The Resurrection

[throughfiierytrial]

The other earthquake is not relevant to the OP.

So what at least my explanation proves I'm more competent than you'd like to make me out to be!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Please fix your posts. You're attributing quotes to me which I have not said.

which ones?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

which ones?

#276, #280

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So what at least my explanation proves I'm more competent than you'd like to make me out to be!

I hadn't remarked much on your competence, but on that note you probably should refrain from using the quote function.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

#276, #280

Not the conventional format, but looks correct...I had reposted 276 and stated it was a repost...
But criticism duly noted..my apologies.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not the conventional format, but looks correct...I had reposted 276 and stated it was a repost...
But criticism duly noted..my apologies.

Not sure why you double down and say that it looks correct. I didn't say any of the highlighted material here:

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Who wrote any of history? The side that wants their side to be heard. Our own history books are no different - we only put in them what we want the next generation to know about. Roman history did not want Jesus to be known about - and so left it out.

Warning: sarcasm alert.

Yet Rome eventually converted to Christianity only a couple hundred years after the such a false religion what was made up by unknown authors told a fairy tail about a man named Jesus. That would almost be like the United States making the official religion "the church of Santa". [emoji19]

 

[HitchSlap]

Slaves were commanded to be loyal, but to seek their freedom if possible.
(Slaves should Submit: ...Ephesians 6:5-6; Colossians 3:22; I Timothy 6:2; Titus 2:9; I Peter 2:18-19)
(Seek their freedom if possible:...I Corinthians 7:21-23)

Slave owners were commanded to treat their slaves kindly. (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1)

Slave traders were not viewed as being in any way fit for the Kingdom of Heaven:
I Timothy 1:8-11:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

We could go into OT LAW as well to see what type of slavery was originally sanctioned...the LAW provided for fairness to slaves and for their release in each Year of Jubilee. Sounds like many slaves were slaves b/c they were broke and thus sold themselves to their brothers as slaves. However, Israel also acquired slaves via conquest of heathen lands.

Does the bible describe how much you're allowed to beat your slave?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Does the bible describe how much you're allowed to beat your slave?

Yep, not to death...

 

[HitchSlap]

Yep, not to death...

How magnanimous.

And if he does beat his slave to death?

 

[civilwarbuff]

How magnanimous.

And if he does beat his slave to death?

Then he gets punished....don't know what that punishment would include off hand. The other cultures of the time allowed a master to beat a slave to death with no repercussion; so it is a big step forward for the times. Please don't try to apply the mores of today to an ancient society it detracts from the debate.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then he gets punished....don't know what that punishment would include off hand. The other cultures of the time allowed a master to beat a slave to death with no repercussion; so it is a big step forward for the times. Please don't try to apply the mores of today to an ancient society it detracts from the debate.

Right, telling a society that rape and slavery ok, as long as you're not as bad as your enemies, is morally reprehensible, and falls on the big guy's shoulders. I mean, if he sees fit to warn against coveting your neighbor's jackass.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Right, telling a society that rape and slavery ok, as long as you're not as bad as your enemies, is morally reprehensible, and falls on the big guy's shoulders. I mean, if he sees fit to warn against coveting your neighbor's jackass.

Is there anything you can do to change the past? Then try to view it objectively so you can learn the most from it....and maybe apply it to the here and now.

I said this

Then he gets punished....don't know what that punishment would include off hand. The other cultures of the time allowed a master to beat a slave to death with no repercussion; so it is a big step forward for the times.

but it seemed you were so emotionally caught up with something in the past that you cannot change that you missed it. It was a big step forward for the times.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Is there anything you can do to change the past? Then try to view it objectively so you can learn the most from it....and maybe apply it to the here and now.

I said this

but it seemed you were so emotionally caught up with something in the past that you cannot change that you missed it. It was a big step forward for the times.

Except that if we are given divine instructions, they should be... divine.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is there anything you can do to change the past? Then try to view it objectively so you can learn the most from it....and maybe apply it to the here and now.

I said this

but it seemed you were so emotionally caught up with something in the past that you cannot change that you missed it. It was a big step forward for the times.

What makes you think I'm interested in changing the past? Don't be absurd.

I'm challenging the claim of theists who tout a "moral" god, given this god exists. The OT, when viewed in a critical historical context, is no more extraordinary than any other "history" of the time. It's incumbent on you then, to prove this is actual history and the the particular characters in it's narrative actually existed, let alone it's miraculous claims.

 

[Tawhano]

And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

I stand corrected. My question should have read where is it written that they believed the resurrection miracle took place and not simply miracles. There were many miracles witnessed by the chief priest and yet they did not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Why do you imagine they would believe Jesus was resurrected? Jesus did not appear to anyone at that time (Matthew 28:6). They could very well have believed that the angel took his body.

Isn’t it funny that the only time you directly addressed my questions is when I word it wrong. All the other questions you are unable or unwilling to answer go unanswered. You certainly have been selective in what you want to respond to. You have not provided one scrap of evidence to justify your fallacious argument. For that matter you are unable to comprehend why your OP is based on a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How magnanimous.

And if he does beat his slave to death?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. He will see, with Paul, that a slave can be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16). A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

 

[Tawhano]

Suppose he were to die and that three days later some of his fans claimed his grave was empty. Don't you think someone would bother to go check if it actually happened?

Yes, absolutely.

There was an investigation of Jesus’s grave as recorded in Matthew. This didn’t happen after Easter Sunday but on that day however you discount it with absolutely no reason that you offered. Suppose that on the third day of David Blaine’s death an investigation was performed. Would you discount that investigation because it did not take place until the fourth day? Would you expect a second investigation to be performed? Is it not true that a second investigation would only be performed on further evidence becoming available due to advances in forensic investigation or a new witness testimony that contradicts the findings of the investigation?

And yet there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday, and there was certainly no record of a neutral party making the trip.

This is true. There is no record in any of the four Gospels that show anyone visiting the sepulcher after Easter Sunday. This is not proof that people did not visit but that the authors of the Gospels did not record it.

The complete lack of an investigation for a miraculous event is in fact evidence that no miracle occurred in the first place.

Here is where you make a slippery slope fallacy argument. The only argument you give to support the claim that the authors of the Gospels should have recorded an investigation performed after Easter Sunday is this:

Or did skeptics actually go visit? Why would it be the case that skeptics actually did visit the tomb, and yet the gospels did not record this? That would seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels, since everyone - including the disciples - were always skeptical of Jesus, and the gospels were always making a point of this.

You have no proof that the authors needed to record an investigation by skeptics or it would “seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels”. Have you an answer as to why a record of an event of visitation or investigations after Easter Sunday should inevitably happen? How does an omission “cut against the narrative” of the Gospels message that Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead? Please describe in your own words what you believe the phrase “narrative of the gospels” means.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, absolutely.

There was an investigation of Jesus’s grave as recorded in Matthew. This didn’t happen after Easter Sunday but on that day however you discount it with absolutely no reason that you offered. Suppose that on the third day of David Blaine’s death an investigation was performed. Would you discount that investigation because it did not take place until the fourth day? Would you expect a second investigation to be performed? Is it not true that a second investigation would only be performed on further evidence becoming available due to advances in forensic investigation or a new witness testimony that contradicts the findings of the investigation?

This is true. There is no record in any of the four Gospels that show anyone visiting the sepulcher after Easter Sunday. This is not proof that people did not visit but that the authors of the Gospels did not record it.

Here is where you make a slippery slope fallacy argument. The only argument you give to support the claim that the authors of the Gospels should have recorded an investigation performed after Easter Sunday is this:

You have no proof that the authors needed to record an investigation by skeptics or it would “seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels”. Have you an answer as to why a record of an event of visitation or investigations after Easter Sunday should inevitably happen? How does an omission “cut against the narrative” of the Gospels message that Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead? Please describe in your own words what you believe the phrase “narrative of the gospels” means.

Yes, it doesn't matter if the investigation occurs after Easter Sunday or on it. You are correct there. But why was there no investigation at all?

Now you come at me with a new angle. True, I cannot prove that there wasn't an investigation. I can, however, prove it was not recorded. And yes, it cuts against the narrative to omit the investigation if it did indeed occur. But before I bother explaining that, I need to make sure, as you've so often said, that this doesn't go over your head because you've gone on record saying that an investigation of the tomb would be moronic. Let's see if your angle on that has changed. Let's see if you've bothered to read the portion of Matthew that you chastised me for not reading. Then we'll talk.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Isn’t it funny that the only time you directly addressed my questions is when I word it wrong. All the other questions you are unable or unwilling to answer go unanswered.

It wasn't just the way you worded it. You have constantly been insulting me and berating me for not reading Matthew 28 when it is clear you haven't. You have signed off on saying that it would be moronic to investigate supernatural claims. Well, why? The body is gone and there is no rational explanation. Yet an investigation is moronic. OK.