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.
Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by bibledefender
I just wrote a long reply, iPad died.... And now nothing. Lol
Gotta love electronics!
My dad was a minister so I know the many stories of the New Testament.
I believe ( not proof though) Jesus spirit ( not body) rose after the third day to people, both believers and non believers.
The proof you speak of are stories though, nothing more.
In a court of law there may be stories that can prove one way or another but scientifically speaking there is zero proof unless you go by accounts of nde or obe or anything else that is considered paranormal and even then cannot prove or disprove Jesus spirit was shown waaaaay back in a day none of us were alive.
My Grandfather came to me after he passed and my proof is through my story of experience. Do you believe me? Would you if more than 500 witnessed such?
There are millions! who claim ET's have abducted them. Do you believe them?
Stories just won't cut it in the scientific world. The ones who say they have been abducted may have proof on their person and even still will be discredited as delusional.
If we go to archeology findings in regards to the tomb they found in recent years, we are still waiting on the DNA evidence for further testing but don't you think if it is Jesus tomb it's odd they found bones in them when it was said to be empty? More findings are sure to come, I believe.
www.time.com...edit on 20-8-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)edit on 20-8-2012 by MamaJ because: SPELLING... ugh
Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender
How can you tell every single person who disagrees with you they have come to a-priori conclusions or are making a-priori statements? Have you even considered you are wrong? Have you even considered anyone to have done more research than you?
I hate to break it to you, but you're not saying anything original. Nothing you can say is going to be original in regards to this subject, unless you have uncovered actual proof (I.e. you've found a body or something), and not just another theory.
I applaud your vigor, I really do, but it seems to me you just want to be "right." you don't want to discuss this at all.edit on 20-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bibledefender
Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender
How can you tell every single person who disagrees with you they have come to a-priori conclusions or are making a-priori statements? Have you even considered you are wrong? Have you even considered anyone to have done more research than you?
I hate to break it to you, but you're not saying anything original. Nothing you can say is going to be original in regards to this subject, unless you have uncovered actual proof (I.e. you've found a body or something), and not just another theory.
I applaud your vigor, I really do, but it seems to me you just want to be "right." you don't want to discuss this at all.edit on 20-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)
I absolutely do consider I may be wrong. That is why I weigh the evidence in question. Jesus never said you have to commit intellectual suicide in order to believe, in fact the opposite.
If you read my posts, I state that it sounds like you are making a-priori statements/conclusions. I say that from experience. Usually, when someone says that there is absolutely NO evidence for the existence of Jesus for example, when it comes time to debate, they fall apart when presented with the evidence. Now that may not be the case here, BUT, like I said, it sounds like it. In fact, I even asked repeatedly if the people making such conclusions if they weighed the evidence that exists.
In our case, I was the only person that wanted to have a real debate on the issue (in an actual debate forum) and I have recently posted yet another request to do so! I was the one that started this thread in the first place. You are the one that pretty much remained silent (oh yeah, you said "prove it") throughout the entire debate. Then tried to have me pretty much censored, then accused me of personal attacks!edit on 21-8-2012 by bibledefender because: (no reason given)
I use this argument because I think it is a good argument and have as yet heard a good refutation of it.
Probable simply means more likely than not. Trying to put a number value on any historical hypothesis is problematic.
However, it fails to account for the disciples' sincere belief that the had physical experiences with a risen Jesus.
It also fails to account for Paul's conversion, as well as James'.
That is why this theory, according to Schweitzer lists no supporters of the fraud theories for over a century since 1778!
The resurrection theory explains all of the facts without having recourse to ad-hoc reasoning.
If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
You seem to be taking the writings of Paul as fact when that is not possible. It is not even certain that half of the writing attributed to Paul was even written by him.
The writings of Paul that describe Jesus are very dubious so I would cast them aside and dismiss them as they cannot be considered reliable evidence.
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
I did say half were disputed so that indicates that half aren't.
How can you be so sure that what Paul wrote was true though, there is no corresponding evidence and common sense, logic and rational thought dictates that it is completely false or at best exaggerated.
Don't you ever feel that you're devoting too much of yourself to very uncertain and dubious writings that go back 2000 years or so.
You seem to forget that 2000 years ago peoples intellect was vastly inferior to ours today. Then why believe that what they wrote is true when there is nothing to back it up?edit on 29-8-2012 by GafferUK1981 because: (no reason given)edit on 29-8-2012 by GafferUK1981 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by bibledefender
Of course their intellect was inferior to ours, look how developed they were and how they lived.
I believe in accumulated knowledge and without doubt we have more now than they did then. We tend to actually live now and prosper, the truth is back then they basically survived and got by.