Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Elioenai26 said:A man who has been buried in a sealed, Roman guarded tomb for three days after being SCOURGED, and BEATEN, CRUCIFIED, DYING, THEN PIERCED IN HIS SIDE WITH A SPEAR WHICH RUPTURED THE BUILT UP FLUID AROUND HIS HEART is seen bodily after three days, alive and well.
And you want to ask me why must this event must have had a supernatural cause? What natural explanation would you posit for such an occurance?
Are you that blind? What is wrong with you?
Simply asserting it was god would be the argument from ignorance, as you have not demonstrated god. You would be asserting it had to be because you can't think of another alternative. That is the definition of the fallacy.
Stuff happens. That being said, it's unlikely the tiny details were preserved with the accounts of historical events from Jesus's life. I won't dispute Jesus' divinity right now, but please don't tell me you think the Bible is 100% historically accurate regarding the circumstances of Jesus' execution. At least admit it's possible that details are different, if it's not given.
Elioenai26 said:Tiny details?
Tiny details he says!!!
As if the resurrection of Christ bodily from the grave is not THE CENTRAL TENET OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!
Without the resurrection there is no Christianity! And yet you maintain the accounts of this event as mere tiny details!
(my bold)Accounts of dying and rising gods may have been in every religious text of every religion that has ever existed. It may have been so common that these stories of dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen. It does not follow that because the concept of dying and rising gods may have been a common theme among religions (it was not by the way), that therefore the resurrection account of Christ is not true. This is a classic example of a non-sequitur logical fallacy.
Christ's rising from the dead either happened or it did not. It was either an actual event that took place in history or it did not. This statement is based on one of the fundamental laws of logic called the Law of Excluded Middle. Just because the idea may have been in other ancient religions has no bearing whatsover on the objective fact of Christ's resurrection.
The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.
Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?
The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.
Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?
Considering all the evidence of Jesus' post death appearances (which include those that had no interest in the matter and were hostile witnesses) I am comfortable taking the stance that Jesus was resurrected. Obviously, others feel different about the evidence but for my heart to be at ease about the resurrection I have heard all I need to hear.
Eight Foot Manchild said:There is nothing here that establishes a logical connection between resurrection and divinity.
(my bold)
That is not an objective fact.
Every bit of evidence points to the fact that the resurrection story is a myth, nothing more.
Madaz, you jumped into the middle of a discussion where the parties involved were assuming for the time being, that God exists and that the resurrection actually happened. This is evidenced by looking at my recent posts.
Therefore your talk of the resurrection story being a myth EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, is a red herring.
Jesus was not even dead for two days according to the writers of the Gospels, they were just terrible at math.
I will try to unpack its one point at a time and demonstrate to you why you are wrong.
1. According to the Gospel writers, Christ died around 3pm Friday afternoon.
2. The Jews measured their 24 hour days from 6am onward instead of 12am the way we do. Their days are no less 24 hours for this differentiation.
3. On Saturday afternoon at 3pm, Jesus would have been dead for 24 hours.
4. On THE THIRD DAY ( Friday day 1, Saturday, day 2, Sunday day 3) Jesus appeared to Mary early that morning so we know it was sometime after 6am Sunday. Now count the hours from 3pm Friday to 6am Sunday and tell me what you get.
5. When I said Jesus was dead for three days I meant that Christ rose on the third day. I assumed the reader would get my point. Whether it was one day or two days or 10 days, the point remains. JESUS WAS DEAD.
6. You're assertion that they were terrible at math is based on a strawman. The gospel writers wrote that Christ rose on the third day because it was on Sunday that He rose. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.....Sunday is day three.
I will have to respond to the rest of your post after I get off work I apologize.
This boggles my mind!
Asserting that God raised Jesus from the dead is not an argument from ignorance.
An argument from ignorance is one that relies merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion.
Nowhere has any Christian apologist argued that Jesus's Resurrection was a divine act because it has not been disproven that He was divinely resurrected. Your view of the argument from ignorance is not even entirely correct at that!
So your accusation or insinuation of committing this fallacy is itself a fallacy. It is a strawman fallacy you have constructed to represent a position no Christian apologist maintains.
I will try to unpack its one point at a time and demonstrate to you why you are wrong.
1. According to the Gospel writers, Christ died around 3pm Friday afternoon.
2. The Jews measured their 24 hour days from 6am onward instead of 12am the way we do. Their days are no less 24 hours for this differentiation.
3. On Saturday afternoon at 3pm, Jesus would have been dead for 24 hours.
4. On THE THIRD DAY ( Friday day 1, Saturday, day 2, Sunday day 3) Jesus appeared to Mary early that morning so we know it was sometime after 6am Sunday. Now count the hours from 3pm Friday to 6am Sunday and tell me what you get.
5. When I said Jesus was dead for three days I meant that Christ rose on the third day. I assumed the reader would get my point. Whether it was one day or two days or 10 days, the point remains. JESUS WAS DEAD.
6. You're assertion that they were terrible at math is based on a strawman. The gospel writers wrote that Christ rose on the third day because it was on Sunday that He rose. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.....Sunday is day three.
I will have to respond to the rest of your post after I get off work I apologize.
Dave Ellis said:However, you made the claim that he was dead for three days. It's not really relevant how the ancient Jews counted time. This is not a correct statement based on the way we count time in the modern sense.
Modern Day, he was "dead" roughly a day and a half, give or take.
Now, that being said, I should add in that I added quotations over dead for a reason.
Making the assumption they nailed Jesus up on the cross at 9am as you did, and took him down at 3pm is a problem. Roman style crucifixions were known to take days for the victim to die. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he could still be alive on the Sunday even if he was still up on the cross (no doubt he'd be in very poor health by that point).
However, if you pull him down 6 hours after you put him up, I'd say odds are actually pretty good that he wasn't dead yet. His other injuries sustained was a flogging, and being stabbed with a spear... two injuries that are serious, but certainly survivable, especially for a healthy man in his early 30s.
I have no doubt he would have sustained serious injuries during this story, but we have many examples of people surviving similar injuries, or significantly worse injuries that are said to have been inflicted on Jesus.
So, in short it's plausible they pulled him down when he was either playing dead, or they mistook him for dead... he spent a day in the cave semi-conscious but alive, then came staggering out on the Sunday once he'd had a chance to recover some strength.
Personally, I think the most implausible aspect of this story is that the Romans would have taken him down off the cross on the Friday 6 hours after they put him up. Roman practice was to leave the body up on the cross until it rotted away. The fact they would have taken him down and put him in a tomb is very doubtful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?