Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

Seriously? You're going to argue that timeline of a "resurrection"? The Gospels aren't a true crime narrative. I mean, for example, did Jesus actually walk all the "Stations of the Cross"? Who cares? It's all over churches all over the world, depicted in beautiful and horrifying art. It's a social truth, not a fact in evidence. Jesus stands in for a lot of people who were crucified and their grieving families and the leaders of their communities who were cowed into submission.

In a thread in a philosophical forum titled "Is the resurrection of Jesus false?", I'm certainly arguing what is relevant, such as the timeline of the supposed resurrection. Let's be reminded that...

Please note, all the on-topic forums, including the Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology Forum, are for philosophical discussions and philosophical debate. These forums are not for preaching, non-philosophical sermons or making religious or other assertions without providing any argument for them. There is a big different between a philosophy of religion forum versus a religion forum.

If you want to preach and assert your faith instead, fine, but don't ask me to endorse such approach to the topic. There's little truth, few facts, and no evidence regarding the biblical narrative. It is a collection of religious books written by clerics in ancient times to help in their preaching campaigns. They made up things whenever was necessary to support their dogmatic beliefs.

[Count Lucanor]

But it's abundantly clear to anyone willing to listen, that Peter and Paul knew each other.

Well, it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

Paul in his first years as a Christian would necessarily have learned from Peter and others about the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus before he was accepted as the thirteenth apostle. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke chronicles the missionary works of Peter and Paul and notes their meeting at the Council of Jerusalem.

There was an early Christian church that Paul persecuted. Then he got converted from a vision on the road to Damascus, and then wrote his letters 15-20 years after that, not mentioning most of what appears in the gospels some decades later. Paul, the former pharisee, believed in a spiritual resurrection and that's most likely what was believed by the early Christian community.

[Charlemagne]

But it's abundantly clear to anyone willing to listen, that Peter and Paul knew each other.

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

Paul in his first years as a Christian would necessarily have learned from Peter and others about the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus before he was accepted as the thirteenth apostle. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke chronicles the missionary works of Peter and Paul and notes their meeting at the Council of Jerusalem.

There was an early Christian church that Paul persecuted. Then he got converted from a vision on the road to Damascus, and then wrote his letters 15-20 years after that, not mentioning most of what appears in the gospels some decades later. Paul, the former pharisee, believed in a spiritual resurrection and that's most likely what was believed by the early Christian community.

Have you read the Acts of the Apostles by Luke?

There it is recorded that Paul and Peter both attended the Council of Jerusalem and spoke before the council. Are you suggesting that this Peter was not Simon Peter?

[Count Lucanor]

But it's abundantly clear to anyone willing to listen, that Peter and Paul knew each other.

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

Paul in his first years as a Christian would necessarily have learned from Peter and others about the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus before he was accepted as the thirteenth apostle. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke chronicles the missionary works of Peter and Paul and notes their meeting at the Council of Jerusalem.

There was an early Christian church that Paul persecuted. Then he got converted from a vision on the road to Damascus, and then wrote his letters 15-20 years after that, not mentioning most of what appears in the gospels some decades later. Paul, the former pharisee, believed in a spiritual resurrection and that's most likely what was believed by the early Christian community.

Have you read the Acts of the Apostles by Luke?

There it is recorded that Paul and Peter both attended the Council of Jerusalem and spoke before the council. Are you suggesting that this Peter was not Simon Peter?

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

[Charlemagne]

But it's abundantly clear to anyone willing to listen, that Peter and Paul knew each other.

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

Paul in his first years as a Christian would necessarily have learned from Peter and others about the teachings and the resurrection of Jesus before he was accepted as the thirteenth apostle. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke chronicles the missionary works of Peter and Paul and notes their meeting at the Council of Jerusalem.

There was an early Christian church that Paul persecuted. Then he got converted from a vision on the road to Damascus, and then wrote his letters 15-20 years after that, not mentioning most of what appears in the gospels some decades later. Paul, the former pharisee, believed in a spiritual resurrection and that's most likely what was believed by the early Christian community.

Have you read the Acts of the Apostles by Luke?

There it is recorded that Paul and Peter both attended the Council of Jerusalem and spoke before the council. Are you suggesting that this Peter was not Simon Peter?

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

[Count Lucanor]

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

[Dlaw]

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

This strikes me as a very legitimate argument so long as we are discussing the Bible in terms of the bible. If there's a theological question being discussed and the relationships among the Disciples will reveal something or buttress another religious argument then have at it.

But what I think the argument about whether Jesus was resurrected or not sheds no light on anything. In philosophical terms the Resurrection is unfalsifiable and is therefore an extremely weak argument in terms of fact.

As an argument in terms of ethics, morality, cultural history, etc., it's an a very strong argument - when it is debated in terms of the Bible.

[Count Lucanor]

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

This strikes me as a very legitimate argument so long as we are discussing the Bible in terms of the bible. If there's a theological question being discussed and the relationships among the Disciples will reveal something or buttress another religious argument then have at it.

But what I think the argument about whether Jesus was resurrected or not sheds no light on anything. In philosophical terms the Resurrection is unfalsifiable and is therefore an extremely weak argument in terms of fact.

As an argument in terms of ethics, morality, cultural history, etc., it's an a very strong argument - when it is debated in terms of the Bible.

The terms of the Bible are religious indoctrination, dogmas of faith, nothing else. It is not a book about historical facts. Whenever someone asks if an event depicted in that book is true or false, it is like asking if some event in a Marvel movie is true or false. But you can always say: "we can discuss the Marvel movie in terms of the Marvel movie".

[Charlemagne]

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

Well it is abundantly clear that Paul knew a man named Peter, it is not so abundantly clear that it was Simon Peter. It is well know, though, that there was a quarrel between Paul and Peter (Cephas) about church leadership, and that Paul wrote with the specific purpose of affirming his authority.

This strikes me as a very legitimate argument so long as we are discussing the Bible in terms of the bible. If there's a theological question being discussed and the relationships among the Disciples will reveal something or buttress another religious argument then have at it.

But what I think the argument about whether Jesus was resurrected or not sheds no light on anything. In philosophical terms the Resurrection is unfalsifiable and is therefore an extremely weak argument in terms of fact.

As an argument in terms of ethics, morality, cultural history, etc., it's an a very strong argument - when it is debated in terms of the Bible.

The terms of the Bible are religious indoctrination, dogmas of faith, nothing else. It is not a book about historical facts. Whenever someone asks if an event depicted in that book is true or false, it is like asking if some event in a Marvel movie is true or false. But you can always say: "we can discuss the Marvel movie in terms of the Marvel movie".

To dismiss the bible as pure fakery you are not presenting a historical fact, much as you would like it to be so.

[Count Lucanor]

What part of this doesn't answer your question?

This strikes me as a very legitimate argument so long as we are discussing the Bible in terms of the bible. If there's a theological question being discussed and the relationships among the Disciples will reveal something or buttress another religious argument then have at it.

But what I think the argument about whether Jesus was resurrected or not sheds no light on anything. In philosophical terms the Resurrection is unfalsifiable and is therefore an extremely weak argument in terms of fact.

As an argument in terms of ethics, morality, cultural history, etc., it's an a very strong argument - when it is debated in terms of the Bible.

The terms of the Bible are religious indoctrination, dogmas of faith, nothing else. It is not a book about historical facts. Whenever someone asks if an event depicted in that book is true or false, it is like asking if some event in a Marvel movie is true or false. But you can always say: "we can discuss the Marvel movie in terms of the Marvel movie".

To dismiss the bible as pure fakery you are not presenting a historical fact, much as you would like it to be so.

Actually, there's pleny of scholarship on the Bible, enough to put it in the shelf of fiction books. Modern scientific archaeology has also proven beyond doubt that most of the events depicted in it didn't happen and could not have happened. A key part of the biblical narrative, the Exodus, never happened. So, yeah, it can be treated as what it is: a collection of books written by clerics for religious indoctrination.

[Charlemagne]

How is it that anyone living today can prove that the gospels are fiction, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

You can affirm your disbelief in these things, just as the Christian can affirm his belief. But the Christian at least can point to those who witnessed the events described in the gospels. You can call these witnesses liars or mythmakers, but if they were such they made themselves great targets for beheading (Paul) and crucufixion (Peter).

[Count Lucanor]

How is it that anyone living today can prove that the gospels are fiction, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

Actually it takes an incredible amount of gullibility to buy such a fairy tale

You can affirm your disbelief in these things, just as the Christian can affirm his belief. But the Christian at least can point to those who witnessed the events described in the gospels. You can call these witnesses liars or mythmakers, but if they were such they made themselves great targets for beheading (Paul) and crucufixion (Peter).

Christian can not point to any witness. Stories derived from hearsay decades later after the events supposedly happened have little to no credibility.

[Charlemagne]

How is it that anyone living today can prove that the gospels are fiction, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

Actually it takes an incredible amount of gullibility to buy such a fairy tale

You can affirm your disbelief in these things, just as the Christian can affirm his belief. But the Christian at least can point to those who witnessed the events described in the gospels. You can call these witnesses liars or mythmakers, but if they were such they made themselves great targets for beheading (Paul) and crucufixion (Peter).

Christian can not point to any witness. Stories derived from hearsay decades later after the events supposedly happened have little to no credibility.

To an atheist no credibility whatsoever. To billions of Christians, a great deal of credibility. Christianity stands with, or falls without, the Crucifixion story.

[Count Lucanor]

How is it that anyone living today can prove that the gospels are fiction, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

Actually it takes an incredible amount of gullibility to buy such a fairy tale

You can affirm your disbelief in these things, just as the Christian can affirm his belief. But the Christian at least can point to those who witnessed the events described in the gospels. You can call these witnesses liars or mythmakers, but if they were such they made themselves great targets for beheading (Paul) and crucufixion (Peter).

Christian can not point to any witness. Stories derived from hearsay decades later after the events supposedly happened have little to no credibility.

To an atheist no credibility whatsoever. To billions of Christians, a great deal of credibility. Christianity stands with, or falls without, the Crucifixion story.

Actually the crucifixion story is part of a broader narrative in which it connects with other stories, all of which are as incredible as any other religious myth. Most of those stories have been proven to be false. It takes of course a large amount of faith and paralysis of rational thought to buy into these extraordinaire supernatural stories, which don't seem to fade away. And so, Christianity comes along now with belief in other stories such as a good number of ghostly virgins making magical appearances here and there, feeding the religious narrative with new messages. Apparently, The Virgin Mary now has a weekly transmission and she has made up her mind about Ukraine, of all conflicts! No deity will intervene, of course, not even the Mother of the World herself, without enough prayers:

https://www.mensajerosdivinos.org/en/maria/mensajes

[Charlemagne]

The same God who made the laws of nature can suspend them at will.

By rising from the dead, Christ taught us to hope for our own immortal lives with Him, as the apostle Peter tells us in his first epistle.