magic (voodoo curses, rain dances, etc.) is supernatural, as it supposes a new "force" that applies between objects that have some form of representative similarity.

Oddly enough, I've long believed in ESP, even back when I was an atheist. But I don't necessarily see it as a supernatural process (depending on your definition of supernatural, I suppose). I think it's more about the brains of some individuals being perceptive and intuitive on a level far beyond human understanding. Kind of viewing levels of perception and intuition among people as being some kind of bell curve, where most fall right towards the middle, and the further you go out from the middle in both directions, the smaller the numbers get - some people are bound to be out on the upper extreme.

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KingDavid8:
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
I never said I was an atheist.

I'm pretty sure you did.
Can we accept this as example of a statement from an eyewitness? I haven't edited my posts more than five minutes after posting. So go ahead and look if you wish.

I don't recall ever saying in my life that I'm an "atheist". I don't really want to get into the subject of my own "beliefs" about deities right now. It seems like it would require a whole 'nother thread.

Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KingDavid8:
[An atheist is one who believes there are no deities, but I've never heard of an atheist who accepts the validity of supernatural events. That would be kind of like someone who doesn't believe in aliens, but believes in alien abductions.

Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events.

I think this typifies what I can only frankly call your lack of imagination and knowledge of different belief systems.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mistletoey Chloe
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 214 posted      Profile for Mistletoey Chloe     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
More Britons believe in ghosts than in God.

--------------------
~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~

Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KingDavid8:
Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events.

Animism and Spiritualism are right on the boundary. Most of us would call such beliefs "supernaturalist," but are spirits "deities" per se? How about ghosts?

I'd venture to say that there must be at least a few atheists who, nevertheless, believe in ghosts...

re ESP, I am certainly willing to accept that there are people with extreme degrees of perception. But I'm thinking of extreme cases of ESP -- e.g., a guy in Canada instantly knows of the death of his brother in Vietnam -- that can have no possible materialist/naturalist explanation.

shifty rob: thank you! As you can see, KingDavid8 and I are unlikely to agree...but that isn't why we're here. I'm here to learn, and I'll bet a pickle that he is also. Learning is very difficult for someone who thinks he already knows the answer (which applies to us both) and so the form of debate is useful, as it *forces* us to see things in different ways.

My admiration for the good King is unbounded; his ability to remain polite when his views are questioned is nonpareil.

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
geminilee
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for geminilee   E-mail geminilee   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
We have at least one person on the boards who believes in ESP, but not God. Can't remember who, but they said it in the intolerance towards Christians thread.

--------------------
"Accompanied by the ghosts of dolphins, the ghost of a ship sailed on..." Terry Pratchett

Posts: 660 | From: Gainesville, FL | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops. I just messed up shifty's compliment by taking a jab at David. Sorry about that folks! (Especially David. I didn't really mean to be so snarky but, as Mrs. Ganz often reminds me, it doesn't really matter much what one means.) I'll try to restrain from the personal comments from now on.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jimbolaya:
Granted Biblical scholars aren't 100% that Matthew copied from Mark, but most agree this is the case.

Yes, including me. I agree that Matthew copied from Mark, but just a tiny bit. I've only seen a handful of examples (two, if I recall correctly) of passages where it appears Matthew was copying from Mark. There may be more, but there's very little reason to suppose that Matthew copied MANY passages from Mark. The vast majority of Matthew's passages appear to be independent from Mark.

quote:
The detail would have been filled in by verbal stories or by the "Q" document.

Or Matthew's rememberances. Again, the "Q" document, if it existed, was probably just a list of things Jesus said, not an actual Gospel.

quote:

Some do believe that Matthew was first. But only a minority of Bible historians believe that Matthew was an eyewitness.

Do you have numbers for that? Or on what basis they think that?

quote:
quote:
But all evidence says Matthew was a witness to the resurrection, and that Mark's primary source was Peter, also a witness to the resurrection, and Mark was likely a witness to the resurrection himself, though he wasn't an apostle. Even Luke (though probably not a personal witness to the resurrection) used several sources, including Mary the mother of Jesus, who were witnesses to the resurrection.


Witness to the resurrection? No one was there. All the gospels agree on that.



I think you know what I meant. If not, I meant witnesses to the supposed fact that Jesus had been resurrected, not the moment of resurrection itself.

quote:
quote:
But in the sixties, around or just after the time the Gospels (all but John's) were written, the Romans considered Christianity a threat and would have gladly used conflicting eyewitness accounts as a weapon against Christianity.
How much of a Threat? Enough to travel to all the way to the HolyLands to find witnesses in favor of Rome?


Or ask the Romans who were already there to look into it.

quote:

Why were so very few Jews converted by Jesus? As I recall most of the early Church were gentiles, Greeks, etc. This would seem to support a theory that most in the region didn't care or didn't know about the new "Christian religion". Or maybe the people of the Holy Land just weren't very impressed, except for a small group.

More likely, it was the fact that there were only about 500 witnesses to the resurrection (results, not event, of course). Those Jewish people who didn't see it themselves wouldn't be easily swayed to convert to a religion that their leaders considered blasphemy, considering the hold that the leaders of the time had upon their people.

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
quote:
Originally posted by KingDavid8:
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
I never said I was an atheist.

I'm pretty sure you did.
Can we accept this as example of a statement from an eyewitness? I haven't edited my posts more than five minutes after posting. So go ahead and look if you wish.

I don't recall ever saying in my life that I'm an "atheist". I don't really want to get into the subject of my own "beliefs" about deities right now. It seems like it would require a whole 'nother thread.

I found the exchange I'm thinking of, and while you didn't directly say "I am an atheist", your part of the exchange more or less confirmed it.

I said: "Assuming you're an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong), I would be amazed if you found ANY claims of supernatural events convincing.

You then quoted me as saying "I would be amazed if you found ANY claims of supernatural events convincing" and replied "You're right about this part."

Two things about that:
1) While you didn't directly respond to my assumption that you were an atheist, only responding the latter part, I asked you to correct me if I was wrong about your being an atheist, and you didn't. I took that as confirmation that you were an atheist. I wasn't asking you to state the tenets of your beliefs, but a simple "no, I'm not an atheist" would have corrected my assumption nicely.

2) You said that you would not find any claims of supernatural events convincing. This suggests that you either believe that no gods exist, or, if any gods exist, they are completely unable to do anything. If you were even on the fence about whether gods capable of action exist or not, you'd likely admit to being able to be persuaded if a claim was convincing enough. Instead you stated that any and all claims of supernatural events will never convince you under any circumstances. I can't think of anyone other than an atheist who would say that.

If I was wrong to take this exchange as confirmation of your atheism, I will apologize, but I still haven't heard you say I was wrong about that, so I'm not apologizing yet.

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by geminilee:
We have at least one person on the boards who believes in ESP, but not God. Can't remember who, but they said it in the intolerance towards Christians thread.

I think I stated earlier today that I believed in ESP before I believed in God. And come to think of it, my mother, who is an atheist, also believes in ESP (she has visited "psychics" on occasion). Many of those who believe in ESP don't believe it is a supernatural thing, but just an ability some individuals have.

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
quote:
Originally posted by KingDavid8:

Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events.

I think this typifies what I can only frankly call your lack of imagination and knowledge of different belief systems.
So you know some atheists who believe in supernatural events?

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ganzfeld:
Oops. I just messed up shifty's compliment by taking a jab at David. Sorry about that folks! (Especially David. I didn't really mean to be so snarky but, as Mrs. Ganz often reminds me, it doesn't really matter much what one means.) I'll try to restrain from the personal comments from now on.

No problem, seriously. I don't feel that you, or anyone on this thread, has done anything that I find personally offensive. If I had a problem with people expressing disagreement with my beliefs and questioning them, I wouldn't have stuck around.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but snark will never hurt me...

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
KingDavid8
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for KingDavid8   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
With that, I think I'm going to leave this thread. If anyone else wants to keep the thread going, please do. Thanks, everyone, for the lively conversation. And God (if He/She/It exists) bless you all.

Be excellent to each other!

David

--------------------
www.MySpace.com/KDavid8

Posts: 2530 | From: Lansing, MI | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
These assumptions are so full of assumptions that I don't even know where to begin. The first part is kind of insulting. Sort of like, "Deny Satan or you are a heretic!" I can't even understand what you're talking about; it's such a medieval concept.
quote:
Two things about that:
1) While you didn't directly respond to my assumption that you were an atheist, only responding the latter part, I asked you to correct me if I was wrong about your being an atheist, and you didn't. I took that as confirmation that you were an atheist. I wasn't asking you to state the tenets of your beliefs, but a simple "no, I'm not an atheist" would have corrected my assumption nicely.

The second part just shows a peculiar way of looking at the universe.
quote:
2) You said that you would not find any claims of supernatural events convincing. This suggests that you either believe that no gods exist, or, if any gods exist, they are completely unable to do anything. If you were even on the fence about whether gods capable of action exist or not, you'd likely admit to being able to be persuaded if a claim was convincing enough. Instead you stated that any and all claims of supernatural events will never convince you under any circumstances. I can't think of anyone other than an atheist who would say that.
It also shows that you didn't even read your own sentence very well. You said you'd be amazed and I said you'd be right to be amazed. That is, I would be amazed if I found any such evidence convincing too.

But that's not the logical error you committed. You've created several false dichotomies. In this most recent one, you show you can't see that it may be the case (notice the 'may be') that no evidence of the supernatural is possible. There are many people who think so, even many who believe such things exist. I will provide just one of several rational arguments supporting this (extremely common, even among theists) concept: The natural world being that which can be observed and for which we can collect evidence, the supernatural by definition (again, not my own but a quite common one even among the religious) cannot be directly observed and for which evidence cannot be collected. So not only are you wrong about people believing supernatural things are possible without deities (as Chloes evidence supported, which you completely ignored, I guess), you are also wrong in your assumption that not believing in claims of the supernatural means one rejects the possible existence of the supernatural.

After assumption upon assumption, you bore eyewitness testimony that I had made a claim yet I hadn't. You weren't lying. You weren't crazy (I think). You were mistaken. So you can add that to your growing item #4 of reasons for false gospels, including plenty of the gospels you reject and perhaps even some of the ones you do not.

Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jimbolaya
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jimbolaya     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
[[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, including me. I agree that Matthew copied from Mark, but just a tiny bit.
quote:

90% of Mark's content is in Matthew, 145 of the same or similar verses.

quote:

I've only seen a handful of examples (two, if I recall correctly) of passages where it appears Matthew was copying from Mark. There may be more, but there's very little reason to suppose that Matthew copied MANY passages from Mark.
quote:

145 verses.
quote:

The vast majority of Matthew's passages appear to be independent from Mark.
quote:

Only with added detail from the Q document(S).

quote:

[/qb][/QUOTE]Do you have numbers for that? Or on what basis they think that?
quote:

quote:

Not precise numbers, just quotes like "most Biblical Scholars" Kinda like most scientists agree with Global Warming, etc., although unlike GW, there are some serious folks who believe Matthew or a "Proto Matthew" was first. It's not a 100% consensus.

"They" think Matthew was not an eyewitness b/c it was written in Greek, Matthew spoke Aramaic, he copied from Mark? and "Q", it has no characteristics of an eyewitness account, and it has much storytelling.

quote:
But all evidence says Matthew was a witness to the resurrection, and that Mark's primary source was Peter, [QUOTE]
I've never heard anything like that, esp not ALL evidence.

RE: Luke, did we ever figure out who Theophillus was? Or is it just "lover of God"? Of course he says he did his homework, spoke to eyewitnesses, but how do we know? If he truly believed what he'd heard, he wouldn't be the first to fudge a litte; see Heaven's Gate, David Koresh, etc.

How much of a Threat? Enough to travel to all the way to the Holy Lands to find witnesses in favor of Rome? Very, very doubtful, especially during the time the Gospels were written.

Why were so very few Jews converted by Jesus? As I recall most of the early Church were gentiles, Greeks, etc. This would seem to support a theory that most in the region didn't care or didn't know about the new "Christian religion". Or maybe the people of the Holy Land just weren't very impressed, except for a small group. QUOTE]More likely, it was the fact that there were only about 500 witnesses to the resurrection (results, not event, of course).
quote:

So what held them back? Roman conquered Rabbi's had more power over eyewitnesses, their dear friends and relatives then Romans had over Greeks?

No, Human behavior tells us people want hope, they want to believe. The Jews must have known people speaking against Jesus, hence the low conversion rate, VS strangers who didn't know = high conversion rate.

As I said before I'm not an Athiest. I'd like to believe, the evidence just isn't there. However in my personal life I've seen things that make me believe.

I just wish we had a text that wasn't so compromised. If we had a clear text...

... no killing each other over religious books, we could invent something else to kill each other over.

Posts: 11 | From: Spring Hill, FL | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KingDavid8:
Yes, including me. I agree that Matthew copied from Mark, but just a tiny bit. I've only seen a handful of examples (two, if I recall correctly) of passages where it appears Matthew was copying from Mark. There may be more, but there's very little reason to suppose that Matthew copied MANY passages from Mark. The vast majority of Matthew's passages appear to be independent from Mark.
David

KingDavid,

given how impressed I am with generally, it's a real shame that your arguments are undermined by such undeniable and significant contradictions with fact. I could recommend a number of good introduction texts to the synoptic issue - which would expand on some of the information raised by the immediately previous post - but I think might be better for you just to look for yourself. A good popular synopsis is gospel parallels by throckmorton, published by the conservative protestant Thomas Nelson press. All it does is arrange the three gospels side by side: the rest will be easy enough for you to see.

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jimbolaya:
... no killing each other over religious books, we could invent something else to kill each other over.

Do you crack your morning egg at the big end or the little end?

Silas

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
geminilee
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for geminilee   E-mail geminilee   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Do you butter your bread butter up or butter down?

--------------------
"Accompanied by the ghosts of dolphins, the ghost of a ship sailed on..." Terry Pratchett

Posts: 660 | From: Gainesville, FL | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
guruwan2b
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for guruwan2b   Author's Homepage   E-mail guruwan2b   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, the bitter butter battle....

--------------------
Too much of this navel gazing and we'll disappear up our own arses.
Danvers Carew

Posts: 7465 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Forget that, let's debate downloading mp3s.

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think we'd better avoid such extremely controversial subjects.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rexodus:
This is all pretty similar to Pascal's wager, which claimed that there are two possibilities: either a god exists, or he doesn't. And you have two possible actions: believe or don't. The consequences were as follows:

1) God doesn't exist, and you believe: You gain nothing and lose nothing.

2) God doesn't exist, and you don't believe: You gain nothing and lose nothing.

3) God exists, and you believe: You gain everlasting happiness.

4) God exists, and you don't believe: You suffer eternal torment.

He worked out the math as well, using .5 as the probability of god existing (or not) and using infinity, negative infinity, and zero as the values of the possible results. Same mistake.

However, Luís Henrique's wager is much more interesting. Either there is a God, or there isn't. Either you behave as if He exists, or you don't. So:

1) God doesn't exist, and you act as He did: You gain nothing and lose every interesting thing you can imagine.

2) God doesn't exist, and you act as He didn't: You gain a life of unending lust and lose nothing.

3) God exists, and you act as He did: You gain an everlasting existence among boring harp playing angels.

4) God exists, and you act as He didn't: You have 50% chance of suffering eternal torment (which isn't that much trouble if you are a masochist), and 50% chance that God is willing to forgive you for your sins.

In conclusion, you should believe in God, but act as you didn't. And you should consider the idea of being a masochist too. Though perhaps some would think this last option more compatible with believing in a Godess.

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by To mock a killing bird:
In conclusion, you should believe in God, but act as you didn't. And you should consider the idea of being a masochist too. Though perhaps some would think this last option more compatible with believing in a Godess.

Luís Henrique

Mind if I edit that into the following and use it as a sigline?

quote:
In conclusion, you should believe in God, but act as you didn't, and consider becoming a masochist too. Perhaps the last option is more compatible with a Godess. - Luís Henrique


--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fusca 1976
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fusca 1976   E-mail Fusca 1976   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
Mind if I edit that into the following and use it as a sigline?

quote:
In conclusion, you should believe in God, but act as you didn't, and consider becoming a masochist too. Perhaps the last option is more compatible with a Godess. - Luís Henrique

By all means, do it. No bigger harm than the rescheduling of the Apocalipse to a few millenia earlier can follow, I'm sure. [Wink]

Luís Henrique

Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nion
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nion         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
*applauds*

I am reminded again of why I love snopes.com so much. Never before have I beheld discussions of such a controversial issue and not seen bloodshed and healthy use of four-letter words. God, you guys rock!

Okay, first some thoughts on the whole JC thing . . .

One angle I was surprised to not see taken into consideration throughout this discussion is the level of medical and scientific knowledge in ancient times.

What if Jesus wasn't dead on the cross, but in a coma? A jab in the side wouldn't do much, would it? Certainly nobody checked for a pulse. He may have possibly been entombed alive, granted on the edge of death. The hastily-placed stone in front of the entrance may have been easily moved after he regained consciousness. After parading around town for a bit, his grievous wounds may have finally taken his life.

I will grant that these are suppositions. However, to say that ancients could discern the difference between death and resurrection, and coma and waking up would be yet another supposition, would it not?

I would also like to make my "spiritual" position clear, as such labels have been a topic of debate on here as well. [Wink]

I have believed, I have disbelieved, I currently fall in the middle. God's existance is questionable to me, but I am willing to consider it. I am also willing to consider and do believe in some other supernatural/spiritual things. Call me a middle-man. lol

Ganzfeld, and all other "kinda-sorta" atheist type peoples, I ask you to only listen. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions or beliefs, just to listen to what I have to say.

I can't recall who it was that talked of someone or other refusing to look into a telescope and believe that other planets exist. That's a good point.

Science is advancing all the time. I'm sure there are few people here would deny that several unbelievable ideas have been proven positive in the past couple of centuries. I think we are now entering a period of time where some things thought ludicrous could be proven to be quite correct.

I was presented with this article not so long ago. I appologize for not being able to offer a direct cite:

quote:
Using an optical-based quantum computer, a research team led by physicist Paul Kwiat has presented the first demonstration of "counterfactual computation," inferring information about an answer, even though the computer did not run. The researchers report their work in the Feb. 23 issue of Nature.

Quantum computers have the potential for solving certain types of problems much faster than classical computers. Speed and efficiency are gained because quantum bits can be placed in superpositions of one and zero, as opposed to classical bits, which are either one or zero. Moreover, the logic behind the coherent nature of quantum information processing often deviates from intuitive reasoning, leading to some surprising effects.

"It seems absolutely bizarre that counterfactual computation – using information that is counter to what must have actually happened – could find an answer without running the entire quantum computer," said Kwiat, a John Bardeen Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Physics at Illinois. "But the nature of quantum interrogation makes this amazing feat possible."

Sometimes called interaction-free measurement, quantum interrogation is a technique that makes use of wave-particle duality (in this case, of photons) to search a region of space without actually entering that region of space.

Utilizing two coupled optical interferometers, nested within a third, Kwiat's team succeeded in counterfactually searching a four-element database using Grover's quantum search algorithm. "By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer even when the photon did not run the search algorithm," said graduate student Onur Hosten, lead author of the Nature paper. "We also showed theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the algorithm, by using a 'chained Zeno' effect."

Through clever use of beam splitters and both constructive and destructive interference, the researchers can put each photon in a superposition of taking two paths. Although a photon can occupy multiple places simultaneously, it can only make an actual appearance at one location. Its presence defines its path, and that can, in a very strange way, negate the need for the search algorithm to run.

"In a sense, it is the possibility that the algorithm could run which prevents the algorithm from running," Kwiat said. "That is at the heart of quantum interrogation schemes, and to my mind, quantum mechanics doesn't get any more mysterious than this."

Source: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

I guess my point is that there are many things that simply do not seem plausible, yet should not be discounted out of hand. Getting an answer without even trying is certainly counter-intuitive to our general way of thinking. Yet, here is an example where that occurred.

While I admittedly know little about it, there's even been some theories (admittedly in their infancy) that are being bantered about that there is some sort of . . . well . . . force that links all things in the universe together. I'm afraid I have no direct cites for that either.

In the end, my point only is that what was once magic and mirrors a couple hundred years ago is common knowledge now. Who knows what we may discover about ourselves in the next hundred years, or sooner?

Never dismiss anything out of hand, nor label it as "this" phenomenon or "that" phenomenon. Consider all the possibilities, look at all the angles. Believe anything is possible, just don't believe anything out of hand.

It's gotten me this far. [Smile]

Thank you for giving me a great night's read. I look forward to future replies!

--------------------
It can't rain all the time.

Posts: 1102 | From: Iowa | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RelicMan:
. . . bloodshed and healthy use of four-letter words. . . .

Thus, plus your word here, join good form with deft view, well seen!

Silas (can't do anything about the bloodsheed, tho'!)

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2