It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 23
25
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Numerous times. the men with Saul/Paul also heard the voice of Jesus,


No, you haven't read the NT at all.
If you did you would know that
ONE VERSION of the story says the others heard a voice.
ANOTHER VERSION says they did NOT hear a voice.
The THIRD version is slighlty different again.

You've never actually READ the accounts, you just repeated what someone TOLD you.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
and any psychologist will tell you that mass hallucinations are impossible.


Wrong.
Fatima is classicv example.




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And Paul plainly states in HIS epistles that he has just as much authority as Peter and the other 10 apostles because he too was commissioned by Jesus himself.


Yep, Paul says his VISION is just like all the others and makes him just as much an apostle as the others.

Which means they ALL merely had VISIONS like Paul.

That's how Christianity started - people had VISIONS and wrote stories about it.

Jesus Christ was originally merely a vision, a hallucination.


Kap




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
FFS.
The subject was NON-Christian sources for Jesus !
Now you claim Paul was an non Christian source !?
Wake up, Jeff.
Kap
[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]


Jesus showed up to Saul (which he was renamed to Paul). At that time he was a non-Christian when Jesus appeared before him.


So funny !

YOU claimed there were dozens of NON-Christian sources for Jesus.
But when pressed for evidence you come up with ONE FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN !

You just make it up as you go...


Kap



Didn't you get the link for the non-Christian sources?
And could you please in the future stop posting multiple posts to my one posts?

[edit on 6/8/2010 by texastig]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Today, so many Bible cities, names and events have been unearthed through archaeology that the Bible is considered the single most important historical document in existence. Many lost cities have been located using the Bible as a road map."


YAWN.
Places - not events, so what?
Can't you READ ?

"Where archaeology verifies and agrees with the Bible, Christians accept it as true. But what about when archaeology does not agree with the Bible? Is it then archaeology or the Bible that is in error? A case in point is Joshua and the battle of Jericho. "

According to acheologists Jericho did NOT happen as the Bible said.
Fail.


"Many secular archaeologists said the same thing about King David until they found a tablet bearing his name as King of Israel. Thus, up until the tablet was found, archaeology did not support the Bible. But eventually it was proven that God’s Word was true all along. David was a real person who was King of Israel, and scientific “proof” turned out to be false."

Wrong.
The tablet refers to "BWTDWD" which simple means a temple and it's community called "House of the Chief"

In fact - there is NO EVIDENCE for David at all.
And NONE for Solomon.


"Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt."

No evidence there, just PREACHING.



"Do a simple Google search next time you feel like responding."

I DID.
I found you were totally wrong.

So far -
you have NOT CITED ONE SINGLE ACCOUNT in the bible that has been found correct.
NOT.
ONE.


FAIL.


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Are you blind?

You quoted ONE pathetic example -
Jericho.

Which has been shown to NOT have occured as the Bible said - as anyone who actually STUDIES the facts woild know.

Believers PREACH otherwise of course - because all they do is study the bible and each other's preaching.


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
In the old historical world, decades are fine ACCORDING TO CRITICAL SCHOLARS.


WTF is your point !?
That writings from decades later must be true?
What crap.
Fiction and myth is false from the DAY it was written.

You seem to actually be arguing that writings from only decades after must be true - and you ignore the many obvious examples which show this is FALSE.

Were the Greek myths true for the first few decades, then they became false?

Were the Hindu myths true for the first few decades, then they became false?


You keep missing the MAIN POINT :
If Jesus did NOT exist,
there WAS NO "decades" to be fine.




Originally posted by texastig
As for the book of mormon, there is no archaeological evidence for it. But there is for the Bible.


If decades are "fine" like you say, then the Book of Mormon is even more "fine" than the bible - there is as much evidence for both.



Originally posted by texastig
I don't know that much about scientology except that Tom Cruise is in it.


If decades are "fine" as you say, then Scientology is TRUE - as it was only started decades ago.


Originally posted by texastig
I don't have to assume. Josephus wrote about Jesus and one of the world's leading Josephus scholars, Steve Mason said that he would testify in court to the validity of Josephus statement about Christ.


So what?
Many scholars would testify in court that Jesus is a myth !
So bloody what tex?

Josephus is at least a CORRUPTED passage, at worst totally FORGED!

That's your BEST evidence -
a CORRUPT passage from 60 YEARS after the alleged events.


Kap



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Jesus said that, the Ten Commandments do not say that. Either way there isn't a single restriction against pedophilia in the entire book. God must have missed that one


I don't see why your laughing when Jesus was asked, "What is the greatest commandment." See Matt 22:36-39

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
You're fabricating nonsense now. The verse says nothing about them physically threatening Elisha. They were insulting him for being bald, that's what the verse says. Doesn't matter if they were 10, 15, 20 or 45 Elisha summons bears to slaughter them in cold blood for no other reason than he has been insulted and God does nothing to stop it.

I guess you don't know about the history and culture back then.
The harmless "teasing" was hardly that--there was a direct confrontation between the forces of Baal and the prophet of YHWH that had just healed the water supply (casting doubt on the power and beneficence of Baal!). This was a mass demonstration (if 42 were mauled, how many people were in the crowd to begin with? 50? 100? 400?).:
"As Elisha was traveling from Jericho to Bethel several dozen youths (young men, not children) confronted him. Perhaps they were young false prophets of Baal. Their jeering, recorded in the slang of their day, implied that if Elisha were a great prophet of the Lord, as Elijah was, he should go on up into heaven as Elijah reportedly had done. The epithet baldhead may allude to lepers who had to shave their heads and were considered detestable outcasts. Or it may simply have been a form of scorn, for baldness was undesirable (cf. Isa. 3:17, 24). Since it was customary for men to cover their heads, the young men probably could not tell if Elisha was bald or not. They regarded God's prophet with contempt....Elisha then called down a curse on the villains. This cursing stemmed not from Elisha pride but from their disrespect for the Lord as reflected in their treatment of His spokesman (cf. 1:9-14). Again God used wild animals to execute His judgment (cf., e.g., 1 Kings 13:24). That 42 men were mauled by the two bears suggests that a mass demonstration had been organized against God and Elisha." [Bible Knowledge Commentary]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Right but speaking about such things doesn't make them true just like writing them in a book doesn't make them true.

Your the one who said Paul didn't say Jesus was the Messiah when he actually did.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Well the most obvious are the stories in Matthew and Luke about Jesus birth, one says he fled to Egypt for his life and the other claims he just went off to in Nazareth. Matthew and Luke disagree on the timing for the birth of Jesus. While Matthew claims that Herod was in charge and wants Jesus killed Luke claims that Quirinius was Governor of Syria. It is known that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until AFTER the reign of Herod the Great.


The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died nearly ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. According to Raymond E. Brown, most modern historians suggest, that Luke's account is mistaken.[11]

Source
Matthew and Luke again disagree on the subject of Joseph's father. Luke lists his name as Eli while Matthew seems to think he was named Jacob. How could such a mistake occur if the Bible were perfect and inerrant? Why would God allow such if this really were HIS word?

www.christian-thinktank.com...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
What about them? I never claimed that Jesus didn't exist merely that the miracles and supernatural elements are embellishments added to the story. To me those supernatural aspects detract from Jesus's profound message.

Do you believe He was resurrected from the dead?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Right, its accepted that he existed and wrote what is attributed to him... this proves the supernatural stuff how? Just because the man existed doesn't mean he was writing a historical account, he was just as biased belief as all the early Christians.

It proves Jesus rose from the dead.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I debunked Micah 5:2 in my latest post please don't make me repeat myself.

No, you didn't. Micah 5:2 "whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting." Who do you think that is?
www.christian-thinktank.com...

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Isaiah 40:3 - Makes no mention of a Messiah or Jesus and is usually taken as a prophecy about John the Baptist. It doesn't offer any insight as to who it might be talking about and when read in context with the rest of Isaiah 40:3. This is not a Messianic prophecy.

It was never meant to be a prophecy about Christ but it is meant to be a prophecy about the one who would come before Him. It was fulfilled with John the Baptist. Proving the the Bible is the Word of God.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 



I don't see why your laughing when Jesus was asked, "What is the greatest commandment." See Matt 22:36-39


So those are the commandments according to Jesus, I've already explained I think Jesus was much preferable to the barbaric nonsense of the Old Testament. God seems to have had a change of heart, a change of mind and a change in character because he goes from smiting the wicked to forgiving all who believe on Jesus and he goes from a list of 10 that is missing pedophilia and rape to Jesus's love thy neighbor.


Perhaps they were young false prophets of Baal.


Once again you are making up nonsense. I'm well aware that Baal was a competing deity with Yaweh at the time but the verse says nothing about that. What you're doing is making assumptions that justify Elisha's actions - and I really don't think the fact that this gang of youths was a different religion gives Elisha the right to kill them.


This cursing stemmed not from Elisha pride but from their disrespect for the Lord


So someone making fun of someone else's Gods is a better reason to have them brutally killed by bears than someone poking fun at a bald guy? Either reason is petty and stupid and either offense shouldn't even be against the law let alone a capitol offense as Elisha seems to have equated it with.



Your the one who said Paul didn't say Jesus was the Messiah when he actually did.


You must be confused, I never said that. Paul said a lot of things and so did everyone else in the Bible. It being written down doesn't make it true.


Do you believe He was resurrected from the dead?


No, like I said I love Jesus's philosophy but in my opinion the supernatural stuff is all embellishment by early believers. Its possible Jesus did some healing by using the placebo effect or some sort of scam to attract people to follow him or its possible all that supernatural nonsense was added in later. In my opinion the debate over whether he did any of that just detracts from his teachings. People should want to be like Christ regardless of whether he had divine magical power.


No, you didn't. Micah 5:2 "whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting." Who do you think that is?


It could be anyone and THAT is the issue with biblical "prophecy" and all prophecy in general. It is vague as to be entirely useless and open to a myriad of differing interpretations. The verse doesn't mention a Messiah or the TOWN of Bethlehem (it mentions the CLAN of Bethlehem though). If I could render a guess the one who's goings forth are everlasting sounds like GOD.


It was fulfilled with John the Baptist. Proving the the Bible is the Word of God.


Um... No. I've proven here that the Bible is anything but the word of God. Even if I hadn't John the Baptist can't be proven to have existed outside of the Bible. With no evidence that what it says is true early Christians might well have conjured him for exactly the purpose of fulfilling that "prophecy". There's also no mention of a Messiah anywhere and when read in context with the rest of Isaiah 40 there's nothing prophetic or messianic about it.

The Bible is flawed word of flawed men and it shows glaringly and obviously but you have chosen not to see it (or else have been taught not to).



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Numerous times. the men with Saul/Paul also heard the voice of Jesus,


No, you haven't read the NT at all.
If you did you would know that
ONE VERSION of the story says the others heard a voice.
ANOTHER VERSION says they did NOT hear a voice.
The THIRD version is slighlty different again.

You've never actually READ the accounts, you just repeated what someone TOLD you.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
and any psychologist will tell you that mass hallucinations are impossible.


Wrong.
Fatima is classicv example.




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And Paul plainly states in HIS epistles that he has just as much authority as Peter and the other 10 apostles because he too was commissioned by Jesus himself.


Yep, Paul says his VISION is just like all the others and makes him just as much an apostle as the others.

Which means they ALL merely had VISIONS like Paul.

That's how Christianity started - people had VISIONS and wrote stories about it.

Jesus Christ was originally merely a vision, a hallucination.


Kap

A vision, is a personal experience, both visions and hallucinations are person experiences. There is no such thing as mass hallucinations or visions. Two men cannot share the same brain.

And I only read the Authorized Version of the Bible, the KJV. The other versions were perverted by pagans from Alexandria Egypt and contain numerous omissions, contradictions, and errors. I don't even bother with modern translations.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Appeal to numbers fallacy for one, secondly, the Bible is considered even by skeptics as a historical document.
Fail x 2.


(You idiot. YOU said "everyone knows the bible is historical"


Are you smoking crack? Where did I state "everyone knows the Bible is historical"??? That's absurd.



Which is nonsense, and an appeal to numbers.


I know, but where did you get this phantom statement I allegedly made???



You made the fallacy ! Now you pretend it never happened.


Where the hell did I claim "everyone knows the bible is historical"?? LOL



I made that statemement specifically to show the falsehood in your claim.


You quoted ANOTHER member when I replied to you with my statement above. Helloooooo McFly.



Then you dishonestly pretended you never said it.


Okay Sherlock Holmes, copy/paste my claim that "everyone knows the Bible is historical". This is gonna be funny.



Dishonest hypocrisy.)


I think you're on drugs, but I digress.


Completly, totally, 100% wrong.


Yes, you are. I never claimed "everyone knows the bible is historical." You're the only one between the two of us relying on an appeal to numbers fallacy. But yeah, get busy on that copy/paste.


Many sceptics, such as myself, consider the bible a book of fantasy and myths.


And many 6 year old girls believe in Shrek and unicorns, what's your point?


Your claim is simply false.


My claim that YOU imagined? Yes, it's ridiculously false, there is nothing on Earth that everyone agrees upon besides maybe that water is wet.


But you always do that - just say any old crap that supports your faith, you never bother with the actual FACTS.


I've provided many, just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean they weren't provided. Not my problem, nor do I care what you believe or get your panties in a bunch over.



But you think you can say "sceptics believe the bible".


Straw man. I said, "even skeptics agree that the Bible is a historical document." The word "skeptics" means, more than one, PLURAL. But perhaps your infantile reading comprehension will read: "ALL skeptics believe the Bible".. or any variation there of.


What rank idiocy.


I don't know if you truly are an idiot or not, perhaps you read too fast, perhaps you read what you want to believe, perhaps you're simply incapable of debating without the aid of logical fallacies. Who knows, but more importantly, who cares?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
Didn't you get the link for the non-Christian sources?


Didn't you read my post?

Here it is again -

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.

...



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
...

TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.




Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
A vision, is a personal experience, both visions and hallucinations are person experiences. There is no such thing as mass hallucinations or visions. Two men cannot share the same brain.


There ARE such things as mass hallucinations,
and I gave you a perfect example - Fatima.

There are many such examples in religious history.

But you simply ignored the key fact and kept right on preaching...


Kap



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
WTF is your point !?
That writings from decades later must be true?
What crap.


Kapyong. I'm only going to say this once. Please quit cussing. I never cussed at you and what your doing is disrespectful. If we can't have a normal debate without your colorful metaphors then our conversation is over. Respect is the key.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
A vision, is a personal experience, both visions and hallucinations are person experiences. There is no such thing as mass hallucinations or visions. Two men cannot share the same brain.


There ARE such things as mass hallucinations,
and I gave you a perfect example - Fatima.

There are many such examples in religious history.

But you simply ignored the key fact and kept right on preaching...


Kap



A few documented examples are listed here...

Mass Hysteria



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
A vision, is a personal experience, both visions and hallucinations are person experiences. There is no such thing as mass hallucinations or visions. Two men cannot share the same brain.


There ARE such things as mass hallucinations,
and I gave you a perfect example - Fatima.

There are many such examples in religious history.

But you simply ignored the key fact and kept right on preaching...


Kap



A few documented examples are listed here...

Mass Hysteria


I never claimed mass HYSTERIA was not possible, that's simply "PANIC".

/facepalm



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
A vision, is a personal experience, both visions and hallucinations are person experiences. There is no such thing as mass hallucinations or visions. Two men cannot share the same brain.


There ARE such things as mass hallucinations,
and I gave you a perfect example - Fatima.

There are many such examples in religious history.

But you simply ignored the key fact and kept right on preaching...


Kap

EPIC FAIL yet again. *ROFLcopter*

"Critiques of the Hallucination Hypotheses

While recent hallucination theories reveal some differences among them, there are more similarities. We will begin our critiques by evaluating the possibility of group hallucinations. Next, we will look at the conversion disorder thesis proposed by Kent and Goulder. Then we will examine additional problems with these subjective explanations of Jesus’ resurrection.



Collective Hallucinations

One of the central issues in this entire discussion concerns whether a group of people can witness the same hallucination. Most psychologists dispute that possibility. A rare attempt suggesting that collective hallucinations are possible, without any application to Jesus’ resurrection, is made by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones. They point to phenomena such as claimed sightings of the Virgin Mary and other accompanying reports from groups of people. In cases such as these, “expectation” and “emotional excitement” are “a prerequisite for collective hallucinations.” In such groups, we see the “emotional contagion that so often takes place in crowds moved by strong emotions.…”25



The idea of collective hallucinations, however, is highly problematic on several grounds:



1. The chief examples of “collective hallucinations” provided by Zusne and Jones were religious group experiences such as with Marian apparitions. These examples simply beg the question whether such experiences could possibly be objective, or even supernatural, at least in some sense. In other words, why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed?26 This approach seems to rule out the apparitions in an a priori manner, before the data are considered.



2. Furthermore, the collective hallucination thesis is unfalsifiable. It could be applied to purely natural, group sightings, simply calling them group hallucinations, too. Concerning this thesis, crucial epistemic criteria seem to be missing. It can be used to explain (away) almost any unusual occurrence. How do we determine normal occurrences from group hallucinations?



3. Even if it could be established that groups of people experienced hallucinations, it does not mean that these experiences were therefore collective. If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception? Rather, it is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions — perceptual misinterpretations of actual realities27 — or individual hallucinations.



Moreover, the most serious problems result from comparing this thesis to the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Here, the explanatory power of this hypothesis is severely challenged, since much of the data not only differs from, but actually contradicts, the necessary conditions for “collective hallucinations.”



4. For instance (more examples will follow below), Zusne and Jones argue that “expectation” and “emotional excitement” are “prerequisites” before such group experiences can occur. In fact, expectation “plays the coordinating role”;28 but these necessary elements contradict the emotional state of the early witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. The early believers were confronted with the utter reality of the recent and unexpected death of their best friend, whom they had hoped would rescue Israel. As those events unfolded in a whirlwind of incidents that included Jesus’ physical beatings, crucifixion, and seeming abandonment, the normal response would have been fear, disillusionment, and depression. To suppose that these believers exhibited “expectation” and “emotional excitement” in the face of these stark circumstances would require responses on their part that would scarcely be exhibited at a funeral! All indications are that Jesus’ disciples exhibited the very opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones assert as being necessary for such hallucinations.



By comparison, the disciples’ experience was totally unlike those cases where pilgrims expressly traveled long distances, exuberantly gathering with the explicit desire to see something special, as in the Marian cases. There would seem to be extremely meager grounds for comparison here with Jesus’ disciples.29



Many other crucial problems plague the thesis of group hallucinations, and we will pursue several more below. For now, we repeat that Zusne and Jones never even attempt to apply their approach to Jesus’ resurrection. Rather, they incredibly close their examination with the admission that group hallucinations have a “dubious status” because it is not possible to ascertain whether these individuals were actually hallucinating!30"


LINK

The ONLY time secular Psychologists think a collective hallucination is even remotely POSSIBLE is when they are trying to explain miracles by naturalistic means Kapyong. When the "hallucination" has nothing whatsoever to do with the supernatural they will emphatically state that collective subjective hallucinations are impossible.

You get a D- for effort, try again.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig

Originally posted by Kapyong
WTF is your point !?
That writings from decades later must be true?
What crap.


Kapyong. I'm only going to say this once. Please quit cussing. I never cussed at you and what your doing is disrespectful. If we can't have a normal debate without your colorful metaphors then our conversation is over. Respect is the key.
I wonder if Kapyong believes in Alexander the Great, considering the only historical writing we have that he existed were written 400 years after his death.

By those standards he should dogmatically state that Alexander the Great did not exist.

lololololololol



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 




Kapyong. I'm only going to say this once. Please quit cussing


Agreed. Both sides need to keep this civil. I think we should all be mature enough to have this discussion without insults or harsh language (even if its abbreviated harsh language
)



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Are you blind?


You quoted ONE pathetic example -
Jericho.

Which has been shown to NOT have occured as the Bible said - as anyone who actually STUDIES the facts woild know.

Believers PREACH otherwise of course - because all they do is study the bible and each other's preaching.


Kap



I linked SEVERAL (layman's terms = more than one/singular) sources, all several paragraphs in length...
hence the question;

"ARE YOU BLIND?"

[edit on 9-6-2010 by NOTurTypical]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join