First of all, I wouldn’t give Unk the satisfaction of visiting his blog.
Secondly, I’m more than a little confused that such monumental events occurred as a Roman General’s daughter rising from the dead, in addition to Lazarus and finally, Yeshua, that it didn’t make the evening news until 40 years later! “This just in! Forty years ago, the son of a god was raised from the dead! WTF!? Who gave me this copy? He’s fired! Go to commercial —“
Ark brings up a VERY interesting point which I too would love to see UnkleE address:
The overwhelming majority of archaeologists believe that the Hebrew Patriarchs did not exist; there was no mass Hebrew slavery in Egypt; no 40 years in the Sinai; no Hebrew Conquest of Canaan; no great empires of the Biblical David and Solomon.
If we trust what the “majority of experts say”, as UnkleE has encouraged us to do regarding the Gospels and the alleged empty tomb, then we would also believe the following:
1. The Abrahamic covenant is a fiction.
2. The Passover is a fiction.
3. The giving of the Law at Sinai is a fiction.
4. Moses is a fiction.
5. If Moses is a fiction, then the first five books of the Old Testament are fiction.
6. If the first five books of the OT are fiction: There was no Adam and Eve; there was no Garden; there was no Fall.
If there was no Fall. Men do not need a Savior.
And worse for Christians: Jesus believed all these events happened. He was wrong. Jesus made some whopper mistakes. This is proof that Jesus was not an all-knowing god. Therefore he was not the god of the OT.
So if Jesus is not the God of the OT but just an ordinary man who falls for ancient legends and tall tales what does that say about the claim that he rose from the dead?
Like Arch, unkleE’s blog is not one that I visit, but Ark’s comment intrigued me. As I skimmed through the nonsense, I came to the “Conclusion” and almost had to laugh. His points …
1. “At the very least we may recognise that it isn’t silly to believe that Jesus was resurrected.” Really? Just because the founder of the Secular Web site for the Internet Infidels concluded that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection … ??? This is a point of reason?
2. “The greatest challenge to the New Testament accounts of the resurrection can be satisfactorily answered.” Again, because John Wenham (?), an Anglican Bible scholar, concludes that ” plausible harmonisation is possible” … ??? I daresay a few individuals would disagree with Mr. Wenham (and unkleE).
3. “[A]nyone who believes in Jesus and his God should have no difficulty in accepting that God miraculously raised Jesus.” Well, I should say so! I mean isn’t this the whole idea of Christianity? So what else is new? What about the rest of us?
4. “Thus christians have good evidence for their belief, and the evidence is challenging to non-believers.” Ain’t that the truth?
Here is the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus that I have seen given by Christians:
1. Eyewitness testimony in the four Gospels.
2. Paul saw a walking/talking resurrected Jesus.
3. The dramatic change in character of the disciples.
4. The disciples would not have died for a lie.
5. The rapid spread of Christianity, facing intense persecution, is evidence of the truth of its supernatural claims.
Here is my brief response to each one of these points:
1. We have no proof that the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They are anonymous. The traditional authorship of these books does not appear in Christian writings until the end of the second century. Could a fisherman, a tax collector, and a physician have written these theologically complex texts? Yes. The probability that they did? Very, very low.
2. In Acts chapter 26 Paul specifically states that his experience on the Damascus Road was a “heavenly vision”. Visions are not reality. Yes, Paul says in I Corinthians 15 that he had “seen the Christ” but he clarifies in Acts chapter 26 that it was only in a vision. Seeing someone in a vision is not evidence of a bodily resurrection.
3. Yes, Christians soon came to earnestly believe in the Resurrection and boldly spread Jesus’ teachings. But there are many natural explanations for this change in behavior than that a dead man actually walked out of his grave. For instance, a group of the disciples could have seen a man in the distance who looked a lot like Jesus and suddenly that man disappears behind a building, hill, etc.. “He’s alive! Jesus is risen!” And the Resurrection legend begins. This scenario is much more probable than that Jesus really did rise again. So no one lied. No one fabricated the story. The disciples truly believed that Jesus was alive again. And the “full” story is not written down until 65-75 AD by “Mark”. Legends can easily develop within days, let alone decades as in this case. For all we know, every member of the original Eleven disciples could be dead by 65 AD. Who then would still be alive to refute the claims of “Mark”?
4. We have no historical evidence that even one disciple died refusing to recant seeing a resurrected Jesus. All the martyr stories about the Eleven are based solely on tradition. Yes, Josephus records that Jesus brother, James, was killed. But the question is: for what? Millions of people have been executed for being members of new, radical religious sects. That doesn’t prove that their beliefs are true.
5. Yes, Christianity spread, but so did Mormonism and Islam. Christians were not systematically persecuted until after most of the original disciples would have died of old age.
Ark brings up a VERY interesting point which I too would love to see UnkleE address:
Believe me, this ”horse” has been flogged so much the animal cruelty league, the local knacker’s yard and even the choir invisible gave up waiting for an honest answer.
Remember, to the True Believer, Yahweh is their by word for ”integrity”
At least Christian fundamentalists will simply say, “God ‘poofed” it. There is no need for evidence.”
Moderate and liberal Christians will twist themselves into pretzels to explain all the holes in their belief system. One of the most absurd to me is how many moderate Christians are now saying that Noah’s flood was a regional flood only. It did not cover Mt. Everest by “22 cubits”, just the tallest hills in the Euphrates River Valley?
So “earth” doesn’t mean “earth”???
Oh, that’s right. I forgot. Christians are experts in ancient Hebrew and Greek. In these particular verses, you silly skeptics, we should translate the word “earth/world” as referring only to the dirt of the Euphrates River Valley.
So dear Christians: May we also interpret John 3:16 in the same way:
“For God so loved the Euphrates River Valley, that he gave his only Begotten Son, that whoso ever in the Euphrates River Valley (only) who believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life”???
“For instance, a group of the disciples could have seen a man in the distance who looked a lot like Jesus and suddenly that man disappears behind a building, hill, etc.. ‘He’s alive! Jesus is risen!’ And the Resurrection legend begins.”
Mark, 16:12 – “After that (after Mary M told the disciples about the empty tomb) he (Jesus) appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
16:13 – “And they went out and told it unto the residue (the rest): neither believed they them.””
Luke, 24:11 – the women tell the apostles they saw Jesus – “And their words seem to them (the apostles) as idle tales, and they believed them not.”
Luke 24:15 – “And it came to pass, that, while they (Cleopas and an unnamed friend) communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
24:16 – “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.”
24:17-31 – The rest of the story, where he walks home with them, sits down for a meal, breaks the bread, and suddenly their eyes are un-“holden” and they recognize him, at which time he promptly vanishes. Later that evening (Luke 24:33 -51) he transports into a room with all eleven, has a bite to eat, then walks them out toward Bethany, when he suddenly levitates into the sky.
In John, Mary M stoops down and looks into the tomb where Jesus was laid and sees and chats with angels, then turns to leave —
John 20:14 – “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus
John 24:15 – “Jesus said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? who seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardner….” And the story continues – 20:19-29, where Jesus teleports into a closed room and chats with the eleven on two separate occasions, even offering to allow his wounds to be touched.
Which I find especially interesting, in that in John 20:17, when Mary M’s eyes were un-“holden,” and she recognized him, he told her not to touch him: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethern, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
So somehow, between 20:17 and 20:29, he became touchable. I had always wondered if he was trying to say that he wasn’t entirely solid at this point, which then gave me cause to wonder, if that were the case, why was it necessary for the stone to be rolled away? Couldn’t he have just oozed through the cracks? How much more credible to have rolled back the stone and found the tomb empty, than to have found it empty AFTER the stone had been rolled away?
And how many times did he actually ascend? Did he ascend (John) between 20:17, chatting with Mary M, and popping into the closed room to offer the apostles a chance to poke around in his body parts? Did he ascend again (Mark, 16:19) from within the closed room, or go outside (Luke, 24:50), on the way to Bethany, to ascend?
Quite interestingly, “Matthew” has no ascension story, so we can safely assume from that Gospel, that Yeshua is still out there wandering around somewhere.
Note that on two occasions, Mark, 16:13 and Luke, 24:11 – these apostles, who walked all over Judea (allegedly) with Jesus, who (allegedly) watched him perform miracles, walk on water, and when asked, “Who do you say I am?” proclaimed their belief that he was the Messiah, and the son of Yahewh, when told that he had risen from the dead, didn’t believe him.
“Note that on two occasions, Mark, 16:13 and Luke, 24:11 – these apostles, who walked all over Judea (allegedly) with Jesus, who (allegedly) watched him perform miracles, walk on water, and when asked, “Who do you say I am?” proclaimed their belief that he was the Messiah, and the son of Yahewh, when told that he had risen from the dead, didn’t believe him.
This is because the Christian god loves to play hide and seek with his little creation creatures. Instead of flashing a massive message in the sky, or putting a gigantic, neon billboard on the moon to announce the Resurrection of the Son of God…Jesus (the Christian god) disguises himself so that even the people who lived with him night and day for three years, don’t recognize him.
If you are a loving, benevolent god, and you know that the overwhelming majority of mankind is going to die and go to Hell because they have not “believed” in you, would you really play hide and seek with them or would you do EVERYTHING you could to let them know that you are here on earth and ready and eager to save them from eternal torment??
It’s such a load of crap, it is amazing that those of us who have escaped this cult did not see it earlier, and amazing that intelligent people like UnkleE, Crown, Brandon still don’t see it.
“Jesus (the Christian god) disguises himself so that even the people who lived with him night and day for three years, don’t recognize him.”
Still, there’s something to be said for that. If you could change your appearance at will, wouldn’t you be tempted to sneak into the girl’s shower after a college basketball game?
It’s such a load of crap, it is amazing that those of us who have escaped this cult did not see it earlier, and amazing that intelligent people like UnkleE, Crown, Brandon still don’t see it.
Actually what is amazing is that such people are given free reign/allowed to wheedle their piss-poor arguments onto blog forums as if what they are punting is real, as if the characters and events they wish to discuss have any historical veracity.
This is a serious problem for those who understand that what these idiots are peddling is garbage for by allowing it they are playing the game according to this indoctrinated, delusional minority.
It is like listening to a William Lane Craig debate.
And if you know anything about the way Craig sets up his debates you will see a similar pattern in the way the likes of unklee approach such issues.
Already the question concerning Moses has drifted away. Will he or any other ”enlightened” chriatian address it?
Doubtful.
You can’t expect a rabid dog to play fetch so why on earth would one expect to have a genuine conversation with the likes of Brandon and Unklee?
They must be obliged to meet criteria set by those who demand the answers to their pathetic drivel, and not allow it to sink to the level they want.
While the likes of unklee wave his consensus of scholars regarding the veracity of Jesus of Nowhere
one will always be chasing one’s tail.
His attitude toward the Exodus and Moses are glaring examples of the hypocrisy and blatant ignorance of such people that refuse to come to terms with what evidence is screaming.
And to allow someone as obviously mentally unstable as Brandon any leeway is potentially dangerous.
It is sometimes difficult to know which type of believer is worse. Unklee, for example, has no desire whatsoever to consider non belief and one entertains his ilk at one’s own risk.
Ark I find your comment, especially on Brandon and Unklee to resonate with my feelings about them. There is no honest conversation to be had with them. They wear an air of intellectualism but spread the same nonsense their grandparents believed without question while all the time claiming we have scholars to back us up and no time ever giving what their opinion is on a given question.
It gives them opportunities to wave away any direct questions about their childish beliefs and I honestly can’t stand it.
I am with you Nate. I actually would add that I think too go the other extreme of fundamentalism is almost fundamentalist atheism itself. If you think that you are right about atheism and everyone else needs to be an atheist and think like you. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance of everyone becoming more educated and if that happened on its own eventually due to education than fine. I also understand the argument that if those who are not fundamentalists spoke out it might help stop the fundamentalists, but they already are speaking out. Speaking out about murdering people, forcing people to live a certain way, etc but not speaking out about people believing in God at all or believing in things that don’t hurt anyone or don’t require anything being forced on anyone else unwillingly.
People might always believe in God, and I personally have always tried to keep an open mind. I have watched people 100 percent sure they were right about Christianity, who are now 100 percent sure they are right about atheism. There are certain things I am sure about now because I have facts and proof but when it comes to the things I don’t, I try to keep a very open mind. Unfortunately some don’t and want to live in denial. If it makes them happy as long as it does not hurt someone else, that is their right. I do feel a little sorry for them but maybe they will come around one day, but they won’t by force.
I disagree, Agremillion. The sooner the belief in the supernatural loses any social respectability, the better for all humanity.
I believe that UnkleE has this as his agenda here: He knows he is not going to convince any of us to return to Christianity, but by his appeals to the consensus of the “majority of experts” he wants us to concede that believing that a first century dead man rose from the dead and is now King of the Universe is reasonable and an intellectually intelligent and respectable position in 21st century western society.
UnkleE is trying to give a modern facade of rationality to an irrational, ancient superstition
I personally do not think we should let him or any other theist get away with it.
If we do, we are complicit in the superstitious brainwashing of yet another generation of Christian children. These children deserve to know the truth and deserve a worldview based on reason and science, not a worldview based on the whims of invisible gods and devils.
“Would you willingly lie to your children?” asks Rabbi Adam Chalom, Ph.D. “Would you say this is what happened when you know this is not what happened? There’s an ethical question there.” The lie Rabbi Chalom is referring to is the continued maintenance of the popular belief that the Jewish foundation narrative detailed in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) chronicles actual historical events, when in fact it’s been known among biblical archaeologists for nearly three generations that the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) and the Deuteronomistic History of the Nevi’im (including the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel) are no more a literal account of the early history of the Jewish people than J. R. R. Tolkien’s, The Lord of the Rings, is a literal account of World War I.”
Through the exhaustive efforts of biblical archaeologists and scholars we know today that the Jewish origin narrative contained in the Pentateuch is nothing but a geopolitical work of fiction—inventive myth—conceived of in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, and written to place Judah at the centre of the Jewish world so as to capitalise on a weakened Mamlekhet (Kingdom) Yisra’el after its sacking in 722 BCE.”
Several times prior to the initial stages of my deconversion from Christianity, reality would briefly poke its head into my supernatural, superstitious Christian worldview, in particular, during events involving the indoctrination of my very young children with Christian teachings.
One day I and my six year old and my four year old were driving in the car listening to a Christian audiotape of Old Testament stories. This one was on the Flood. After listening for a while, my little children interrupted me and asked, “Why did God drown all the people?”
“They were evil and sinful,” I explained confidently. “They were so evil that God had to punish them severely.”
“But did God drown all the little children too? What did they do? Why did God drown the little children?”
I had no answer.
My childrens’ innocent, unbrainwashed brains could not comprehend how a “good” God would drown little children. It rattled me. But my indoctrinated, brainwashed mind soon rationalized it away…as much as I could…and I then tried to forget about it.
personally do not think we should let him or any other theist get away with it.
If we do, we are complicit in the superstitious brainwashing of yet another generation of Christian children. These children deserve to know the truth and deserve a worldview based on reason and science, not a worldview based on the whims of invisible gods and devils.
Thank you! This is exactly why the likes of unklee should never be allowed to get away with his brand of insidious god-belief.
I have asked him once if he would tolerate his grandchildren being taught Creationism and he said no, so why must anyone be taught that there is enough intellectual evidence to conclude that Jesus likely rose from the dead?
Such a preposterous attitude is hypocritical and disingenuous in the extreme.
“…what is amazing is that such people are given free reign/allowed to wheedle their piss-poor arguments onto blog forums as if what they are punting is real….” – What’s really frightening, is that idiots just like that are running most of our world’s governments.
“…believing in things that don’t hurt anyone or don’t require anything being forced on anyone else unwillingly” – I don’t know what country you’re from Agremillion, but here in the States, legislators all over the country are trying to get bills passed that would allow religion to be taught in the public schools, to get a voucher program passed to get the Federal government to fund private, religious schools. That may not be “force” with a bullet, but it’s manipulating the law to force religion down the throats of children.
Finding Truth 
First of all, I wouldn’t give Unk the satisfaction of visiting his blog.
Secondly, I’m more than a little confused that such monumental events occurred as a Roman General’s daughter rising from the dead, in addition to Lazarus and finally, Yeshua, that it didn’t make the evening news until 40 years later! “This just in! Forty years ago, the son of a god was raised from the dead! WTF!? Who gave me this copy? He’s fired! Go to commercial —“
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ark brings up a VERY interesting point which I too would love to see UnkleE address:
The overwhelming majority of archaeologists believe that the Hebrew Patriarchs did not exist; there was no mass Hebrew slavery in Egypt; no 40 years in the Sinai; no Hebrew Conquest of Canaan; no great empires of the Biblical David and Solomon.
If we trust what the “majority of experts say”, as UnkleE has encouraged us to do regarding the Gospels and the alleged empty tomb, then we would also believe the following:
1. The Abrahamic covenant is a fiction.
2. The Passover is a fiction.
3. The giving of the Law at Sinai is a fiction.
4. Moses is a fiction.
5. If Moses is a fiction, then the first five books of the Old Testament are fiction.
6. If the first five books of the OT are fiction: There was no Adam and Eve; there was no Garden; there was no Fall.
If there was no Fall. Men do not need a Savior.
And worse for Christians: Jesus believed all these events happened. He was wrong. Jesus made some whopper mistakes. This is proof that Jesus was not an all-knowing god. Therefore he was not the god of the OT.
So if Jesus is not the God of the OT but just an ordinary man who falls for ancient legends and tall tales what does that say about the claim that he rose from the dead?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Like Arch, unkleE’s blog is not one that I visit, but Ark’s comment intrigued me. As I skimmed through the nonsense, I came to the “Conclusion” and almost had to laugh. His points …
1. “At the very least we may recognise that it isn’t silly to believe that Jesus was resurrected.” Really? Just because the founder of the Secular Web site for the Internet Infidels concluded that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection … ??? This is a point of reason?
2. “The greatest challenge to the New Testament accounts of the resurrection can be satisfactorily answered.” Again, because John Wenham (?), an Anglican Bible scholar, concludes that ” plausible harmonisation is possible” … ??? I daresay a few individuals would disagree with Mr. Wenham (and unkleE).
3. “[A]nyone who believes in Jesus and his God should have no difficulty in accepting that God miraculously raised Jesus.” Well, I should say so! I mean isn’t this the whole idea of Christianity? So what else is new? What about the rest of us?
4. “Thus christians have good evidence for their belief, and the evidence is challenging to non-believers.” Ain’t that the truth?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Here is the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus that I have seen given by Christians:
1. Eyewitness testimony in the four Gospels.
2. Paul saw a walking/talking resurrected Jesus.
3. The dramatic change in character of the disciples.
4. The disciples would not have died for a lie.
5. The rapid spread of Christianity, facing intense persecution, is evidence of the truth of its supernatural claims.
Here is my brief response to each one of these points:
1. We have no proof that the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They are anonymous. The traditional authorship of these books does not appear in Christian writings until the end of the second century. Could a fisherman, a tax collector, and a physician have written these theologically complex texts? Yes. The probability that they did? Very, very low.
2. In Acts chapter 26 Paul specifically states that his experience on the Damascus Road was a “heavenly vision”. Visions are not reality. Yes, Paul says in I Corinthians 15 that he had “seen the Christ” but he clarifies in Acts chapter 26 that it was only in a vision. Seeing someone in a vision is not evidence of a bodily resurrection.
3. Yes, Christians soon came to earnestly believe in the Resurrection and boldly spread Jesus’ teachings. But there are many natural explanations for this change in behavior than that a dead man actually walked out of his grave. For instance, a group of the disciples could have seen a man in the distance who looked a lot like Jesus and suddenly that man disappears behind a building, hill, etc.. “He’s alive! Jesus is risen!” And the Resurrection legend begins. This scenario is much more probable than that Jesus really did rise again. So no one lied. No one fabricated the story. The disciples truly believed that Jesus was alive again. And the “full” story is not written down until 65-75 AD by “Mark”. Legends can easily develop within days, let alone decades as in this case. For all we know, every member of the original Eleven disciples could be dead by 65 AD. Who then would still be alive to refute the claims of “Mark”?
4. We have no historical evidence that even one disciple died refusing to recant seeing a resurrected Jesus. All the martyr stories about the Eleven are based solely on tradition. Yes, Josephus records that Jesus brother, James, was killed. But the question is: for what? Millions of people have been executed for being members of new, radical religious sects. That doesn’t prove that their beliefs are true.
5. Yes, Christianity spread, but so did Mormonism and Islam. Christians were not systematically persecuted until after most of the original disciples would have died of old age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Believe me, this ”horse” has been flogged so much the animal cruelty league, the local knacker’s yard and even the choir invisible gave up waiting for an honest answer.
Remember, to the True Believer, Yahweh is their by word for ”integrity”
LikeLiked by 1 person
At least Christian fundamentalists will simply say, “God ‘poofed” it. There is no need for evidence.”
Moderate and liberal Christians will twist themselves into pretzels to explain all the holes in their belief system. One of the most absurd to me is how many moderate Christians are now saying that Noah’s flood was a regional flood only. It did not cover Mt. Everest by “22 cubits”, just the tallest hills in the Euphrates River Valley?
So “earth” doesn’t mean “earth”???
Oh, that’s right. I forgot. Christians are experts in ancient Hebrew and Greek. In these particular verses, you silly skeptics, we should translate the word “earth/world” as referring only to the dirt of the Euphrates River Valley.
So dear Christians: May we also interpret John 3:16 in the same way:
“For God so loved the Euphrates River Valley, that he gave his only Begotten Son, that whoso ever in the Euphrates River Valley (only) who believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life”???
LikeLiked by 1 person
“For instance, a group of the disciples could have seen a man in the distance who looked a lot like Jesus and suddenly that man disappears behind a building, hill, etc.. ‘He’s alive! Jesus is risen!’ And the Resurrection legend begins.”
Mark, 16:12 – “After that (after Mary M told the disciples about the empty tomb) he (Jesus) appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
16:13 – “And they went out and told it unto the residue (the rest): neither believed they them.””
Luke, 24:11 – the women tell the apostles they saw Jesus – “And their words seem to them (the apostles) as idle tales, and they believed them not.”
Luke 24:15 – “And it came to pass, that, while they (Cleopas and an unnamed friend) communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
24:16 – “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.”
24:17-31 – The rest of the story, where he walks home with them, sits down for a meal, breaks the bread, and suddenly their eyes are un-“holden” and they recognize him, at which time he promptly vanishes. Later that evening (Luke 24:33 -51) he transports into a room with all eleven, has a bite to eat, then walks them out toward Bethany, when he suddenly levitates into the sky.
In John, Mary M stoops down and looks into the tomb where Jesus was laid and sees and chats with angels, then turns to leave —
John 20:14 – “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus
John 24:15 – “Jesus said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? who seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardner….” And the story continues – 20:19-29, where Jesus teleports into a closed room and chats with the eleven on two separate occasions, even offering to allow his wounds to be touched.
Which I find especially interesting, in that in John 20:17, when Mary M’s eyes were un-“holden,” and she recognized him, he told her not to touch him: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethern, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
So somehow, between 20:17 and 20:29, he became touchable. I had always wondered if he was trying to say that he wasn’t entirely solid at this point, which then gave me cause to wonder, if that were the case, why was it necessary for the stone to be rolled away? Couldn’t he have just oozed through the cracks? How much more credible to have rolled back the stone and found the tomb empty, than to have found it empty AFTER the stone had been rolled away?
And how many times did he actually ascend? Did he ascend (John) between 20:17, chatting with Mary M, and popping into the closed room to offer the apostles a chance to poke around in his body parts? Did he ascend again (Mark, 16:19) from within the closed room, or go outside (Luke, 24:50), on the way to Bethany, to ascend?
Quite interestingly, “Matthew” has no ascension story, so we can safely assume from that Gospel, that Yeshua is still out there wandering around somewhere.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Note that on two occasions, Mark, 16:13 and Luke, 24:11 – these apostles, who walked all over Judea (allegedly) with Jesus, who (allegedly) watched him perform miracles, walk on water, and when asked, “Who do you say I am?” proclaimed their belief that he was the Messiah, and the son of Yahewh, when told that he had risen from the dead, didn’t believe him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
subbing
LikeLike
“Note that on two occasions, Mark, 16:13 and Luke, 24:11 – these apostles, who walked all over Judea (allegedly) with Jesus, who (allegedly) watched him perform miracles, walk on water, and when asked, “Who do you say I am?” proclaimed their belief that he was the Messiah, and the son of Yahewh, when told that he had risen from the dead, didn’t believe him.
This is because the Christian god loves to play hide and seek with his little creation creatures. Instead of flashing a massive message in the sky, or putting a gigantic, neon billboard on the moon to announce the Resurrection of the Son of God…Jesus (the Christian god) disguises himself so that even the people who lived with him night and day for three years, don’t recognize him.
If you are a loving, benevolent god, and you know that the overwhelming majority of mankind is going to die and go to Hell because they have not “believed” in you, would you really play hide and seek with them or would you do EVERYTHING you could to let them know that you are here on earth and ready and eager to save them from eternal torment??
It’s such a load of crap, it is amazing that those of us who have escaped this cult did not see it earlier, and amazing that intelligent people like UnkleE, Crown, Brandon still don’t see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Jesus (the Christian god) disguises himself so that even the people who lived with him night and day for three years, don’t recognize him.”
Still, there’s something to be said for that. If you could change your appearance at will, wouldn’t you be tempted to sneak into the girl’s shower after a college basketball game?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arch, did your adult blow-up doll spring a leak?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope, still fully-functioning, but who opens a box of chocolates and just eats the caramels?
LikeLiked by 1 person
is there an APB for Jesus arch? Someone should at least know where the fellow is hiding
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually what is amazing is that such people are given free reign/allowed to wheedle their piss-poor arguments onto blog forums as if what they are punting is real, as if the characters and events they wish to discuss have any historical veracity.
This is a serious problem for those who understand that what these idiots are peddling is garbage for by allowing it they are playing the game according to this indoctrinated, delusional minority.
It is like listening to a William Lane Craig debate.
And if you know anything about the way Craig sets up his debates you will see a similar pattern in the way the likes of unklee approach such issues.
Already the question concerning Moses has drifted away. Will he or any other ”enlightened” chriatian address it?
Doubtful.
You can’t expect a rabid dog to play fetch so why on earth would one expect to have a genuine conversation with the likes of Brandon and Unklee?
They must be obliged to meet criteria set by those who demand the answers to their pathetic drivel, and not allow it to sink to the level they want.
While the likes of unklee wave his consensus of scholars regarding the veracity of Jesus of Nowhere
one will always be chasing one’s tail.
His attitude toward the Exodus and Moses are glaring examples of the hypocrisy and blatant ignorance of such people that refuse to come to terms with what evidence is screaming.
And to allow someone as obviously mentally unstable as Brandon any leeway is potentially dangerous.
It is sometimes difficult to know which type of believer is worse. Unklee, for example, has no desire whatsoever to consider non belief and one entertains his ilk at one’s own risk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark I find your comment, especially on Brandon and Unklee to resonate with my feelings about them. There is no honest conversation to be had with them. They wear an air of intellectualism but spread the same nonsense their grandparents believed without question while all the time claiming we have scholars to back us up and no time ever giving what their opinion is on a given question.
It gives them opportunities to wave away any direct questions about their childish beliefs and I honestly can’t stand it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am with you Nate. I actually would add that I think too go the other extreme of fundamentalism is almost fundamentalist atheism itself. If you think that you are right about atheism and everyone else needs to be an atheist and think like you. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance of everyone becoming more educated and if that happened on its own eventually due to education than fine. I also understand the argument that if those who are not fundamentalists spoke out it might help stop the fundamentalists, but they already are speaking out. Speaking out about murdering people, forcing people to live a certain way, etc but not speaking out about people believing in God at all or believing in things that don’t hurt anyone or don’t require anything being forced on anyone else unwillingly.
People might always believe in God, and I personally have always tried to keep an open mind. I have watched people 100 percent sure they were right about Christianity, who are now 100 percent sure they are right about atheism. There are certain things I am sure about now because I have facts and proof but when it comes to the things I don’t, I try to keep a very open mind. Unfortunately some don’t and want to live in denial. If it makes them happy as long as it does not hurt someone else, that is their right. I do feel a little sorry for them but maybe they will come around one day, but they won’t by force.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I disagree, Agremillion. The sooner the belief in the supernatural loses any social respectability, the better for all humanity.
I believe that UnkleE has this as his agenda here: He knows he is not going to convince any of us to return to Christianity, but by his appeals to the consensus of the “majority of experts” he wants us to concede that believing that a first century dead man rose from the dead and is now King of the Universe is reasonable and an intellectually intelligent and respectable position in 21st century western society.
UnkleE is trying to give a modern facade of rationality to an irrational, ancient superstition
I personally do not think we should let him or any other theist get away with it.
If we do, we are complicit in the superstitious brainwashing of yet another generation of Christian children. These children deserve to know the truth and deserve a worldview based on reason and science, not a worldview based on the whims of invisible gods and devils.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John Zande — https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/of-course-what-you-say-is-true-but-we-should-not-say-it-publically-13/
LikeLike
Speaking of Christian children…
Several times prior to the initial stages of my deconversion from Christianity, reality would briefly poke its head into my supernatural, superstitious Christian worldview, in particular, during events involving the indoctrination of my very young children with Christian teachings.
One day I and my six year old and my four year old were driving in the car listening to a Christian audiotape of Old Testament stories. This one was on the Flood. After listening for a while, my little children interrupted me and asked, “Why did God drown all the people?”
“They were evil and sinful,” I explained confidently. “They were so evil that God had to punish them severely.”
“But did God drown all the little children too? What did they do? Why did God drown the little children?”
I had no answer.
My childrens’ innocent, unbrainwashed brains could not comprehend how a “good” God would drown little children. It rattled me. But my indoctrinated, brainwashed mind soon rationalized it away…as much as I could…and I then tried to forget about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you! This is exactly why the likes of unklee should never be allowed to get away with his brand of insidious god-belief.
I have asked him once if he would tolerate his grandchildren being taught Creationism and he said no, so why must anyone be taught that there is enough intellectual evidence to conclude that Jesus likely rose from the dead?
Such a preposterous attitude is hypocritical and disingenuous in the extreme.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, thanks for sharing that story about your children.
LikeLike
“…what is amazing is that such people are given free reign/allowed to wheedle their piss-poor arguments onto blog forums as if what they are punting is real….” – What’s really frightening, is that idiots just like that are running most of our world’s governments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…believing in things that don’t hurt anyone or don’t require anything being forced on anyone else unwillingly” – I don’t know what country you’re from Agremillion, but here in the States, legislators all over the country are trying to get bills passed that would allow religion to be taught in the public schools, to get a voucher program passed to get the Federal government to fund private, religious schools. That may not be “force” with a bullet, but it’s manipulating the law to force religion down the throats of children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
don’t forget passing “religious freedom” laws which allow people to discriminate against others based on their fairy tale.
LikeLiked by 2 people