Saturday 11 April 2009

A solid case against the resurection

If you can argue you case against the resurection of jebus using facts accepted by both xian and intelligent freethinking historians then you have a strong case. Well william lane craig has written a book called the son rises* Well he clearly uses a play on words in the title with 'the sun rises' and 'the son rises' which shows that even xians notice the similarity between the words son and sun. Thus the resurection was copied from sun god worship.

If you havent read it then dont worry, neither have I as i think reading the title is enough.

9 comments:

johnny said...

What is the Greek word for 'son'?
(Strong's Greek dictionary word number G5207
υἱός
uihos
hwee-os'
Apparently a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.)

What is the Greek word for 'sun'?
(Strong's Greek dictionary word number G2246
ἥλιος
hēlios
hay'-lee-os
From ἕλη helē (a ray; perhaps akin to the alternate of G138); the sun; by implication light: - + east, sun.)

i don't know if the Greek letters/characters will show up on your blog, but you can look them up on the internet using the Strong's numbers.

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

I havent read the book, but I'm fairly certain the title is little more than clevor rhetoric.

In any case, as Johnny pointed out, the Greek words are most certainly NOT homophones(I didnt know for sure, but I kinda had my doubts).

oh and in case you didnt know: The Bible(at least the NT) was written in Greek. I dont believe English was spoken at all around ancient Palenstine. And in any case the 'english' that was spoken at that time(around Scandaniva and such) was nothing like what is spoken today(which is why we have translations of Beowulf for example).

johnny said...

Hi Mike.

A little off topic, as this is not about 'sun'/'son'...

You made a comment a while ago disregarding the edjucation level of Christians. Although there were more, the one i happen to remember was Chaotic Void's declaration of going to school for computer programming or somesuch.

So here's a thought for you..
In your eyes, Christian's are ignorant/stupid... or, at the very least, just so brainwashed and bias that you wouldn't accept a thing a Christian said--- even if it were a direct quote from an atheist and you were there to hear, first hand, the statement in question.
Ok, maybe a little exagerated, but i'm thinking it's along those lines, eh?
But, in your mind, the Christian has basically negative credibility toward you..



Now concider...

Women in first century Jewish culture had about the same credibility as you allow Christians.


The women were the first to see the empty tomb. They knew He had been in the tomb, since, before the beginning of the Sabbath, they did a rather hasty burial preparation.. if i recall, something like 100 pounds of spices in and around the body, and then wrapped in linen.

They knew Jesus' body was in the tomb.

The morning of the first day of the week (the Sabbath was over, so they could work), the women were returning to the tomb to finish the burial preparation...

Mat 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Mat 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
Mat 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Mat 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.




Mike, give this some thought...
you have just been just told, by someone that has zero credibility, that they saw an angel. And the angel told them the the person they came to see (who was dead, by the way), is now alive.

Would you laugh at the person who brought you this news flash and continue about your business?
Or would you be like Peter and John, and go investigate for yourself? (my thinking is that Peter and John thought the body was stolen and the women were mistaken... and that was the real reason they went to the tomb-- to try to figure out what happened to the body)


In that culture, anyone writing this account would not have used women as the first witnesses, because the women's lack of credibility would now be his own...

that is, unless that is the way it happened.


Furthermore, when Peter and John got to the tomb, they found the burial clothes (with the 100 or so pounds of spices) (the Greek wording implies the clothes were undisturbed i.e. not cut apart or wildly unwound. But the head cloth neatly folded.

Again, credibility warning here..

The body had been in the tomb based on two things now... the womens testimony (that they had, indeed, prepared the body), and now, the testimony of undisturbed clothes (think of what a cocoon looks like after the butterfly has emerged... kinda like that) and a neatly folded head cloth.

Somebody making up a story in that culture would not mention undisturbed burial clothes being left behind.... (and that would be making the assumption that the tomb never even had Jesus' body, as you've indicated on an occasion or two).
And, if the body had been there, but was stolen, then a thief would not take the time to remove the body from the burial clothes, cocoon-like, and also neatly fold the head cloth... it would be a case of 'grab the body and get the heck out of Stuttgart'. Very doubtful that they would leave an 'empty' pinata shell (full of spices) and a folded head-cloth as props.
And again, keep in mind that if it was a case of stealing a dead body, they were doing in during the Sabbath (big no-no) and dead bodies were concidered unclean (ritually and spiritually).
Any claims to this affect, would hurt the testimony more than help it.... they wouldn't make up stories like this in order to bull-shit the people into believing that Jesus rose from the dead. The Gospel accounts are what are not expected because that's the way it happened.


Jesus is risen.

The penalty for your sin and mine, is paid in full.
But you can't have Salvation unless you accept Jesus work on the cross and defeat over death.


Investigate the empty tomb on your own.



God Bless,
johnny

FiFi said...

Hello boys!! ;-)

STAL, did Jesus and his disciples speak Greek? Its just that if the NT wa originally written in Greek and you and Johnny have previously declared that the gospels were written by said disciples, well then that doesn't work, does it? If they had written it then surely it would have been done in Aramaic, as was their tongue.

And Johnny, oh poor, poor Johnny. All it takes is somebody with a decent imagintion to come up with the small details. It actually helps their story as well to have these little details, things you would notice if you'd actually seen them, that may seem to harm the story such as it is, if you say the story fervently enough. If Jesus is trying to fake his own death and make it look all mysterious, then yes he probably would eek himself gently out of the robes and neatly fold his head-cloth. Its a mix of one person's conviction (the story teller) and high levels of gullibility (the listener) to get people to believe that fairytales are true.

Also, I really have to ask - have none of you ever read Romeo and Juliet? Coudl it not have happened like that?

As a final point Johnny, you've clearly broke one of the only rules of this blog: you're not allowed to tell Mike that Jesus loves him! I could sniff a sermon there by the second sentence.

Mike, as a little retribution for previously being kicked off Theologyweb, why don't you ban him?

johnny said...

Hi FiFi,

First, regarding Mike's OP (son/sun in English), your objection based on the NT in Greek is irrelevant.

However, it is possible that Jesus (and the disciples) also spoke Koine Greek (i think it was the common language of the Empire, but i'm not sure) and Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew) as well as Aramaic.

I'm going to do something that i seldom do... cite someone's work... (so pardon my typing skills)

"According to sources available, the early church was in unanimous agreement that the Apostle Matthew was the first to write a Gospel and that he originally did so in Hebrew (or Aramaic)"but,

The problem for modern scholarship is that Matthew's Gospel shows few signs of having been translated into Greek for an earlier Semitic text. It appears much more likely to be an original Greek composition. ... Alan Hultberg's intro to Matthew in The Apologetics Study Bible (my new addition to the bookshelf~~ about 2 months ago).

Here's the reason that i'm using Hultberg's intro(s)..
In his intro to Mark's Gospel, he says, "... That means that the Mark who presumably wrote the second Gospel grew up in Judea in a wealthy, urban family, that he was raised under the teaching of the 12 apostles, that he knew well the movers and shakers of the early church, and that he has relatively well traveled. And yet some scholars believe that this cannot be the sort of person who wrote the second Gospel. They note two points especially : 1. the Gospel was written in Greek, not Aramaic, the primary language of Palestinian Jews in the first century and 2. the author seems not to have been well acquainted with the geography and customs of Palestine.

....It is sufficient here to note, first, that even though it would virtually be expected of a wealthy urbanite in Palestine to know Greek, the Greek of Mark's Gospel has a distinctly Semetic tinge, a fact that makes it much more likely that it's author was a Semite who spoke Greek as a second language. Second, the alleged erroneous references to the customs and geography of Palestine appear as such only on a skeptical reading of the text. On the other hand the Gospel of Mark familiarity with Paul's theology and an apostolic (Peter's?) eyewitness version of the events of the life of Christ. Some scholars have suggested that the rather negative portrayal of the disciples in Mark could only have had apostolic sanction. Others say that the outline of Mark bears resemblance to the preaching outline of Peter in Acts.
Bottom line is that the use of Greek, as opposed to Aramaic, is not much of an argument against the NT being authentic (either by the apostles or by other parties i.e. Luke).


Now, onto the next objection...

"Imagination" aka "the NT never happened. It's just a clever fictional story" aka "anyone who believes this, is just plain gullible".

The number one reason this is a laughable objection is that Christianity exists.
And it exists prior to the second century, birthed out of Judaism and birthed out of 1st century Jewish culture--- Jews were converted.

This is why the women are powerful evidence. This is why a death on a cross (as opposed to being stoned) is powerful evidence (huge implication of being cursed-- both because of the crucifixion and also according to OT law, just the fact of being executed).
No reason to expect a dead Messiah in that culture.

These things (and others) are not merely "little details". These are things that would not be reported if it was a fake, made up story.

OH, and "faking his own death"??
Again, Christianity exists. His disciples died thinking that He rose from the dead. The Romans would have been convinced that He was dead on the cross, since He did not lift himself up in order to breath-- which would have been the purpose of breaking legs, and since He didn't need His legs broken, they stabbed with a spear and pierced the heart (if i recall, that's the implication of the blood and water being separated).

Even though Mike is not a big fan of William Lane Craig, i suggest you read (or listen to) some of his work on the subject. Or, perhaps, give a look-see at Holding's "The Impossible Faith"
www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html


Your interogative about Romeo&Juliet.... nope.


As to your charge that i violated Mike's rule...

Guilty... but not in this thread as you claim (unless i'm not seeing it).
It happened in one or two other threads, and i realize after i submitted the posts.

If Mike does not want me to post, i'll respect and comply.


Were the points sufficiently addressed, or did i miss something you feel important?

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

STAL, did Jesus and his disciples speak Greek?Probably, though it wasnt their main language.

Its just that if the NT wa originally written in Greek and you and Johnny have previously declared that the gospels were written by said disciples, well then that doesn't work, does it? Well actually Greek was the common written langauge of the time(much like Latin would be throughout the middle ages), so its not unreasonable to think they might have written in Greek, especially as Christianity began to consist of more Gentiles and fewer Jews.

If they had written it then surely it would have been done in Aramaic, as was their tongue.Well there are some scholars who think Matthew may have originally been written in Arameic. Also Luke almost certainly spoke Greek, and may not have spoken Arameic at all.

But heres another question: What are the Aramic words for 'son' and 'sun?' If they're not homophones in Arameic(and I doubt they are) then Mikes argument still fails.

Also, I really have to ask - have none of you ever read Romeo and Juliet? Coudl it not have happened like that?Theres a BIG difference between taking a few herbs and being slowly toutured. If he didnt die on the cross, he almost certainly would have died of shock, blood loss and dehydration by Sunday. And theres no way he would have been able to escape from the tomb.

FiFi said...

Johnny, you're off with your nonsense again I see.

"The number one reason this is a laughable objection is that Christianity exists."

So does Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism... doesn't make them any more 'true' for their existence, does it?

"And it exists prior to the second century, birthed out of Judaism and birthed out of 1st century Jewish culture--- Jews were converted."

But not ALL Jews were converted, so this proves nothing.

"These things (and others) are not merely "little details". These are things that would not be reported if it was a fake, made up story."

How can you possibly say what would or wouldn't be reported by an author of fiction? You're limiting the imagination of others by the very limits of your own imagination. Open your mind, Johnny. You're very closed to possibilities and its a shame as you do at least try to think about things, its just so darned biased.

"Again, Christianity exists. His disciples died thinking that He rose from the dead. The Romans would have been convinced that He was dead on the cross, since He did not lift himself up in order to breath-- which would have been the purpose of breaking legs, and since He didn't need His legs broken, they stabbed with a spear and pierced the heart (if i recall, that's the implication of the blood and water being separated)."

How does the blood and water being separated mean that he was stabbed in the heart? Have you ever seen somebody stabbed in the heart and seen what comes out? Honestly Johnny, you can be so f***ing stupid. Where's the water pocket in the hert then?? HAHAHAHA!!! Don't travel too far West Johnny, you'll fall off the edge of your intelligence which, by the seems of it, actually IS flat! :-D And you keep telling me you've been educated. Ho Ho!

"Your interogative about Romeo&Juliet.... nope."

I can see you've given that a lot of thought. You've probably never even read or seen the play so don't even know what I'm talking about.

"Were the points sufficiently addressed, or did i miss something you feel important?"

Oh you know, you just missed the point of the whole thing, but nothing I didn't expect.

I suggest you go back and do your entire high school education over again as you clearly weren't paying attention in science. When you actually know about the world a little better, come back on and try making some intelligent comments. Your ignorance, I'm afraid, knows no bounds. I really can't believe some of the twaddle you come out with, it makes me laugh!

STAL, I have to say that your responses are a little more thought out than Johnny's here, but I have to say you have no evidence for GAT Matthew being originally written in Aramaic so as an argument it is inadmissible.

And at the end of the day, you fail to realise the whole point in that the entire Bible is little more than a collection of fables, some totally fictional I would expect, maybe some based on fact. But as legends do, the tales will have been blown up out of proportion before hitting pen to paper. So who knows, maybe Jesus never did walk on water - he could have swum out to the boat, but as eyewitnesses have this terrible habit of exaggerating their experiences so the story changed by the time the gospels was written.

Not that I expect either of you to believe me, but I can but try.

Enjoy :-)

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

STAL, I have to say that your responses are a little more thought out than Johnny's here, but I have to say you have no evidence for GAT Matthew being originally written in Aramaic so as an argument it is inadmissible.Actually waht I said was we have no HARD, textual evidence. That is to say we dont have a copy of Matthew in Arameic There is evidence: Papias's statement that Matthew collected the teaching of Jesus "in the language of the Jews"(that is Arameic), as well as the overall Jewish slant of Matthew(it is by far the most 'jewish' of the Gospels).

Papias's statement is especially hard to get around, typicaly scholars who want to Matthew to be written in Greek either dismiss Papias as wrong, or assert he was talking about some other, lost document.

johnny said...

Hi FiFi,

You said, "So does Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism... doesn't make them any more 'true' for their existence, does it?"

You're equivicating. Here's an analogy to illustrate the fault in the line of reasoning you're using...
My name is not Barack Obama. Your name is not Barack Obama. STAL's name is not Barack Obama. Mike's name is not Barack Obama. Therefore, Barack Obama does not exist.

Just because there are competing religions, each claiming to be the truth, does not mean that all are false.

Now, back to your objection of "bah, it's just imagination and suckered the gullible".

Your objection fails because Christianity exists... it was born out of Judism.
You can claim that STAL and i were suckered in, but for Christianity to emerge out of that culture, it truly is the impossible faith.
(btw, did you read that link?

www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

)

But not ALL Jews were converted, so this proves nothing.Irrelevant.
You and I claim two different things to be true, yet neither one of us has converted the other.
However, both the Christian and Jewish belief recognize failure to believe in God, as part of the Sin nature.


How can you possibly say what would or wouldn't be reported by an author of fiction?How can you possibly say what is fiction?

Now, to answer your question...
If it was fiction, but written for the purpose of converting "suckers", then your naturalistic explanations fail for the same reasons that have been already stated (plus many more).

If it were fiction for the purpose of entertainment, it still fails as an explanation for Christianity's existance.

Furthermore, if Christianity is false, then eternally, i'm in the same boat as you, aren't i? Since what FiFi believes, leaves her as worm food, and i (if Christianity is false) would also be fattening worms myself.


You're limiting the imagination of others by the very limits of your own imagination. No, i'm not. Your claim that it's fiction as an explanation is a claim that is bankrupt.

Open your mind, Johnny. You're very closed to possibilitiesThat's funny.

and its a shame as you do at least try to think about things, its just so darned biased.That's also funny. Are you claiming that YOU are not biased?

How does the blood and water being separated mean that he was stabbed in the heart?Try taking the time to read a little closer.

I said that the Roman's would have been convinced that Jesus was already dead. That was the reason they did not break His legs.

The stabbing in the heart would have been "just in case".

I'll finish the response in the next reply.

Have you ever seen somebody stabbed in the heart and seen what comes out? Honestly Johnny, you can be so f***ing stupid. Where's the water pocket in the hert then?? HAHAHAHA!!! Don't travel too far West Johnny, you'll fall off the edge of your intelligence which, by the seems of it, actually IS flat! :-D And you keep telling me you've been educated. Ho Ho!Just so you know, i'm not upset (and never have been) when you ridicule me.. or even when you are just plain vile. I only mention it because, if i were me that were being rude to you, i'm sure that you would scream, "hypocrite".

That said.... Doctors have specultate, and seem to be in general agreement that what is being discribed in John's Gospel, is the piercing of a dead person's pericardium, through the pericardial cavity.. the "water" being pericardial fluid.

This is one of the reasons that the swoon theory doesn't fly.

I can see you've given that a lot of thought. You've probably never even read or seen the play so don't even know what I'm talking about.yeah, i do understand what you are talking about. You, in effect, are implying the swoon theory... that Jesus was not really dead, but appeared to be dead, either because He passed out, or because (as in R & J) He was given/ had taken some sort of drug to make it appear as if He was dead.

Crucifixion works because the person can't breathe (this is why John reports that the two thieves had their legs broken.... death comes kinda quick when you can't breathe, and someone on a cross needs their legs to lift themselves up in order to breathe.)

I'll repeat my initial answer...

Nope.


Oh you know, you just missed the point of the whole thing, but nothing I didn't expect.

I suggest you go back and do your entire high school education over again as you clearly weren't paying attention in science. When you actually know about the world a little better, come back on and try making some intelligent comments. Your ignorance, I'm afraid, knows no bounds. I really can't believe some of the twaddle you come out with, it makes me laugh!
All food spoils except honey and your gracious words. ;)


Not that I expect either of you to believe me, but I can but try.Believe you??!! ?

FiFi, you present possible explanations--- poor one's at that.. one's that have been previously answered--- and you want us to believe you?
That's like saying, "bad wiring MIGHT have been the cause of the fire, trust me" while you hold a lighter and a gas can, and the barn didn't even have electrical service.

johnny