tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post8167298229562436681..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Did Jesus really die and rise?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger269125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-69929995200313214022015-04-17T16:35:00.844-07:002015-04-17T16:35:00.844-07:00JoAnna, great question. JoAnna, great question. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-28886980971497309852015-04-17T15:25:37.780-07:002015-04-17T15:25:37.780-07:00"The first century author of these books of t..."The first century author of these books of the Bible believed that Heaven is beyond the stars and that Jesus was ascending there. If a firmament or ceiling to the sky exists, as the OT taught, then the author believed that Jesus would "hit the ceiling" within a few minutes or hours and then enter heaven, traveling at a speed at which his disciples could watch him ascend."<br /><br />And were does the Bible say this, pray tell?JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63445904511758479552015-04-17T12:39:48.404-07:002015-04-17T12:39:48.404-07:00Gary, people have instinctively looked "up to...Gary, people have instinctively looked "up to the heavens" and up to God in their grief, or thanksgiving or transcendent joy forever.... It's not a Biblical invention. You don't have the universal experience of "looking up to the heavens" for the transcendent? There are certain dispositions of our hearts, Gary. When we say that a piece of sublime music "lifts us up" or that a brilliant painting "lifts our hearts and minds" to higher things, do you understand that meaning? I think it's universal. Don't you?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-88089802234552269392015-04-02T16:32:22.071-07:002015-04-02T16:32:22.071-07:00Gary, did you want to take a shot at the question ...Gary, did you want to take a shot at the question in the OP?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67504484828094910312015-04-02T15:18:08.113-07:002015-04-02T15:18:08.113-07:00You are correct. If we appeal to the supernatural...You are correct. If we appeal to the supernatural, anything is possible. But why does the Bible so often refer to Heaven being up? Even "up beyond the stars"? I don't think that the author of Acts (and Luke) had any concept of tractor beams or someone twitching their nose and suddenly transporting to the other side of the planet, as say, Bewitched or Jeannie did on 60 and 70's TV.<br /><br />The first century author of these books of the Bible believed that Heaven is beyond the stars and that Jesus was ascending there. If a firmament or ceiling to the sky exists, as the OT taught, then the author believed that Jesus would "hit the ceiling" within a few minutes or hours and then enter heaven, traveling at a speed at which his disciples could watch him ascend.<br /><br />Problem is that this author was not familiar with the actual size of the universe and the speed of light. This Ascension scenario is impossible without twisting yourself into a pretzel with all kinds of supernatural excuses of why Jesus rose into the air to go to heaven if all he had to do was twitch his nose like Samantha and be in Heaven instantaneously.<br /><br />When will Christians stop making excuses for the scientifically ignorant supernatural claims of the Bible and just accept that it is an ancient piece of mostly fictional literature, and that's it.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64477451247118571952015-04-02T12:11:27.169-07:002015-04-02T12:11:27.169-07:00Also, please read the following:
The location of ...Also, please read the following:<br /><br /><i>The location of Heaven<br /><br />Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed?<br /><br />Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.<br /><br />In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject.</i><br /><br />from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htmJoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44035615072214088382015-04-02T12:09:13.962-07:002015-04-02T12:09:13.962-07:00Unless, of course, Jesus is God and thus is not bo...Unless, of course, Jesus is God and thus is not bound by the laws of the universe. JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4955279075473359242015-03-31T12:25:51.803-07:002015-03-31T12:25:51.803-07:00News Alert: Scientists have proven the Bible False...News Alert: Scientists have proven the Bible False<br /><br />And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. –the Bible<br /><br />The ancient Hebrews and therefore the early Christians believed that above the earth, God had created a “firmament” or domed ceiling, upon which he hung the sun, moon, stars, and planets. Heaven was directly above this “ceiling”.<br /><br />Let’s now look at the story of the Ascension of Jesus:<br /><br />When he (Jesus) had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. 11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” -The Bible<br /><br />If you lived in the first century AD and believed that heaven was just on the other side of the firmament or “ceiling" above the earth, then it would be very consistent with your worldview to believe that if Jesus was going to return to heaven, all he had to do was to ascend past the clouds and he would soon reach the "ceiling" of the firmament, to which are hung the planets, the sun, and moon, and he then would pierce the firmament to enter heaven. And if one can look up and see the planets and stars, then these heavenly objects must be within a day's travel time. You would know this by common sense: if you can see a mountain in the distance, chances are you can reach it in a day's time. So believing that Jesus could ascend to heaven, at a speed slow enough for his disciples to watch him ascend into the clouds, would be completely consistent with this world view.<br /><br />The problem for the Bible, and for Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of the Creator, is that this worldview has been proven absolutely false by modern science. There is no firmament. Jesus could not have reached the outer reaches of the universe to enter heaven moving at a speed at which humans could watch him ascend. Scientists have demonstrated that for a rocket or space ship to reach the next closest galaxy to our own, the Andromeda Galaxy, it would take two million LIGHT YEARS to get there!<br /><br /><br />Unless Jesus entered a tractor beam once he got into the clouds, a tractor beam that "beamed him up" to heaven like Captain Kirk would regularly do on Star Trek...Jesus...at this very moment...is in outer space, putting along, somewhere between earth and the Andromeda Galaxy. Bombshell! Jesus hasn't made it to heaven yet! Jesus is not sitting at the right hand of God the Father as the Bible claims.<br /><br />Thus, scientists have proven the Bible false.<br /><br />Trust science, my friends, not the scientifically ignorant superstitions and legends of ancient peoples, nor their holy books, full of preposterous supernatural claims.<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51811609561578452302012-05-18T11:57:02.927-07:002012-05-18T11:57:02.927-07:00PS: One more thing. You keep wanting to change the...PS: One more thing. You keep wanting to change their witness. The Christians said that Christ rose. They said that if that one thing (Christ's resurrection) did not happen, they were the most pitiable of men. The whole of Christianity rises and falls <i>on that one claim</i>. As much as you'd like to, you cannot come in and revise that history and say, "They really just wanted to enact social change." The entire history of Christianity and Christian writings from the beginning <i>do not give you that option</i>. You can't just make things up. You cannot misrepresent the Christian writers and the Christian martyrs. Sorry.<br /><br />You need to read more original sources. I hope you will put down your Jesus Seminar books and read the sources, unabridged, unedited.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-71179757076728721812012-05-18T11:52:20.974-07:002012-05-18T11:52:20.974-07:00it is not inconceivable that in order to try to en...<i>it is not inconceivable that in order to try to enact social change people may have tried to use the existing Jesus followers and their beliefs.</i><br /><br />To believe this, you have to believe that the tons of normal, every day Jews who followed Christ had lost all of their collective senses and suddenly believed that corpses could rise (even though they clearly never saw that), or that the cause of "peace" or whatever other nebulous thing was suddenly compelling enough that they would be willing to be tortured and executed for a known and obvious lie, oh and all the folks who followed thought that was a cool cause and they wanted to get tortured and die, too, along with their families. And you want me to think that this is consistent with human nature? Name any of your friends who would go along with this type of thing? Ever? I can't think of any. Maybe you hang with a different crowd? ;)<br /><br />Okay, really done now! Take care!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11869562719915790462012-05-18T11:44:21.871-07:002012-05-18T11:44:21.871-07:00March Hare, it's been enjoyable, but so as not...March Hare, it's been enjoyable, but so as not to risk repeating myself, I will just throw a couple of things out:<br /><br />First: You are right that the Church says that some private revelations reported are not "worthy of belief". Those would not qualify as the Church saying that certain reported Marian apparitions (which are usually not seen by a "mass") are "mass hallucinations" that are false. You need to read up more on that. Marian apparitions can be declared "worthy of belief" or not (and even those worthy do not require the assent of the faithful), but I don't think I've ever heard the Church speak of "mass hallucinations". Those were your words, no?<br /><br />Also, I can definitely see in human nature that a troubled criminal with a guilty conscience or mental problems might say something to incriminate oneself, whether it's true or whether he mentally is so troubled that he believes it to be true. That fits with human nature. <br /><br />What does not fit with human nature is that lots and lots of cognitively normal folks saw a man be publicly executed in the most brutal way, fell into despair, locked themselves away, then decided (again, can you give me the screenplay script of how that would go down?) it would be a great idea to speak against what everyone knows and pretend that a dead corpse rose up, so that they and their families could get persecuted, lose their livelihoods, get tortured and then beheaded…. <br /><br />See, that just does not comport with what I know of human nature. But maybe you see this as the most likely option, and I guess that it has to be, <i>if</i> you come into it as the Jesus Seminar "scholars" do, and discount miracles from the get-go.<br /><br />And, I will leave it at that. Blessings to you!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91834771988111398402012-05-17T20:39:57.401-07:002012-05-17T20:39:57.401-07:00"First, March Hare, I realize that I forgot t...<i>"First, March Hare, I realize that I forgot to comment on the "mass hallucinations" of the Marian apparitions. Of course, I would never characterize them as mass hallucinations at all. I would say they are true visions."</i><br />Then you'd go against Church teaching which states that many mass hallucinations are in fact false and that only some are 'real'. But on to the substance...<br /><br />Leila, again you are making a fundamental mistake, I am not attacking or criticising your faith, I am attacking and criticising your certitude of what could have possibly happened. I state not that these things I posit are likely, merely that they are possible, you state that they are impossible, or less likely than the laws of nature being suspended for miracles to occur.<br /><br />I merely present possibilities to fit in with whatever you have decided are the facts of the matter while defending the obviously unlikely part of the story which is the resurrection. You argue that the resurrection is true because the facts around it (what the disciples went through etc. etc.) make it so unimaginable that there could be any other explanation that we must admit to the truth of it.<br /><br />So when I bring up current Jews who believe that person X is the messiah and that he will rise again I am simply showing that the possibility for Jews to do so without proof exists when you say it isn't if the body exists.<br /><br />When I bring up wishful thinking and 'hallucinations' alongside self interest, self delusion (those that admitted to murders they did not commit, thus risking the death penalty for a lie they must have 'known') and the various other parts, I am merely showing that the human condition is such that people can be persuaded to die for something that isn't true, even if they are there when the alleged event took place.<br /><br />When I mention some of Jesus teachings that might be a cause worth dying for I am not saying they were unique or original, merely that they were stated and believed by a group that were under Roman occupation and quite strict Jewish laws (remember the stoning for adultery story?), it is not inconceivable that in order to try to enact social change people may have tried to use the existing Jesus followers and their beliefs.<br /><br />When I mention the re-writing of history and the use of martyr stories we have to remember when the deaths happened, when the stories were written, by whom, if they could have been altered, and what their possible motives could have been.<br /><br />It should also be noted that I haven't discounted miracles by the son of the creator, I have merely said that (non-Jesus related) magic in Acts is stupid and that the number of the disciples able to do magic healing is self-aggrandizement so egregious that you cannot be expected to take it seriously unless you already buy in to the whole thing as being true. And that anyone who does cannot, as you do, profess to have come to the conclusion about the veracity of Christ and the Bible through logic and reason. Doesn't mean it isn't true, just means your path to it is not the one you think it is.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70621391659527657142012-05-17T20:03:32.653-07:002012-05-17T20:03:32.653-07:00#5 Huh? You are claiming that people are willing t...#5 Huh? You are claiming that people are willing to face torture, loss of livelihood and decapitation because they saw Paul turn into Marilyn Manson? Or is that a joke? <br /><br />Where are the eyewitness historical accounts of Mohammed flying off on a horse? Can you direct me to those accounts, and the reaction of the folks at the time? Then I can more intelligently speak to those claims. <br /><br />As for persecutions, I don't think I ever denied that people of different religions have been persecuted. Happens all the time. <br /><br />By the way, you said this:<br /><br />"You are defending the absolute truth of Christianity based on the fact the disciples would rather die than say they hadn't seen the risen Christ…"<br /><br />Nope, I am defending the absolute truth of Christianity based on the fact that Jesus died and rose. The actions of the Apostles in the aftermath, and the historical record itself back up that claim. <br /><br />Blessings!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-12885644046031082792012-05-17T19:53:46.970-07:002012-05-17T19:53:46.970-07:00#3 and 4
Wait a sec. They were not being persecut...#3 and 4<br /><br />Wait a sec. They were not being persecuted <i>until</i>they started saying that Jesus died and rose and was God. Then, of course, they started being jailed, stoned, executed. And, are you really saying that a peaceful movement would gain more and more adherents as soon as they saw that the adherents were being tortured and killed for an obvious lie? Really? Okey-dokey then. <br /><br />(Remember, they were not dying for a "cause". They were dying for Christ, who they knew was God. They would not deny Him, and that is why they were willing to die.)<br /><br />You are using Acts 5 as proof that they got rich? Well, they actually split it all up evenly, living as on a commune, and then the Apostles went off to far lands to be persecuted and jailed, beaten and tortured. All but one was murdered in the most brutal of ways. Have you ever been tortured? Just curious if you would be tortured and then beheaded after walking across rugged terrain, hungry, tired and despised, to get a message to folks who wanted to oppress you for your message -- all in the pursuit of getting "rich"? <br /><br />MH, are you for real? Who would do that? What kind of riches do you think they had? Do you think they lived in the finest houses and had gold and flowing silk robes? What could they do with all that from jail, and when they were being beaten and starved, then beheaded or crucified? Again, have you ever been tortured? Would you agree to be beheaded if you could have some money to split evenly among folks to live on a commune (where you would not be living anyway, since you mainly sat in jail cells)? Again, what human nature have you been observing?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60987265919293102542012-05-17T19:40:35.725-07:002012-05-17T19:40:35.725-07:00#2 is worth reprinting in its entirety:
2. You wo...#2 is worth reprinting in its entirety:<br /><br /><i>2. You wouldn't die for any of Jesus' causes but you'd die for him because you believe he was resurrected. Wow! Off-topic, but you seriously need to revisit your faith. Okay, here are some: Christianity itself (either as a group identity, a financial incentive, a collection of good ideas or whatever); pacifism; meek inheriting the earth; helping the poor; God created the law for people's benefit; leniency in law; helping, understanding and forgiving rather than condemning ... I could go on, but read the Jefferson Bible or any books on Jesus the philosopher.</i><br /><br />Yes, MH, any Christian worth his salt ONLY believes Christ because he was God (and He died and rose as a witness to that fact). Did you not read St. Paul? "If he did not rise, truly, we are the most pitiable of men." It all rises and falls on that fact. Just that fact. Reread the beginning of this post.<br /><br />You must hang with and admire the more "Jesus Seminar" types of Christians, who don't <i>actually</i> believe this miracle and resurrection stuff, right? Because people who hold to orthodoxy groan and roll their eyes at the "Jefferson bible" and the "search for the historical Jesus" -- just the same old recycled heresies since the time of the first dissenters. Yawn. You really need to read more from orthodox Christians, and not dissenters.<br /><br />It's timely you mention that list of things that constitute the Christian "cause" because I just had that discussion on one of them more recent posts. Same thing, but posed by a liberal Christian. She is not sure she believes in the Resurrection, etc., so I asked her to tell me what specifically Christian doctrine she subscribed to, and she gave me a list like yours. I asked her: Couldn't you be a Buddhist or New Ager and believe those things?<br /><br />Look at your list! Nothing in that cannot be found also in other religions and philosophies. Nothing in that list is uniquely Christian. Which brought another reader in with a brilliant quote from Chesterton, which I hope you will really ponder:<br /><br /><i>"It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite indefensible compliments to Christianity. They talk as if there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came, a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that <b>the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity</b>. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk."</i> <br /><br />Give me something uniquely Christian which was the "cause" to die for, MH, not some generalized platitudes that could hold for all mankind, those of faith or no faith at all.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-30239349409276991862012-05-17T19:30:12.584-07:002012-05-17T19:30:12.584-07:001) I see you having shown nothing at all that coul...1) I see you having shown nothing at all that could account for what happened according to the Biblical accounts. You have to discount the biblical accounts and yes, what we all know of human nature to make your alternatives fit. Maybe get even more specific: "The disciples were sitting in the room, crying, fearful. Then, after three horrible days, one of the guys said, 'Hey! We really liked Jesus' ideas! Even though our entire identity is that of Judaism, let's forget that Jesus is clearly no messiah, and let's pretend he was. Further, let's pretend that we saw him Risen! Forget the fact that the Roman guard could produce his body in a second to prove us wrong, and let's then go out and convince everyone else that a dead man rose, so that we can preach pacifism!" So, one by one, each of the disciples, with no dissenters, thought that was a great plan! They went out, fearless, and got arrested, stoned and murdered for that fabricated lie to push the "cause" of pacifism."<br /><br />Yes, surely that comports with human nature as we know it! (But, you may have a different scenario. I'm not kidding, I'd like you to write it out like a screen play scene, and let's see how "reasonable" the alternatives are.<br /><br />More coming….Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46490145100157851592012-05-17T19:23:07.785-07:002012-05-17T19:23:07.785-07:00First, March Hare, I realize that I forgot to comm...First, March Hare, I realize that I forgot to comment on the "mass hallucinations" of the Marian apparitions. Of course, I would never characterize them as mass hallucinations at all. I would say they are true visions. <br /><br />As for Schneerson, um, again, it's great that people have followers, even false Messiahs (that is not uncommon) and some followers of religious figures do wacky things. But show me again where this dude's followers first KNEW he was dead (executed, kaput, rotting) then saw him risen in his body and went from fearful and despairing to completely unafraid and willing to be tortured and murdered in defense of that truth? Something unique happened with Jesus' followers, MH, and it never did fade away into obscurity. (Schneerson who? My husband is Jewish and I'll ask him about that particular Messiah. :) )<br /><br />More coming….Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61177705711587005302012-05-17T17:46:34.069-07:002012-05-17T17:46:34.069-07:003+4. I was playing along with your idea. I am hap...3+4. I was playing along with your idea. I am happy to take a step back and state that they were not being persecuted. That just makes it all the more likely that they'd allow the myth (if it was) to grow.<br /><br /><i>"Also, what would the martyrs be a "useful tool" for?"</i><br />You are defending the absolute truth of Christianity based on the fact the disciples would rather die than say they hadn't seen the risen Christ and you then ask this question... The gain they would have would be power, prestige, money, fame and all that might go with it - Acts 5:1-11.<br /><br />5. Has been done numerous times, Paul from the kid from The Wonder Years was rumored to have become Marilyn Manson being one that springs to mind.<br /><br />But again, you say people won't believe an ostensibly ridiculous claim when all evidence is to the contrary, but there are (alleged) eye witnesses. Many people later martyred were convinced by eye witnesses and tales of eye witnesses and martyrs. On the other hand you say that it must be true because lots of people believed it (and still do) then perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain why so many people believe Mohammed flew straight to heaven on his horse? That must be true because so many people believe it, and were undoubtedly persecuted for it:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_by_the_Meccans<br />Albeit the Islamic faith has a more lax view on denying one's faith while in mortal danger than the Christian faith.<br /><br />Regards for now...March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-79977868489863420992012-05-17T17:45:34.610-07:002012-05-17T17:45:34.610-07:00Leila, you said "March Hare, let's stick ...Leila, you said <i>"March Hare, let's stick with Jesus and his followers, not the obscure Schneerson, who has statistically no followers on earth. Stick with Jesus and what happened there."</i><br /><br />Let's not, because what I am categorically NOT doing here is trying to prove to you that the words of the Bible are false (apart from maybe Acts, I might get to that), that Jesus <i>didn't</i> rise or anything of that ilk, what I am attempting to do is show that there are more plausible explanations of the Biblical stories and your concept of what people, and the Jews in particular (you gave them characteristics!), are capable of doing in certain circumstances that, to an outsider, appear obviously false, are wrong. Basically that your dichotomy is false, that your logic in dismantling a leg of that dichotomy is invalid and that your assumptions used in saying what must be true are bad enough for it to be a strawman argument. Not to say it <i>is</i> false, simply that your statement that it <i>must</i> be true is false.<br /><br />So, yeah, the guy I pointed to is statistically invisible in the current population, but his followers are Jews and he almost definitely has(had?) way more than Christ did at the time of his death/resurrection.<br /><br />We call that double standards. You are trying to play both sides of the numbers game, saying that Christianity grew from a very few to a massive organisation, thus adding weight in your opinion (wrongly, but still) to its claims whereas you ignore what the few followers this other Jew has, and what they believe, are irrelevant because they are so few.<br /><br />1. We'll skip it because I'm not trying to say it happened, I'm not even saying it's the most likely proposition, but compared with the universe being rent asunder to enable the salvation of mankind then it's still way more likely. But, like I said, I'm only trying to point out there are alternative explanations for the believable facts in the Bible that you originally could only narrow down to two (and then proceeded to use slightly flawed logic and pretty bad pop psychology to 'prove' was wrong). I want to show there are other alternatives (not prove that they are true) and that some of the psychological claims you make to show the Biblical story must be true are based on false beliefs about human nature.<br /><br />2. You wouldn't die for any of Jesus' causes but you'd die for him because you believe he was resurrected. Wow! Off-topic, but you seriously need to revisit your faith. Okay, here are some: Christianity itself (either as a group identity, a financial incentive, a collection of good ideas or whatever); pacifism; meek inheriting the earth; helping the poor; God created the law for people's benefit; leniency in law; helping, understanding and forgiving rather than condemning ... I could go on, but read the Jefferson Bible or any books on Jesus the philosopher.<br /><br />To be continued...March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-43369962396591404282012-05-17T14:45:23.747-07:002012-05-17T14:45:23.747-07:00**by asking those few folks who do believe in UFOs...**by asking those few folks <i>who do believe in UFOs and that Elvis is alive</i>…<br /><br />Sorry, hope that clarifies.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-30728565755443358772012-05-17T14:43:22.801-07:002012-05-17T14:43:22.801-07:00Of UFOs and Elvis:
If a a ton (lets say hundreds)...Of UFOs and Elvis:<br /><br />If a a ton (lets say hundreds) of my seemingly normal friends and relatives suddenly claimed to have seen a UFO crash and then were instantly willing to die for that claim, I would at least listen to them and really test their demeanor and sanity. If they were the same people I always knew and trusted, I might actually believe that the UFO did crash, by golly!<br /><br />But as I don't know anyone who believes that (or that Elvis is alive), let's test it by asking those few folks if they would be willing to take a bullet (and maybe some torture first) for that claim. What do you think they'd do? You may in the realm of theory find one insane person who would agree to be tortured and die (and offer his family, too), but even that is a stretch, don't you think? I personally don't think you could find anyone who would be willing. <br /><br /><i>and rose again to show Himself to some people.</i> Actually He rose to conquer death and sin, and to atone for the Fall of man. But that's another subject. ;)<br /><br /><i>And just to put this 'no-one would die for a known lie' nonsense to bed: The Chicago Tribune found that a review of one decade's worth of murder cases in a single Illinois county found 247 instances in which the defendants' self-incriminating statements were thrown out by the court or found by a jury to be insufficiently convincing for conviction.</i><br /><br />I admit to having no idea what you are talking about here, or how it is relevant. Can you give me a specific? Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-10398119388698882842012-05-17T14:36:07.990-07:002012-05-17T14:36:07.990-07:00With the number of people performing miracles (and...<i>With the number of people performing miracles (and magic) in Acts, I find it to be too ridiculous to be taken seriously. For example, it talks of Simon using sorcery to bewitch the people of Sumaria (prior to conversion), but magic doesn't exist, therefore it is either a metaphor or a falsehood. And then the disciples all get healing powers too. It's too much to take seriously. And, given the way magic and miracles are so freely talked about it is obvious that they were easily believed back then so talk of a resurrection would not be immediately disbelieved, would it?</i><br /><br />Okay, this part sounds like you've been working with the Jesus Seminar folks too long. The way those "scholars" went about determining what words and deeds were authentic from Jesus was by using this litmus test: If something were a miracle or supernatural, it never happened and is not to be believed. If it's natural and no miracles are involved, it's probably valid. <br /><br />Um, wow.<br /><br />So, if you discount miracles, then yes, you have pretty much decided that Christ's claims, deeds, and resurrection are all bunk anyway. At that point it's sort of "have a nice day" and why even start the conversation if you shut out the possibility of Christ's resurrection from the get-go? (As if the author of Life and Matter, Space and Time could not do stuff you can't do… hmmm…)<br /><br />to be continued...Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78268188851459805062012-05-17T14:30:00.844-07:002012-05-17T14:30:00.844-07:004) But there was no "indiscriminate" arr...4) But there was no "indiscriminate" arrest and executions (see my last comment). So that is not valid. Also, what would the martyrs be a "useful tool" for? For "the cause"? What cause? Again, be more specific, and tell me what they would gain by pretending Christ rose, and then sacrificing some suckers as martyrs for "the cause". What did they gain, what was "the cause"?<br /><br />5) Okay, awesome. Try it with your own friends. Tell them you saw a dead man rise. Let's see how fast it spreads. I will even try it with my Catholic friends. I will tell them that I saw my grandma's corpse fly through the air when I went to the cemetery last week. I will let you know when the first dozen people believe, then when it grows exponentially (even as all evidence is to the contrary).<br /><br />to be continued...Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-2633806958027027842012-05-17T14:24:50.842-07:002012-05-17T14:24:50.842-07:00March Hare, let's stick with Jesus and his fol...March Hare, let's stick with Jesus and his followers, not the obscure Schneerson, who has statistically no followers on earth. Stick with Jesus and what happened there.<br /><br />1) Why skip it? Evidence? And remember, Jesus was dead. They did not expect him to rise. Why would that be suddenly part of their identity that they were willing to die for (esp. since it was false)?<br /><br />2) "There are many causes in Jesus' teachings that are seen as worth keeping alive, even at the cost of your own life, regardless of his actual resurrected status." Really? Name one. I can't think of a one, and I'm a devout Christian willing to die for my faith. But I would only die for my faith because Jesus' Resurrection was true. As St. Paul said: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile." Christians believed that then, and they believe it now. If Christ didn't rise, then I'm not dying for the Christian "cause". Nope.<br /><br />3) Actually, anyone who denounced Jesus would not be killed; they were afraid, but no one had yet been killed (in fact, it was not until St. Stephen, many weeks later after Jesus' ascension, that the first Christian martyr willingly died rather than deny the resurrection. If Christ did not rise, the disciples would have eventually just ventured back out of the upper room, still in grief, but ready to get on with their lives. They certainly could have done that, as any sane person would.<br /><br />to be continued...Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-75849204665311178082012-05-17T06:09:13.322-07:002012-05-17T06:09:13.322-07:002. Not mass hallucinations exactly, but multiple s...2. Not mass hallucinations exactly, but multiple sightings, embellished over time - not that a mass hallucination can't happen.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauraing<br />Multiple adults:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun<br /><br /><i>"You'd think that fewer folks would believe that a dead body rose as time went on, not more. And of course, unless a dead body really did rise, and people saw it, no one would believe it at all."</i><br /><br />Thankfully this one is easily demonstrable as false - unless you are of the opinion a UFO really did crash at Roswell? Or that Elvis is alive and well?<br /><br />You know what Leila, none of this sounds reasonable to me either. But on the balance of probabilities it is much, much more likely that people acted irrationally, for whatever reasons, than the laws of nature were suspended and the creator of the universe made himself flesh (does that imply mind-body duality MUST be real?) lived a more-or-less human life, was executed and rose again to show Himself to some people.<br /><br />And just to put this 'no-one would die for a known lie' nonsense to bed: The Chicago Tribune found that a review of one decade's worth of murder cases in a single Illinois county found 247 instances in which the defendants' self-incriminating statements were thrown out by the court or found by a jury to be insufficiently convincing for conviction.<br /><br />Sure the two situations are not exactly the same, but fortunately we aren't killing people for being fake psychics, magicians or witches any more - well, Saudi Arabia are, but their defendants are not really allowed to have a defence, let alone just say "I'm lying."March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.com