Reasonable belief in the resurrection?

[juvenissun]

Lets try this out:

I am able to be abducted by aliens
I say I was abducted by aliens
So I was abducted by aliens

You need some backups on the event of your abduction.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok. Is this supposed to be a logical proof? What is it? What are you trying to show me?

I am not trying to show you anything. I only refute the OP by giving an example.

 

[bhsmte]

You need some backups on the event of your abduction.

Naw, these are friendly aliens.

I let them have their fun.

 

[durangodawood]

There are many logical ones.
A simple one is:

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

This simple argument WILL NOT apply to all your other examples.

So, anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected???
Thats what your 'logic' implies.

 

[juvenissun]

So, anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected???
Thats what your 'logic' implies.

It is a simple format.
The second premise needs some background supports. If one has equivalent supports like Jesus had, then the syllogism is valid.

In fact, the idea of resurrection is absurd. That is why nobody else except those in Christianity care to make such claim. You can not find a second equivalent case like that.

 

[durangodawood]

It is a simple format.
The second premise needs some background supports. If one has equivalent supports like Jesus had, then the syllogism is valid.

In fact, the idea of resurrection is absurd. That is why nobody else except those in Christianity care to make such claim. You can not find a second equivalent case like that.

Even if I grant you the second premise 100% (that Jesus says he's God), your logic STILL implies that anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected

 

[juvenissun]

Even if I grant you the second premise 100% (that Jesus says he's God), your logic STILL implies that anyone who says they are God necessarily resurrected

I said it is a simplified version.
the premise 2 is, in fact, the conclusion of a separated argument, in which, not everyone is applicable.

Even what you said is true, it is still valid for the purpose of giving a reply to the OP. He just wanted a logic proof. He got one.

 

[bhsmte]

I said it is a simplified version.
the premise 2 is, in fact, the conclusion of a separated argument, in which, not everyone is applicable.

Even what you said is true, it is still valid for the purpose of giving a reply to the OP. He just wanted a logic proof. He got one.

And the other poster pointed out, why your logic fails.

 

[Sketcher]

I already explained to you that policies can change abruptly when you transfer power from one emperor to another. You have done nothing to address this point; in debate, that is commonly understood as an admission that your opponent is right. Therefore I am confused on why you are persisting with this topic that I have already refuted.

You haven't refuted anything. All you made was a counter-claim with no evidence for it. Policies can change, but you have not shown that how Romans persecuting Christians did change with the death of Nero. I'm still waiting to hear your evidence for that. In the meantime, I have a pattern of history from later centuries, which likely began with Nero's persecution. I also know that the Romans took in Josephus when he turned coat on the Jews after having taken place in an armed rebellion, only a few years later. From a historical perspective, this to me strengthens the likelihood that the Apostles were given a chance to recant by the Romans - while those powerful enough to make these decisions were certainly cruel, they were not beneath giving some measure of pardon to those who gave them the allegiance they were looking for.

I am not claiming anything. I am positing a sequence of events as being plausible.

I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.

I always imagined a Roman saying, "Recant your faith or you will be tortured and executed," but the line of questioning could've just as easily been something along the lines of, "You were preaching the gospel, weren't you? Deny this, and you'll be tortured until you admit to it. You will be executed at the end regardless of what you say." In either case, it would be recorded that the disciple "died for his faith."

You have no evidence that the twelve were given the chance to recant and go free, so even if you are Christian you are unwarranted in believing that.

So when they went out and preached again, they'd be punished for preaching and the Romans wouldn't care if they recanted just like they didn't care the first time.

What I highlighted from your original post are claims you made, whether or not you intended to make them. What I quoted later are more claims. What it comes down to is this: I have the pattern of how Roman persecutors generally treated Christians, I have the pattern of the Sanhedrin's proceedings, even at its most corrupt, I have outside evidence of a different monotheist who took part in an armed rebellion who somehow didn't die for it but was well-treated after his surrender. To me, these circumstances make it more likely that the Apostles would have had a final chance to recant. You're claiming that it's just as plausible that they didn't, without any supporting evidence. One could say that either my claim or yours is logically possible, but you haven't offered anything relevant from history to buttress the possibility you are suggesting. In other words, while I might not have everything, I do have something and you have nothing. To me, it is less reasonable to take your alternative seriously than it is to take the traditional narrative. For me to take your alternative seriously, you need to present more than just its logical possibility.

How does that even make sense? Paul has to tell them where to deliver the letter. What is it that you're suggesting? The Romans left the letters at a dead drop?

That's not how mail delivery worked. You gave your letter to a trusted individual who in the case of the church would have likely known where to go or who to meet.

They still could have simply left guards to ambush the Christians that retrieve the letter.

Possible, but it's harder to find the safehouse or the leaders that way.

And what is the point? It wasn't just the Romans that were after the Christians, but also the Jews? What is the conclusion of this point?

The conclusion is that the Sanhedrin gave early Christians a chance to recant. James was also killed following a Sanhedrin trial. While it's possible that they broke with the pattern of behavior they demonstrated with Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen, I find it unlikely. Therefore, I find it very likely that he had the same chance that all four of them had to deny that that Jesus was the Son of God and declare their devotion to the Law of Moses as the Jewish leaders interpreted it. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they went further from the Law than they did at the trials of Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen. Also, considering the persecution that followed Stephen's death, Saul was a front-running figure - who by his own admission, tried to force people to blaspheme. I find it more likely that he was referring to telling people to say that Jesus was only a man, and a false teacher rather than telling them to blaspheme the Father directly.

I don't care about Stephen because he was not an eyewitness in any physical sense. What he saw was not seen by the others present at the event.

1) You don't know that. While his name was Greek, he could have been part of the crowds that converted at Pentecost, but he also could have been one of the one hundred forty, some of whom had seen the risen Jesus, most if not all had followed Jesus before his death. Phillip for instance, was a Greek-speaking Apostle, Stephen might have been a Greek-speaking disciple. It's an outside possibility admittedly, but you seem to be very emphatic that he was not an eyewitness - more so than the information available to us warrants.
2) Stephen seeing the vision doesn't invalidate him as a witness to the Resurrection. If you see it, you're a witness. We don't know if anyone was with James when he saw the risen Lord. Does that make him not a witness? Or are you claiming that seeing the heavenly risen Jesus is in some way less valid than seeing him before his Ascension? If so, why?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well done sir, although I would disagree on one point. The whole "new religion is shameful". I've heard it explained before...but I didn't hear it explained as shameful. Romans had the idea that they owed the success of their society to their gods. As long as respect was given to the old gods...there wasn't anything particularly wrong with new gods (it just seemed ignorant since it broke with tradition). Christians didn't pay respect to the old gods...so they were breaking with tradition and putting society in danger. It was a lack of respect for Roman society itself.

I'm not arguing that new religions were shameful in that time and place. I'm saying that's the argument an apologist presented to me, which I - like you - found to be lacking.

You add to that the "weird" things said about these new christians (they ate their savior, had love feasts) and it was frightening to think a cult of orgiastic cannibals were invoking the wrath of the old gods. Still, they weren't prosecuted for being christian...they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution. I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.

What you're saying is not inconceivable, but every debate has to start with common ground. Saying that the early church was full of cannibalistic heathens is slightly removed from common ground.

That's why I said they were aware of the danger and had the opportunity to recant, but didn't choose to do so.

It appears that you are not positing that as a possibility, but claiming it as fact. You now have the burden of proof. Please show me documentation on this.

As far as I know, the only eyewitness martyred in the Bible was James, but it's not stated why he was actually killed. Since all of the other disciples outlived James with great ease, it's safe to say that the ruling powers were not on "kill all Christians" mode when James was killed.

So please find me something in writing that details eyewitness martyrs and explains why the rest of the eyewitnesses should have been in fear for their lives.

I think 1 is correct, I'm not sure why 2-3 are conjecture, I've repeatedly contested 4, and I see no evidence for 5.

You contest point 4? Show me one scrap of evidence. Show me anything that says that an eyewitness apostle was on trial, was offered the opportunity to recant his faith and go free, yet refused.

As for 2, 3, and 5, I already said they are conjecture. I'm simply saying they do not contradict known facts.

I am not making a positive claim for anything, but rather showing you that the monopolized view of the early church is unfounded.

Sounds imaginative and again misses the point.

The point being what? It's my thread, I'm the one who made the point to begin with. What point are you talking about?

There's no evidence for my side only after you hand wave the evidence for my side.

I'm not hand waving anything. I'm asking you to show me a partial transcript of the disciples' trials so I can see that you are not making things up.

And again, faith is not an epistemology. If belief in the resurrection were not based on reason, then there wouldn't be anyone who held that belief.

Have you not seen juvenissun's contributions to this thread?

If you're interested in reading a scholarly book that deals with this issue, then I still recommend it. If you're not interested in scholarship on the issue, then please stop inaccurately claiming that there is little evidence.

I've read More than a Carpenter, Mere Christianity, and Who Moved the Stone? They don't offer detailed historical facts, but rather they just make arguments. The summary of their arguments is essentially that the disciples had to be either crazy or else they were telling the truth. I'm not devoting more time or money to see what scholars have to say. I don't need their arguments based on what the Bible says. I just want facts and details about the martyrs. I don't need their opinions along with that. If you know of ancient documents that support your case, then present them. But don't try to sell me a book.

I'm friends with Nick Peters and he's not the type of person who would hide behind that excuse. The chances are far greater that he simply forgot to get back to you, so I'd send him another message.

September 18 of this year, I sent him the email with the Biblical contradiction.
September 20, he replies with his intent to delay.
October 8, I send the following:

Hi Nick,
I was just wondering whether you had forgotten about our correspondence, or if you were still involved with your personal issue, or if you were no longer inclined to continue this conversation.

The same day, he replied simply this:

Haven't forgotten.

I haven't heard from him since. If you're friends with him, I'll trust you to prod him again for me if that is your best judgment. I'm not going to beg him for a response.

I don't see why that's a problem.

The problem with accepting second-hand, decades-old eyewitness testimony of a miracle is that you no longer have grounds to reject first-hand, immediate testimony of something that is improbable - such as alien abductions, Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.

The empty tomb is granted by the vast majority of Christian and non-Christians scholars.

I also grant you the empty tomb. I'm simply saying it's not additional evidence on top of the eyewitness accounts.

Are you saying that the vast majority of scholars believe that the tomb was visited after Easter Sunday?

So why didn't Christianity die out like all of the other Messianic cults did after their leader died? Something obviously changed.

Why didn't Buddhism die out?

Who would follow a someone who was executed by the Romans as their Messiah when they expected one who would instead conquer the Romans and reign over them?

The disciples were convinced. I'm not detracting from that.

But there are thousands of people who are convinced they've been abducted by aliens. They are cross-examined by professionals and even subjected to hypnosis. Testimonies of thousands of individuals, all of whom have had no contact with one another, all agree on major points of the alien abduction experience. They even all answer "I don't know" to the same questions, which is not something you'd expect if they were making it up.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I do not believe we are being visited or abducted by aliens, but I also don't believe all of those people are lying. I don't have an explanation for it, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to default into believing their outlandish testimony.

Again, saying that they were all given a last opportunity recant and go free or die is overstating the case, but that doesn't change that they were martyred for their faith.

It is not overstating the case. Please re-read my proposed line of questioning in the OP. You will see that in such a scenario, they are dying for their faith and yet their death proves nothing.

Again, feel free to read scholarship on the issue, but if you choose not to, then at least stop making stuff up about it.

I'm not making stuff up. You are. You are making positive claims and not backing them up. I am making claims which I go through the trouble of labeling as conjecture, so I require no evidence - I am required only to not contradict known facts.

I would gladly read any ancient texts you can cite, but I don't see the need to listen to these Christian scholars ramble on and on about the disciples preaching the gospel in ancient Rome.

That didn't negatively affect the accuracy of the transmission unduly, so why wouldn't it be?

I can easily find second-hand, decades-old testimony of people who have seen Elvis after he was already dead. Do you believe Elvis is still alive?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There are many "stories" in the Bible that backup the claims of Jesus that Jesus is God.
In your case, there is nothing to back you up. That is what's wrong about your irrelevant argument.
If you find a similar case to that of Jesus, then your argument could be considered.

There are tons of myths similar to Jesus. Are you saying they are real because there are "stories" about them?

I said it is a simplified version.
the premise 2 is, in fact, the conclusion of a separated argument, in which, not everyone is applicable.

Even what you said is true, it is still valid for the purpose of giving a reply to the OP. He just wanted a logic proof. He got one.

Can you give us the unsimplified version? All we are able to do is critique what you write down. If you don't write down your whole argument, you can't say we're wrong when we tear your argument to shreds.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You haven't refuted anything. All you made was a counter-claim with no evidence for it. Policies can change, but you have not shown that how Romans persecuting Christians did change with the death of Nero. I'm still waiting to hear your evidence for that. In the meantime, I have a pattern of history from later centuries, which likely began with Nero's persecution. I also know that the Romans took in Josephus when he turned coat on the Jews after having taken place in an armed rebellion, only a few years later. From a historical perspective, this to me strengthens the likelihood that the Apostles were given a chance to recant by the Romans - while those powerful enough to make these decisions were certainly cruel, they were not beneath giving some measure of pardon to those who gave them the allegiance they were looking for.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I haven't presented any evidence for my claim because there isn't any. There isn't any evidence for your claims either. You are saying that the eyewitness disciples were tortured and that the inquirers demanded that they recant? Your evidence is this "pattern" where the behavior is said to have started decades later under a different ruler? You have no facts about these martyr trials. None. Was Peter crucified upside down? Probably, but what does that prove? You don't know what the line of questioning was, or if there even was one. You don't know if he was executed for the gospel or if it was simply because Christians were the scapegoat for the great fire. Indeed, the fires were in 64 and Peter was crucified in 65.

What I highlighted from your original post are claims you made, whether or not you intended to make them. What I quoted later are more claims. What it comes down to is this: I have the pattern of how Roman persecutors generally treated Christians, I have the pattern of the Sanhedrin's proceedings, even at its most corrupt, I have outside evidence of a different monotheist who took part in an armed rebellion who somehow didn't die for it but was well-treated after his surrender. To me, these circumstances make it more likely that the Apostles would have had a final chance to recant. You're claiming that it's just as plausible that they didn't, without any supporting evidence. One could say that either my claim or yours is logically possible, but you haven't offered anything relevant from history to buttress the possibility you are suggesting. In other words, while I might not have everything, I do have something and you have nothing. To me, it is less reasonable to take your alternative seriously than it is to take the traditional narrative. For me to take your alternative seriously, you need to present more than just its logical possibility.

Aside from the great fire, which you haven't yet had a chance to respond to, there's this:

...they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution.

I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.

Is he wrong? Do we need to justify the claim that the Romans allowed worship of non-Roman gods on condition that one also honored Roman gods?

That's not how mail delivery worked. You gave your letter to a trusted individual who in the case of the church would have likely known where to go or who to meet.

And why would the Romans allow all of this if they were so intent on stamping out Christianity? Give the letter to the trusted individual and follow him to the church, or else seize him and interrogate him. Will you please at least casually scrutinize your own position before positing claims like this?

Possible, but it's harder to find the safehouse or the leaders that way.

So your conclusion after looking at all of the evidence is that Rome so badly wanted to end Christianity that they arrested disciples and tortured them to try to force them to recant, and yet all the while they allowed Paul to write letters to churches to unify doctrine and keep churches from going astray? Are you making a mockery of these forums?

I would think that if the Romans were somehow stupid enough to deliver this mail then they would at least figure out that they can insert forgeries into Paul's writings to subvert the Christian cult to their own liking.

The conclusion is that the Sanhedrin gave early Christians a chance to recant.

Will you at least admit that this pattern-based conclusion cannot be factually supported, and that there are no trial documents or transcripts to show that they were given the chance to recant and go free?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

James was also killed following a Sanhedrin trial.

According to Acts 12:1-2, James was killed by the sword. It doesn't say he was arrested or tried. Were prisoners commonly killed by the sword, or by stoning? I believe the correct answer is stoning. The sword is the weapon of choice if you want to attack someone and murder them.

While it's possible that they broke with the pattern of behavior they demonstrated with Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen, I find it unlikely.

Peter was given the chance to recant? John was given a chance to recant? Do you have the dialogue from their trials? In fact, this very issue is the entire point in question in this thread, so you are not entitled to assuming it. Or did you not read my OP?

I do not recall anyone asking Stephen to recant, but it is irrelevant - he was not an eyewitness. What he saw was not seen by others at the event. His belief is second-hand, just like the 9/11 hijackers.

Jesus, indeed, was given the chance to recant. But how is that relevant? Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus because he found him to be innocent, so he was trying to give Jesus an out. That's an entirely different situation than what you claim the disciples found themselves in. Furthermore, claiming that Jesus is part of the pattern is disingenuous. You claim that Rome was persecuting Christians, that Rome wanted the disciples to recant so that they could trumpet that failure and crush Christianity into defeat, but there were no Christians before Jesus was executed. Was Rome trying to crush Christianity before Jesus was crucified? I think not. Quite a disingenuous addition into your "pattern."

Therefore, I find it very likely that he had the same chance that all four of them had to deny that that Jesus was the Son of God and declare their devotion to the Law of Moses as the Jewish leaders interpreted it.

Review your logic.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they went further from the Law than they did at the trials of Jesus, Peter, John, and Stephen.

What do you mean by going further from the Law? How are these four cases even relevant? Peter was executed by Rome for undocumented reasons, John was exiled by Rome for undocumented reasons, Jesus was executed by Rome at the request of the Pharisees because of the accusation of blasphemy, and Stephen was executed by the Pharisees - also for blasphemy. The only pattern you have is blasphemy, and it's still a stretch to call it a pattern.

Also, considering the persecution that followed Stephen's death, Saul was a front-running figure - who by his own admission, tried to force people to blaspheme.

It is an interesting story that Paul gives us, but why is it that he never found any of the disciples and put them to death?

I find it more likely that he was referring to telling people to say that Jesus was only a man, and a false teacher rather than telling them to blaspheme the Father directly.

Yes, quite obviously - he was a Hebrew.

1) You don't know that. While his name was Greek, he could have been part of the crowds that converted at Pentecost, but he also could have been one of the one hundred forty, some of whom had seen the risen Jesus, most if not all had followed Jesus before his death. Phillip for instance, was a Greek-speaking Apostle, Stephen might have been a Greek-speaking disciple. It's an outside possibility admittedly, but you seem to be very emphatic that he was not an eyewitness - more so than the information available to us warrants.
2) Stephen seeing the vision doesn't invalidate him as a witness to the Resurrection. If you see it, you're a witness. We don't know if anyone was with James when he saw the risen Lord. Does that make him not a witness? Or are you claiming that seeing the heavenly risen Jesus is in some way less valid than seeing him before his Ascension? If so, why?

1) I'm referring to his vision of Christ at the side of God. That is not what I accept as eyewitness testimony. If you could establish that he had previously seen the risen Christ, then that would be a good chunk of evidence for your case.
2) If archaeologists find something in the ground tomorrow to show that Stephen was an eyewitness of the risen Christ in another encounter, then I'll accept that as new evidence - so I'm not saying he was invalidated as an eyewitness. I'm simply saying that if Jesus was physically raised from the dead, and he had real photons bouncing off of him, then everyone who's there will be able to see him. That clearly wasn't the case with what Stephen saw. I'm not claiming that seeing the heavenly risen Jesus is less valid than seeing him before his ascension; I'm claiming that if you say you see something, but other people are present and they don't see it, then that's just not very convincing evidence of anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nihilist...maybe I should've worded it differently....but I wasn't saying the early church was full of cannibals. I'm saying ancient Romans who knew between little and nothing about christianity thought it was full of cannibals.

Interestingly, martyrdom had become something of a fad in ancient Rome. It was romanticized to a certain degree (some of the martyr stories reflect this. You see, dying as a christian martyr earned you a "martyr's crown" and you got to ascend straight up to heaven while all the other christians had to wait for the rapture. You can imagine how this might appeal to a zealous follower who is poor, sick, or destitute and had little to look forward to in life already.

As a result, christians were acting like jerks and demanding to be martyred. There's a particular Roman governor (in Asia Minor i think) who is quoted as saying (paraphrasing) "there are plenty of cliffs to jump from and trees to hang from if you all desire to die so badly."

Now to be sure, there were christians who were martyred for being christian...but it appears that was rare and sporadic. The christian accounts of martyrdom are suspect for several reasons...which anyone can find with a little effort. However, when you take into account the description of the behavior of early christians...it's not difficult to imagine why Nero chose them as scapegoats for the Roman fires, or why the Roman people believed it.

 

[juvenissun]

There are tons of myths similar to Jesus. Are you saying they are real because there are "stories" about them?

Can you give us the unsimplified version? All we are able to do is critique what you write down. If you don't write down your whole argument, you can't say we're wrong when we tear your argument to shreds.

No. I am saying that there ARE stories about Jesus. Real or not.
If you like to be a god, you also need some stories been told about you.
Until then, your claim of being a god is not logically valid.
Review your examples about other real/imaginary figures in the OP, which one has stories which said that the figure is a god? If none, then my syllogism is valid.

Think: who has tons of myths similar to what Jesus has? Why none?

 

[juvenissun]

And the other poster pointed out, why your logic fails.

In fact, my syllogism does have big problem.
But, you can not see it.
Do you like to take a second look and try to catch it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nihilist...maybe I should've worded it differently....but I wasn't saying the early church was full of cannibals. I'm saying ancient Romans who knew between little and nothing about christianity thought it was full of cannibals.

Interestingly, martyrdom had become something of a fad in ancient Rome. It was romanticized to a certain degree (some of the martyr stories reflect this. You see, dying as a christian martyr earned you a "martyr's crown" and you got to ascend straight up to heaven while all the other christians had to wait for the rapture. You can imagine how this might appeal to a zealous follower who is poor, sick, or destitute and had little to look forward to in life already.

As a result, christians were acting like jerks and demanding to be martyred. There's a particular Roman governor (in Asia Minor i think) who is quoted as saying (paraphrasing) "there are plenty of cliffs to jump from and trees to hang from if you all desire to die so badly."

Now to be sure, there were christians who were martyred for being christian...but it appears that was rare and sporadic. The christian accounts of martyrdom are suspect for several reasons...which anyone can find with a little effort. However, when you take into account the description of the behavior of early christians...it's not difficult to imagine why Nero chose them as scapegoats for the Roman fires, or why the Roman people believed it.

What I'm putting forth is simply that we should reject the "Why die for a lie?" argument because there is no documented historical evidence to support it. That position is firmly on common ground because after almost a hundred posts of people trying to refute me, no one here has produced a single quote from the transcript of any eyewitness martyr trial. So all parties here agree that there is no evidence to support the "Why die for a lie?" argument.

But to say that Christians were just daring the Romans to execute them is portraying them as mentally unstable, and again you're getting away from common ground. You have to understand that the people on these forums have been conditioned from a young age to believe in the resurrection, so the things you're saying will be rejected outright whereas other irrelevant or tangential facts will be understood as corroboration of their beliefs. Trust me, I am a former Christian and I know their mindset. We have to peel back years upon years of conditioning, and you won't get anywhere by making outlandish claims (even if they are true). Your best bet is simply to show them that they have no actual facts, that the arguments they put forth are just as much conjecture as the scenarios I'm positing, and then just hope for the best.

No. I am saying that there ARE stories about Jesus. Real or not.
If you like to be a god, you also need some stories been told about you.
Until then, your claim of being a god is not logically valid.
Review your examples about other real/imaginary figures in the OP, which one has stories which said that the figure is a god? If none, then my syllogism is valid.

Think: who has tons of myths similar to what Jesus has? Why none?

No one has myths similar to Jesus?

Jesus was born into Judaism. Judaism, like all religions, says there is a problem with the world and offers solutions. Jesus offered a new solution to the problem (forgiveness of sins by one sacrifice, instead of regularly animal sacrifice), and after his death he was deified by his followers.

The Buddha was born in Hinduism. Hinduism, like all religions, says there is a problem with the world and offers solutions. The Buddha offered a new solution (ascending above the birth-rebirth cycle), and after his death he was deified by his followers.

In fact, my syllogism does have big problem.
But, you can not see it.
Do you like to take a second look and try to catch it?

A big problem with your logic? You mean the fact that, by the same logic, I can say this:


If you are worshiped, then you are a god
The Buddha is worshiped
Therefore, the Buddha is a god

 

[bhsmte]

In fact, my syllogism does have big problem.
But, you can not see it.
Do you like to take a second look and try to catch it?

The ball is still in your court.

 

[juvenissun]

No one has myths similar to Jesus?

Jesus was born into Judaism. Judaism, like all religions, says there is a problem with the world and offers solutions. Jesus offered a new solution to the problem (forgiveness of sins by one sacrifice, instead of regularly animal sacrifice), and after his death he was deified by his followers.

The Buddha was born in Hinduism. Hinduism, like all religions, says there is a problem with the world and offers solutions. The Buddha offered a new solution (ascending above the birth-rebirth cycle), and after his death he was deified by his followers.

Buddha did not claim he is a god.
Buddha did not perform miracles.

Not the same. Very different.

 

[juvenissun]

The ball is still in your court.

You can not rely on me to tell you everything.
So, if you see no problem, then, sorry, there is no problem.