|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 4, 2019 20:31:57 GMT
You don't need logical reasons. Its a matter of faith. Read William James 'A Will To Believe' If you had them, you'd propably agree that you need them, but since you don't, it's the good old Thomas Aquinas fallback.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 4, 2019 21:04:01 GMT
That's basically Hume's argument, right? I've always thought it a bit flawed since the prior evidence merely establishes the natural law that the miracle is supposedly breaking and is therefore irrelevant. You can imagine a conversation like this: Peter: I saw Jesus risen from the dead! It's a miracle! Thomas: Don't be silly, people don't rise from the dead. Peter: I know, that's what makes it a miracle. Thomas: I've known hundreds of people to have died and I've never seen any of them rise from the dead. I've never even heard of anyone rising from the dead before. Peter: But that just shows how miraculous it is! I think Yojimbo's point is the quality of the evidence for a miraculous claims. The resurrection of Jesus, if it happened would truly be a miraculous event but the "evidence" we have for it is very weak. Like I pointed out before, we don't even have eyewitness testimony for that miracle and eyewitness testimony is already unreliable. We do have eyewitness testimony. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 4, 2019 21:05:57 GMT
You don't need logical reasons. Its a matter of faith. Read William James 'A Will To Believe' It’s both. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 4, 2019 21:12:34 GMT
You don't need logical reasons. Its a matter of faith. Read William James 'A Will To Believe' If you had them, you'd propably agree that you need them, but since you don't, it's the good old Thomas Aquinas fallback. Even if true, so what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 4, 2019 22:03:10 GMT
If Cody had been born in India he would make threads like this about Krishna or one of the other Gods in Hinduism. Not according to his posts, because he goes against the accepted religion of his culture. Oakes and the other members of the ignorant masses, however, would make threads like this about whatever gods or beliefs were politically correct in whichever country they were born in. Ironic, how Oakes describes himself, and projects it on someone who doesn't fit his description in his narrow mind. Wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 4, 2019 22:21:27 GMT
If you had them, you'd propably agree that you need them, but since you don't, it's the good old Thomas Aquinas fallback. Even if true, so what? In that case you might want to reevaluate your assertion, which contradicts the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 4, 2019 22:36:21 GMT
The atheist types tend to believe/accept just about anything else besides the truth. because for some it boils down to my usual quote... "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas Does it not concern you, that if you accept Eva Yohimbo's post which is a mathematical proof, that your 'truth' is a 1-10 billion to one chance? In any other sphere of life would you accept those odds for a truth? IF you don't accept his mathematical proof please tell us all, what is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 4, 2019 22:41:58 GMT
You don't need logical reasons. Its a matter of faith. Read William James 'A Will To Believe' I find it interesting to note, that in this thread, the probability of faith in the resurrection being accurate is between 1-10, billion to 1. Seeing as how this is a fundamental precept of Christianity, the assumption can therefore be made that faith is fallible, foolish and futile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 4, 2019 22:50:12 GMT
I think Yojimbo's point is the quality of the evidence for a miraculous claims. The resurrection of Jesus, if it happened would truly be a miraculous event but the "evidence" we have for it is very weak. Like I pointed out before, we don't even have eyewitness testimony for that miracle and eyewitness testimony is already unreliable. We do have eyewitness testimony.
Which ones? Even so, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable so that doesn't qualify has the extraordinary evidence to confirm an extraordinary claim like a ressurection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 4, 2019 23:09:53 GMT
1) Jesus' lungs were not damaged.
2) Jesus' heart was not damaged.
3) Jesus' brain was not damaged.
4) Although severe blood loss can result in certain death, the amount of blood Jesus lost was not reported.
Reviewing this evidence it seems at least possible Jesus was in what we today would call a "coma" although there was no word for that at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 4, 2019 23:22:52 GMT
1) Jesus' lungs were not damaged. 2) Jesus' heart was not damaged. 3) Jesus' brain was not damaged. 4) Although severe blood loss can result in certain death, the amount of blood Jesus lost was not reported. Reviewing this evidence it seems at least possible Jesus was in what we today would call a "coma" although there was no word for that at the time. Jesus' Heart was Pierced, and Blood & Water Poured out. He was Dead on the Cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 4, 2019 23:23:39 GMT
you sold everything you have and have given it to the poor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 4, 2019 23:26:27 GMT
1) Jesus' lungs were not damaged. 2) Jesus' heart was not damaged. 3) Jesus' brain was not damaged. 4) Although severe blood loss can result in certain death, the amount of blood Jesus lost was not reported. Reviewing this evidence it seems at least possible Jesus was in what we today would call a "coma" although there was no word for that at the time. Jesus' Heart was Pierced, and Blood & Water Poured out. He was Dead on the Cross. The water was from the intestines. His "side" was pierced. Or perhaps you have other scriptures?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 4, 2019 23:30:13 GMT
We do have eyewitness testimony.
Which ones? Even so, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable so that doesn't qualify has the extraordinary evidence to confirm an extraordinary claim like a ressurection.
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. There’s also Peter and the disciples and 500 other witnesses at once. What for you would constitute extraordinary evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 4, 2019 23:44:24 GMT
Which ones? Even so, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable so that doesn't qualify has the extraordinary evidence to confirm an extraordinary claim like a ressurection.
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. There’s also Peter and the disciples and 500 other witnesses at once. What for you would constitute extraordinary evidence?
Both are hearsay. We don't have any direct eyewitness accounts. Only people saying what other people claimed to have seen. In fact who went to the tomb? The Gosples can't even agree on that.
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 4, 2019 23:54:15 GMT
You don't need logical reasons. Its a matter of faith. Read William James 'A Will To Believe' I find it interesting to note, that in this thread, the probability of faith in the resurrection being accurate is between 1-10, billion to 1. Seeing as how this is a fundamental precept of Christianity, the assumption can therefore be made that faith is fallible, foolish and futile. Read The Will to Believe |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 5, 2019 0:01:55 GMT
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. There’s also Peter and the disciples and 500 other witnesses at once. What for you would constitute extraordinary evidence?
Both are hearsay. We don't have any direct eyewitness accounts. Only people saying what other people claimed to have seen. In fact who went to the tomb? The Gosples can't even agree on that.
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Dude, much of what happens in the gospels of John and Matthew are their own eyewitness testimony. Most scholars believe Peter (an eyewitness) was the original source of Mark’s account. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 5, 2019 0:14:26 GMT
Both are hearsay. We don't have any direct eyewitness accounts. Only people saying what other people claimed to have seen. In fact who went to the tomb? The Gosples can't even agree on that.
― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Dude, much of what happens in the gospels of John and Matthew are their own eyewitness testimony. Most scholars believe Peter (an eyewitness) was the original source of Mark’s account. And even if he wasn't, Mark was a disciple Of Christ, even if he wasn't part of the 12 Apostles.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 5, 2019 0:24:47 GMT
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,292
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 5, 2019 7:38:28 GMT
Dude, much of what happens in the gospels of John and Matthew are their own eyewitness testimony. Most scholars believe Peter (an eyewitness) was the original source of Mark’s account. And even if he wasn't, Mark was a disciple Of Christ, even if he wasn't part of the 12 Apostles. The author of Mark's Gospel is never named. The tradition was that he was a follower of Jesus but that's pure conjecture. |
|
