Let's Wax Philosophical . . .

[Flick James]

Now, as far as the New Testament goes, to answer Flick's comment - while the NT has indeed been passed down for many generations and translated into every language on earth, there are over 6,000 Greek manuscripts that help us verify those translations. Textual scholars whose job is to analyze and compare discrepancies in the text are pretty universal in their assessment - which is that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity of 99.5%.  Of that remaining half a percent of the text about which there is still some doubt as to the original wording, there is not a single verse that casts doubt or question on any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

Well, okay, you're a historian, and also a Christian. I'll accept your authoritative word to an extent because of the former, but must question the filters through which your research runs via the latter. As for NT, I can accept that there may be a closer relation to the original words of the authors (whoever they may be) than the OT, simply because of a shorter span of time, but 99.5% of the books written by John match what John wrote, with nothing lost to translation? That is essentially what you are claiming. While technically possible, my God-given reason tells me this is highly implausible. And which versions, by the way?

Now the old testament is full of mythological elements, especially in the King James version. Isaiah 13:21 mentions satyrs, mythological creatures. Jeremiah 8:17 mentions cockatrices, another mythological creature. Isaiah 34:7 mentions unicorns. UNICORNS! Now this is from the King James version, the version highly touted by many protestant sects of Christianity as the true "word of God" version.

Here's where it gets interesting. Move over to newer translations such as NIV and NAS and the satyrs and cockatrices and unicorns are replaced with snakes and oxen and goats and such. Well, of course, once the Bible went to mass print and followers were starting to actually read the scriptures in detail, why would we want them reading about creatures from polytheistic religions? That would only cast doubt into the minds of the believers over their faith.

I attribute the same authenticity to things like the Lord bringing fiery serpents down on the people, and Moses turning a staff into a snake and so on. Granted, this is all OT, and NT doesn't have nearly that extent of mythological elements, save that book of fantasy written under duress called Revelation.

Now, I'll speculate that the removal of mythological creatures in newer translations of the Bible, only a small handful of examples I've brought up, is just the tip of the iceberg. I could be wrong, but that would be if I accept this notion that the Bible is 99.5% accurate. If that is the case, I'll make a guess and say you may be referring to the King James version, in which case I'll extrapulate that perhaps you mean that up until then it had been 99.5% accurate and only after that, when the Bible started becoming printed on a much larger scale and more accessible to the people, that such changes started to happen. There is a hint of logic to that argument. While certainly possible, my God-given reason will again interfere and tell me that this seems highly unlikely at best.

No, I don't attribute any more authenticity as the word of God to the Bible than I do to the Quran, with one exception. I believe there was a man, Jesus Christ, who existed, who was an exceptional man and had an immensely profound impact and changed the course of the world, and whom millions have subsequently come to worship as the son of God. I also accept that the entire collection of books is peppered with references to real historical places and sometimes loosely refers to real events, just enough to lend a sense of authenticity. Throw in some choice omissions, such as of satyrs and unicorns which the modern mind free of the shackles of the Dark Ages would reject, and they become that much more palatable to the rational mind. But keep the fiery serpents. We need to ensure that a proper fear of a vengeful God is still deep within the psyche of all people.

I don't claim to know God's mind or will, nor do I dictate what God is to others. The God that the revealed religions of the world believe doesn't make any sense to me. Thomas Paine, the father of deism, was once involved in a debate with a Christian friend who was trying to save him, and who said he must accept the God of the Bible. Here is a portion of his reply by letter:

"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness."

One of our founding fathers, ladies and gentlemen.

[indianasmith]

The issue you're dealing with there is not so much accuracy as translation.  The King James version was translated from the Hebrew in 1611 - and there were some Hebrew words, especially Hebrew terms for animals, that did not have a precise English counterpart (that is what translators always have to look out for - matching words from one language to another is always tricky business).  So the scholars in 1611 used words for exotic beasts that they believed were real.  For example, "satyr" comes from a Hebrew word that simply means "hairy ones".  It could refer to monkeys, bigfoot, or cave-dwelling primitives who rarely shaved.  But, being familiar with mythology, "satyrs" seemed like a good translation at the time.  The point is, now we still have the same Hebrew Masoretic texts used by the King James folks, as well as the Septuagint and the more recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls.
   Now, since the Bible is a book about a supernatural being (God) intervening in history in a supernatural way, some supernatural occurences are to be expected.  Were the fiery serpents the Israelites encountered truly blazing reptiles? (Blazing Reptiles.  Now there is a bad movie title!!! LOL) Or were they bright red and orange in color, like my corn snake?  Or did their bites cause intense, burning pain?
  The text of the Old Testament is a bit more iffy in places than that of the New, but textual critics still give it a very solid rating.  Anyway, as long as we have the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts to work from, we will produce various other translations - some will focus on readability (like the NIV) and others more on accuracy (the NAS), some will be pure paraphrase (the Living Bible).  But they all draw from the same source, a remarkably well-preserved narrative composed in Greek and Hebrew, of which many extant copies are still around.


By the way, this is a very enjoyable discussion to me.  I hope I am not getting too preachy!

[Flick James]

The issue you're dealing with there is not so much accuracy as translation.  The King James version was translated from the Hebrew in 1611 - and there were some Hebrew words, especially Hebrew terms for animals, that did not have a precise English counterpart (that is what translators always have to look out for - matching words from one language to another is always tricky business).  So the scholars in 1611 used words for exotic beasts that they believed were real.  For example, "satyr" comes from a Hebrew word that simply means "hairy ones".  It could refer to monkeys, bigfoot, or cave-dwelling primitives who rarely shaved.  But, being familiar with mythology, "satyrs" seemed like a good translation at the time.  The point is, now we still have the same Hebrew Masoretic texts used by the King James folks, as well as the Septuagint and the more recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls.
   Now, since the Bible is a book about a supernatural being (God) intervening in history in a supernatural way, some supernatural occurences are to be expected.  Were the fiery serpents the Israelites encountered truly blazing reptiles? (Blazing Reptiles.  Now there is a bad movie title!!! LOL) Or were they bright red and orange in color, like my corn snake?  Or did their bites cause intense, burning pain?
  The text of the Old Testament is a bit more iffy in places than that of the New, but textual critics still give it a very solid rating.  Anyway, as long as we have the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts to work from, we will produce various other translations - some will focus on readability (like the NIV) and others more on accuracy (the NAS), some will be pure paraphrase (the Living Bible).  But they all draw from the same source, a remarkably well-preserved narrative composed in Greek and Hebrew, of which many extant copies are still around.


By the way, this is a very enjoyable discussion to me.  I hope I am not getting too preachy!

Not at all. I have enjoyed the discussion, as at odds as we may be.

Where I'm about to go is where I get hesitant, because I've upset Christian friends and acquaintences in the past to the point of them telling how hot Hell will be when I arrive.

Manuscripts abound, and I took a little time to verify my research, there is a good amount of solidity to most textual criticism of them. Where it gets hazy are the earliest existing manuscripts, in particular the ones that are dated at between 150 AD and 400 AD, the average being somewhere around 225 years after the events represented. Most of these are fragments, with the books of Timothy being the only exception from my understanding. So, the earliest fragmentary documents in existence are a bit too choppy to be terribly reliable. You have to get into the  manuscripts from several centuries later before you have something more complete. So, the validity of the claims of these manuscripts lies on their accuracy to events which they detail.

So far so good, I haven't stoked the fires of Hell too much for myself yet. Here is where it happens.

The book of Mark, from my understanding is the earliest of the gospels, or the earliest surving manuscript at least. In terms of the story of the resurrection, it also contains a couple of holes that have always stood out in dayglo to me. I double-checked both the King James and NAS versions of Chapter 16, and I can't get over what I'm reading.

Allow me to paraphrase a bit and tell me where you think I may be reading too much between the lines. First, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus come to the tomb to anoint him with spices (v. 1-4). They are then amazed to see a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb, who does not say "I am Jesus." No, instead he says "you are looking for Jesus the Nazaren who has been crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Behold here is the place where they laid Him." (v. 5-6) He then tells them that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and they will see him there.

Who is the guy in white? It sounds to me like it certainly isn't Jesus, because Jesus is not there and is walking to Galilee. Seriously, I would very much like to know who the guy in white is.

So, Mary Magdalene is shaken and leaves. Next, she tells the apostles, who are in throws of mourning a man whom they had invested so much of their life into believing was the Messiah of the Jewish people, that he is risen and has even appeared to her. When did this happen? She seems to be the only person at this point who has seen him. They of course don't believe her, and who could blame them?

Here's where is gets really good. In verses 12 and 13, he appears in a different form to two of the apostles while they're walking along the countryside. Double-take. In a different form? What form would this be? Is it just me of does this sound an awful lot like some other guy, a living breathing man, claiming to be a risen Jesus? They of course run off and tell the rest of the apostles that they saw Jesus risen. Now the hysteria is starting to kick in. It's Jesus. It doesn't really look like Jesus, but we won't worry ourselves about such details. He said he was Jesus rosen from the dead, and by golly who are we to question it? He is afterall a miracle worker.

Now for the punchline section. Whoever this guy is goes to the rest of them and chastises them for doubting that he is Jesus risen from the dead. And they had best get out there and tell this story pronto, or else they and everyone they talk to will be condemned if they don't believe it.

So, allow me to conjecture a bit. A bunch of guys were duped in to believing this man who said he was the son of God. He is captured and crucified probably more because he was a revolutionary than anything else. Once dead, they are probably grieving and some of them even questioning what the hell they had been a party to, a few maybe even coming to their senses. Along comes Mary Magdalene who sees some strange guy who isn't Jesus sitting in Jesus's tomb (I still want to know who this guy is and is he part of an elaborate hoax?), telling her that Jesus up and walked out. Then some guy who claims to be Jesus risen starts appearing to the disciples. Their rathional minds know something isn't right. Who is this guy? Why is he saying he is Jesus? At the same time they want very much to believe that they had not just made a huge mistake believing Jesus was the son of God. This person claiming to be Jesus has to scream at them and threaten eternal damnation to get them to go spread the word.

I am clearly conjecturing here, but I will warrant that it takes just as much conjecture, if not more, to read these passages and believe they tell the story of a man rising from the dead. Now, if this is God then I am truly screwed, because I just cannot bring myself to buy it.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

AH is female  Didn't know that.

Well he acts like a little bi*ch every time he tries (and fails) to get my or Indy's goat.  He constantly tries to start a fight with Indy and I, and he started on me this time. He seriously needs to grow up.

Did I say (s)he was trying to get my or Indy's goat? Personally I think AHD is more interested in sheep. Anyways, on the the next line item....

As for the topic, no idea why we are here and who or what created us. I'd like to think that aliens had something to do with it though.

Same here-and that is why I tipped my hat to God as a superior being capable of both Design AND Creation.  Whose to say that a divine being dosen't have the power to design and create? Or for that matter, that that Being isn't from another world?

I don't see why religion and science can't agree that there is some great mystery that no matter how much proof they have, or no matter how hard and long they fight over, will never truly be the sole providence either science or religion.

"The chicken or the egg" is no longer the only argument on the block..

There again, if AHD were here to answer to this one, she would probably say that the egg came first, only after the chicken, thus the true indicator of her true intelligence..


Unlike AHD, apparently you, Claws, were listening. Kudos to ya'. 

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

Apparently someone should inform her that cave paintings and symbols are no longer the standard for written human language. 

Well maybe not standard, but certainly have evolved into an interesting art form:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti


And while I'm at it:






The above is a picture of ancient cave drawings in the Australian outback, possibly dated back 5000 years ago.  Proof that we may have been visited or even created by Aliens?  Maybe?

Agreed with all you say. It's just that AHD has nothing intelligent to say, so he has to resort to laughies and smilies, and as Indy said, was another example of the man's intelliegence.

As to we humans coming from a higher species, (and God's possible role in such as an majestic ruler of an alien race Himself) that is why I nodded to God as both Designer AND Creator.

But like most moral\philosophcal\political debates, only one side wans to be the one whose right.  I can't see why everyhting has to be material in evidence. There have to be unexplained things at play as well as the obvious findings of science.

[indianasmith]

Flick:
 (I am going to ignore Umaril and AHD's ongoing catfight for the moment)

The two earliest COMPLETE manuscripts of the NT are the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (both date to around 350 AD).   Before that, there are numerous fragments and some entire books of the NT preserved in manuscript form, and about 98% of the New Testament text is also reproduced in the writings of the Second and Third Century Christians - men like Justin Martyr and Ignatius and Polycarp - in the form of quotes.  The earliest fragment I know of is the Rylands Papyrus Fragment, which dates to about 120 AD.  It's a fairly small scrap that contains six verses from John 18 - what makes it significant is that John was the last of the Gospels composed, written around AD 90-95.  Which means that the Rylands Papyrus is within less than 30 years of the original! (For the record, the earliest known text of Homer's Odyssey dates to about 500 AD or so - that is a gap of 1300 years after the original composition!)
  Many Bible scholars do believe that Mark was the first Gospel written, because it is the briefest (only 16 chapters) and because over 90% of its material is reproduced more or less verbatim by Matthew and Luke.  Thus, many people think they used Mark as a source in composing their own gospels, and therefore, had no actual memories of Jesus that were their own.  This premise ignores one simple fact - all three of these books were written within roughly a decade of each other by men who knew each other!  John Mark was first a traveling companion of Paul, then an interpreter for none other than Simon Peter.  Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and, of course, knew Peter personally.  Luke also traveled with Paul, and, by his own account, interviewed all those "who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word."  If you have time, go back and read the introduction to Luke's Gospel.  These are the words of a conscientious historian who wanted to be sure he got his facts straight!
   However, in your comments above, you did touch on one note worth addressing: the strange end of Mark's gospel.  In the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts, Mark's text cuts off at Chapter 16 verse 8 - after the Angel at the tomb tells the women that Jesus has risen, but before they encounter Him themselves. Some later mauscripts add the "long ending", verses 9 - 20.  This appears to be an abbreviated version of the narratives from Matthew and Luke.  Other texts have a single verse "short ending" which has much less detail, but still describes an appearance by the Risen Christ himself.
The most likely explanation is that, in the original text of Mark's gospel, the ending was lost - perhaps the scroll itself was damaged.  Later copyists tacked on an ending based on Matthew and Luke, in order to fill out the abrupt conclusion.
   At any rate, when you look carefully at all four Gospel accounts, you see four very different perspectives of the same story, but all agree on one account: the man who was crucified appeared again, in a visible and recognizable form.  Luke says he "showed himself alive with many infallible proofs."   But John's account - and remember, he was THERE, and says so ("...this is the disciple who saw these things, and wrote these things . . ." is how his gospel puts it), is perhaps the most conviusive of them all. Thomas, who was not there the first time Jesus appeared, says he will NOT believe until he can "put my hand in the prints of the nails, and where the spear pierced his side." But when he sees the risen Christ, he simply falls to his knees and says "My Lord and My God!"  It is pretty powerful testimony to the remarkable impact the Resurection had on these men.  BTW, there may be some typos in this last paragraph.  A Jack-in-the-box ad is blocking my view of half the screen and won't go away!)

[RCMerchant]

Ok. I kinda ( but not really) joked on this thread earlier. Fact is No one-NO ONE -will will ever know untill we die. We can believe this-we can believe that-but its all speculatative bulls**t. Personally-I follow no religion....because of the simple fact that -Christian-Muslim-whatthef**kism- HATE each other! " IM RIGHT! YOUR WRONG!" f**k it. I think that when I die...I'll know. Why....who cares?  Evoloution? Nah. Dont buy that either. I believe in NOTHING! BUT! I dont deny anything! Who am I to judge? I am happy to be in awe of the univerese....study it...check it out....Ill leave judgements to self important mo mos...I'll just enjoy watching a metor fall...a ghost I seen as a kid...I love life's mystryies. I believe in the mystery....the beauty...of life. I aint gonna argue about it.

[indianasmith]

I wouldn't think of arguing with you, my friend.
But it is a fun and lively debate. 
Nuttin' but love here, man!

[Flick James]

My research matches up with your own in terms of manuscripts. My main issue is that, upon reading the resurrection area of the other three gospels, there is a good deal of variation. Some refer to a man in the tomb (not an Angel, as in Mark), two other refer directly to an angel or angels, and another to two men in the tomb. Another talks about how the Jewish priests were likely to spread a rumor about the disciples stealing the body. In two of the gospels it is said that in risen form he could not even be recognized as Jesus, which is very, very fishy.

My point is that, whatever the level of accuracy of manuscripts to what was originally written by the authors, there are plenty of holes in all of these accounts. A rational mind reading these resurrection passages can easily infer multiple possible explanations, including both miracles and the complete lack of any. Biblical scholars and believers just tend to force all of these accounts into only one possible explanation: Jesus rose from the dead, despite that two of the gospels refer to a man or two men in the tomb, not angels. This is ignored and they are assumed to be angels, mainly because the same biblical scholars say that because the other two refer to angels, then these men must be.

Keep in mind that this a group of people who not only were within a time an culture filled with ritual and religious superstition, but also desperate to prove their claims lest they go down as some of the greatest fools in history. I read all four gospels once, in both NAS and King James versions, without pouring over them in any great detail or doing any extensive research about interpretation, and I was easily able to infer multiple possibilities, using nothing more than my God-given reason. And none of this depends on the level of accuracy of the scriptures.

 Flash forward to the mid 80’s, when I was a Christian. I was attending a mountain Christian retreat with a large youth group. One night during a particularly emotional prayer and worship session, a young girl that I knew about 15 or 16 at the time started writhing and convulsing and her voice started sounding different than usual. Nothing that a human voice couldn’t reproduce, just a different tone than her normal one.

 It was assumed that she was possessed by a demon. She was spirited away by the pastors, and we were told they successfully exercised (sic?) this demon, while the rest of us prayed. At the time, and wanting very much to believe that what I was being told and what I was seeing was what I was being told, I refused to acknowledge what I knew to be the truth. Some of my fellow retreat goers were actually embellishing things that I was there and saw that didn’t happen, and it bothered immensely.
 
A few years later I ran into that girl and we talked over lunch. We talked about that event and she admitted to me that she pretended to be possessed. She said she was young and stupid and wanted attention, and had since been very ashamed she had done it.
 
When I remember that event, and others similar to it but not to that extent, I am reminded that man is a being of imagination, and when placed in an environment where reason and logic are ignored, will believe anything, especially if they are desperate to do so, as the apostles had to have been.

An honest and critical view of any historical text, whether religious or not, is necessary to sift through the untruths communicated to us form the past. The people of history lie to us all the time, because they are never completely truthful in their accounts of what they witnessed, whether spiritual or not, and whether they meant to or not. It’s all part of that imagination of which humans are capable. A critical eye to history must always be applied, for the mere reason that just because Mr. So-and-so from the year umpteen-scruntch wrote down on a piece of papyrus that such-and-such happened, doesn’t make it so just because he took the time to write it down on papyrus. Why should we analyze the Bible differently?

[lester1/2jr]

I once posted in a debate like this here and pointed out this thing, I can't remember who it was


1. God, by definition, if perfect.

2. if something is perfect it must exist.

3. Therefore God  exists.

and people got mad at me.

[indianasmith]

Let's take a different tack . . . if I interview three eyewitnesses of, oh, say, a traffic accident . . . two guys say that the driver, who fled the scene, was "a soldier in uniform" and the other says "he was a guy in khaki" - is that a glaring discrepancy that throws doubt on their whole account?  Or is it the natural variation in description that is an inherent part of eyewitness testimony, as any trial lawyer can tell you?
   If the Gospel accounts were perfect cookie cutter matches for each other, you would be saying, "Oh, they match too perfectly, it's obviously a concocted story!"

   Why would the disciples be "desperate to prove their claims"?  Jesus was dead. The cowards ran out on him when he was arrested . . . all of them but Peter and John, and Peter, the minute he was confronted, swore repeatedly that he never even KNEW that crazy Nazarene!  Suddenly, just a few days later, they are crowing the streets that he is the Resurrected Lord of all Creation?  What did they have to gain?  None of them grew rich, all of them were persecuted, and all but one died for the new faith.  Martyrdom only works when you truly believe.

  The two disciples who did not recognize Jesus were the ones he met on the road to Emmaus.  It is interesting that they spoke to Him on the road, but did not realize who He was till He blessed the bread as they ate.  Maybe he simply had his headscarf pulled up as they walked, and uncovered his face when they were inside?  Doubting who He was would have been the most natural reaction of all - after all, these "primitives" lived with death on a level that we no longer do, and they above all knew that dead people don't get up and walk around!  If you go to the mall and see the face of a deceased friend in the crowd, your immediate reaction is to think you just made a mistake, not to assume the person is somehow resurrected!  So their doubt and failure to recognize Jesus is natural under the circumstances.  And again, he removed that doubt by SHOWING them who He was . . . these weren't fleeting glimpses they shared, but prolonged conversations over a period of 40 days and nights!
   And what about the opposition?  If the disciples were preaching a risen Christ when His body was still in the tomb, then all the Pharisees had to do was drag the moldering corpse through the streets of Jerusalem, and Christianity would have been strangled in its cradle.

[Flick James]

indiana -

I never said that I knew the correct interpretation of the resurrections passages in scripture. What I am saying is that there are some fishy things going on, and not just a little bit.

Why would the disciples be "desperate to prove their claims"?  Jesus was dead. The cowards ran out on him when he was arrested . . . all of them but Peter and John, and Peter, the minute he was confronted, swore repeatedly that he never even KNEW that crazy Nazarene!  Suddenly, just a few days later, they are crowing the streets that he is the Resurrected Lord of all Creation?  What did they have to gain?  None of them grew rich, all of them were persecuted, and all but one died for the new faith.  Martyrdom only works when you truly believe.

Why WOULD'T they be? Religious faith, when strong enough, will drive people to martyrdom. These crazies in the middle east that we call terrorists, to their people are martyrs and heros. There are multiple angles at which you can look at this. I'm not claiming mine is correct, I'm saying that it's more plausible given human nature and the laws of nature and reality. No human in recorded history other than religious text is known to have risen from the dead. The burden of proof is on the believers, not on me. These people had already been humiliated to the point of denying Jesus. Let's assume for a moment that Jesus was not the son of God, nor was able to produce miracles. This is perfectly possible. He would not have been the first person of that period of time to have been an imposter and duped people into believing he had done something miraculous. Now, with him dead and no longer under the scrutiny of having to prove himself with miracles, which he was unable to do throughout the crucifixtion, now they can make up whatever they want. He's no longer around. And, being desperate to give their time with Jesus meaning, and desperate to believe it themselves, they are caught up in a lie.

Again, I am conjecturing here. I admit it freely. The point is we simply don't know the real events as they happened. The events of Jesus' life were small news in the scope of the world at the time they were happening. We would barely even know they happened if they word had not been spread. It's not like the Romans siege of Masada. That was big news and there are multiple historic accounts. Unless you can point me to something I don't know about, from my knowledge there is little to no historical accounts of Jesus that can back up the resurrection story aside from scripture. I'm sorry, but that's not enough.

The two disciples who did not recognize Jesus were the ones he met on the road to Emmaus.  It is interesting that they spoke to Him on the road, but did not realize who He was till He blessed the bread as they ate.  Maybe he simply had his headscarf pulled up as they walked, and uncovered his face when they were inside?  Doubting who He was would have been the most natural reaction of all - after all, these "primitives" lived with death on a level that we no longer do, and they above all knew that dead people don't get up and walk around!  If you go to the mall and see the face of a deceased friend in the crowd, your immediate reaction is to think you just made a mistake, not to assume the person is somehow resurrected!  So their doubt and failure to recognize Jesus is natural under the circumstances.  And again, he removed that doubt by SHOWING them who He was . . . these weren't fleeting glimpses they shared, but prolonged conversations over a period of 40 days and nights!

Maybe. But maybe it was a different man altogether. I attest that both explanations can easily be infered from the passages. Looking at it from a perspective of the laws of nature and of reason, it's clearly not Jesus. Looking at it from a perspective of unquestioning faith, it is Jesus risen.

And what about the opposition?  If the disciples were preaching a risen Christ when His body was still in the tomb, then all the Pharisees had to do was drag the moldering corpse through the streets of Jerusalem, and Christianity would have been strangled in its cradle.

Exactly. All the more reason why taking the corpse out of the tomb would have been necessary to pull such a thing off. Look, I'm not trying to crack a case open here. I'm just saying that this resurrection story is full of holes. Is the story just as Christians say, that Jesus was the son of the God of the Old Testament and that he rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven? Or did Joseph of Arimathea, a great admirer of Jesus who paid for his burial and tomb so something shady and Mary and the others truly believed in what happened? Or were they all in on a hoax? I've certainly been party to enough of religious people stretching reality to fit their beliefs to know that this is certainly possible.

indiana, I know you are a man of faith. I am as well, but of a different ilk. My faith is in the creation. It is here. I can see it. It is miraculous to me. It is enough. In my deistic beliefs, the laws of nature are the laws of God. It is in direct violation of those laws to try and dictate them into things that they do not do, such as turning staves into snakes, a man rising from the dead, or a man walking on water, or any number of other things that might be claimed in the Quran as well. The beauty of deism to me, and why it has given me more peace than anything I have ever believed in the past, is that it cannot be manipulated. It is not subject to any one person or group of people infering miracles out of ancient texts written in times of rampant religious superstition. It stands on it's own and needs only the real and existing wonders of nature and the universe to demonstrate God's power and glory.

And so if you really want me to wax philosophical, there you go. Ultimately, indiana, I am happy and grateful for this discussion, particularly because we have been able to go so far as we have so respectfully. I honestly expected it to get ugly, as it so often has for me with my beliefs, and it hasn't. I appreciate you for that immensely.

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

Flick:
 (I am going to ignore Umaril and AHD's ongoing catfight for the moment)

Uhh, excuse me, Indy.

Aside from my rebuttals at AHD (which you yourself had one aiming at his intellignece and lack of it)  I WAS trying to make a point about God being both Designer AND Creator?

So please read beyond the thing with AHD, and into my other posts (and my support of the thread thru my own individual thoughts on the matter) before relegating everything to a p**sing contest?

And also please realize because my beliefs don't come completely from The Bible, like yours, that I am not rebuking the existence of God in any way shape or form? Thanks...

[indianasmith]

Umaril - Some of your comments have been very intelligent and meaningful, but when you and he get going, the drama becomes somewhat overwhelming . . . no insult to either of you, because I like you both, I just don't care to wade into that particular waterhole.  I wasn't meaning to insult some of your earlier, enjoyable commentary.  And, at the time I wrote that, I was very anxious to get back to the exchange that I was having with Flick, which is one of the better debates I have ever had.

[Allhallowsday]

AH is female   Didn't know that.

Well he acts like a little bi*ch every time he tries (and fails) to get my or Indy's goat.  He constantly tries to start a fight with Indy and I, and he started on me this time. He seriously needs to grow up.

Didn't get "your goat"?  You can keep it; I know you must get lonely nights.  
As for Indy, don't lump him in with your ilk.  So you think it's insulting to refer to me by the female gender?  That old forum troll trick has been tried on me before.  I take referring to me in the feminine gender as a compliment.  

Let me touch on two things in those last two replies -
First of all, Muhammad was born 570 years after Christ.  There is no way he would have known if Christ was resurrected or not from personal experience.  He denied the Resurrection because "Allah" told him it did not happen. He denied that Christ was the Son of God for the same reason.  So, like everything else in Islam, it all boils down to one simple question - did God speak to Muhammad or not?  Muhammad offered no evidence, no miracles, no signs except the Quran itself.  He said its matchless purity was proof of its divine inspiration.  (Yes, there are later stories that Muhammad performed miracles, but those "Hadith" were written down well over 100 years after his lifetime, which is plenty of time for legend and myth to replace factual truth.

Isn't it fair then to suppose the same could be true for Christianity?  Even the greatest Christian thinkers have or will advise that the core of Christianity is Faith.  

As for that unfeathered thingy, it is neither honest nor a thinker.  Some of its commentary is close to what I myself believe.  But then we get into God's "scientific knowledge..."  God as "scientist"?  God created what man studies as "science".   Sometimes words are not necessary, Indy.  Principles are more important.  I will defend myself, but I do not blindly attack and fail to take responsibility for my errors.  Y'know, just sliding by hoping nobody notices the vagaries of my useless remarks.  Rise above, Indy, your rep is suffrin'.    

Umaril - Some of your comments have been very intelligent and meaningful, but when you and he get going, the drama becomes somewhat overwhelming . . . no insult to either of you, because I like you both, I just don't care to wade into that particular waterhole.  I wasn't meaning to insult some of your earlier, enjoyable commentary.  And, at the time I wrote that, I was very anxious to get back to the exchange that I was having with Flick, which is one of the better debates I have ever had.

Oh, and I've posted once before to this thread.  Once.  Wordlessly.  So, don't you lump me in with it either.