<<And why are you assuming that the disciples did not lie to save their
lives ?>>
Jim: Because they were not in any danger of death until they began
perpetuating the resurrection story. This led to directly to their deaths.
Why can't you see
this?
And did they know this 'future' ? And did they know how the reaction would
have been to their admission of being a part of a lie ?
<<Wouldn't they ? What would be the alternative ? Divulge the lie of jesus'
resurrection and lose faith, perhaps life and certainly lose a lot of
followers ?>>
Jim: This makes no sense. They had no followers. Their faith would be
pointless if they knew it to be a lie, divulged or not. Again, you are
avoiding the use of
reason. For what purpose?
You have yet to show 1) that they had no followers 2) that their admission
of being part of a lie would not have been detrimental for the religious
beliefs of those told about the coming of their savior. You claim that
they had a certain future of death if they were to talk about the
resurrection, but is that so certain ?
<<How certain was this persecution and death and how certain would if have
been if they had admitted the lie of Jesus' resurrection ?>>
Jim: It was pretty darn certain, since most of them were executed! And if
they
That is after the fact. You have to show that they knew this beforehand
Jim. Logic does not work backwards in time.
Jim: had recanted, they would have lost nothing. The authorities would
have liked nothing better. They could have all gone home and taken up
fishing again. Your objections are not based on the real world.
So you claim but we disagree. I claim that they had far more to lose than
to gain by admitting the lie.
Jim: You contended the same thing could be said of Islam and Hinduism. I
demonstrated that it cannot. Their beginnings were decidedly different.
Pim: I am merely pointing out that there is as much reason to doubt or
belief
other religions as there is to believe or doubt christianity.
Jim: But you haven't supported this contention. You bring up silly
arguments that have no basis in human behavior or reality, and then you
reach this
conclusion. The reason is that you desire to hold this conclusion, no
matter
what the evidence shows. Is this any way to live?
Is the use of proof by assertion a valid form of reasoning ? I realize
that you have to resort to such tactical retreat measures but they do show
more about a lack of logical reasoning. You made a claim without proof to
which I respond, without proof, that there is as much reason to believe or
doubt other religions as well. So now we are left to determine which
religion, if any, is 'correct' ? And this should be done based on
testimony of those who are an intricate part of the religion ? Sort of
circular in its argument. God loves me. How do you know ? He tells me so
in the bible. Jesus was resurrected from the dead. How do you know ? The
bible tells me so.
I guess the bible also tells you about 4 legged grasshoppers, cud chewing
rabbits and a worldwide flood. Are we now to accept the existance of all
three as well ?
Jim: Real world calling: They saw him dead and buried.
Pim: Did they ? How can you be sure ? We are talking about accounts by
those
who believed he was dead.
Oh, so now you're saying Jesus WASN'T really dead so when they said he was
ALIVE it WASN'T really a lie. What theory are you going to stick with? You
are
flying in so many directions a load of logical buckshot can't bring you
back
to earth.
The famous Josephus passage, redacted by scholars to remove alteration,
confirms Jesus lived, and "Upon indictment brought by leading members of
our
society, Pilate sentenced him to the cross..." So no serious scholar
disputes
that Jesus was excecuted by Rome. History tells us Rome was quite
efficient at
executing people. Your objections, once again, are frivolous.
Pim: After all how do we know that there was no collaboration to get
the stories straight ?
Ah, finally, the conspiracy theory! A grand conspiracy to come up with a
solid
story that would get them all beaten and killed! These guys were REALLY
smart!
Pim, don't bother calling Oliver Stone.
Jim