Jesus, without sin and a perfect human being ?

by smiddy3 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Sea Breeze

  pistolpete,

  What is a plausible scenario that would cause tens of thousands of hard-core orthodox Jews to stop making Saturday their day of rest and worship and change it to Sunday... right in their holy city of Jerusalem? And, be willing to suffer shunning and their own death to do so?

  "Deluded"? I'm sorry, but your one-word answer doesn't sound convincing

  Do you know how many WOMEN, CHILDREN, are willing to strap a bomb on themselves and blow themselves up along with the infidels because they have FAITH they are doing the right thing.

  You are making my point here. There is a huge religious, societal, familial, and social construct apparatus that makes it possible to understand how some muslims could get to the point that you describe.

  Where was all that for Jews? Indeed they had all that, but it was all for making Saturday their holy-day. Then, with ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THAT in place, suddenly tens of thousands of orthodox Jews make Sunday their day of worship in honor of Jesus resurrection.
  
  Your answer just isn't plausible.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  EverApostate

  A flock of people making some amendments in their worship practices doesn’t prove the occurrence of a miracle.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  True EV,

  But, we are talking about plausibility here, a best explanation. PP proffers "delusion" without providing any apparatus, religious, educational, social or familial that could account for his proposed delusion of tens of thousands in the heart of Judaism - Jerusalem.
• 

  pistolpete

  What is a plausible scenario that would cause tens of thousands of hard-core orthodox Jews to stop making Saturday their day of rest and worship and change it to Sunday... right in their holy city of Jerusalem?-------------------------

  suddenly tens of thousands of orthodox Jews make Sunday their day of worship in honor of Jesus resurrection.

  SB, this argument is one of the most basic arguments I was taught in College when I was in the debate team.

  It's called;-----Argumentum ad Populum

  Also known as 'appealing to the people', this fallacy presumes that a

  "proposition must be true because most/many believe it to be true."

  Example;

  Everyone drives over the speed limit, so it should not be against the law.

  Just because a LOT OF PEOPLE do something, it does not make it the right thing to do.
• 

  EverApostate

  I agree 100% on pistolpete

  A Billion people in India are Hindus. Does that make that religion true. Nope IMHO
• 

  Sea Breeze

  PP,
  
  We are not trying to determine an "ought" here. There is no moral dilemma. We are dealing with historical facts and trying to determine causal plausibility.

  So far, you haven't offered anything that would account for even one of the historical facts established by the majority of scholars, secular or otherwise. There are 11 others to sort through.
  

  In the absence of any plausible deniability, some people are going to conclude that the reason tens of thousands of orthodox Jews went against all religious, familial, social, educational and penal constructs, at great personal cost, is because Jesus really was raised from the dead.

  Whatever a man says who has walked out of a tomb, is not easily dismissed.
• 

  Fadeaway1962

  https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/

  Is there any eyewitness of this Jesus outside of the Bible ?
• 

  pistolpete

  We are dealing with historical facts and trying to determine causal plausibility. So far, you haven't offered anything that would account for even one of the historical facts established by the majority of scholars

  No SB, I am dealing with historical and you are dealing with Faith. And there is a Big difference.

  A “Historian is not interested in what is possible, a Historian is interested in what is likely.

  The person of “Faith is interested is what is possible but not very likely.

  Historical Truth for us living today is different from Historical Truth from those living some 2000 years ago.

  Our idea of Historical Truth means “An Accumulation of Empirical—Verifiable -----FACTS.

  For the “Ancient Mind” in particular the early Christians, History was NOT ABOUT UNCOVERING FACTS. It was about revealing truths. “The stories that they crafted about Jesus, and the issue of Historical truth was irrelevant to the larger purpose of these stories, which was to declare something that is true about Jesus, like Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus was of the linage of King David, that Jesus was the son of god, etc.”

  The Gospels were not Historical Documents in the way that we living today view historical documents.

  They were testimonies of faith, written by communities of faith. In other words the writers “Already Believed Jesus was the Messiah, or the Son of God. So when they Wrote the Gospels---IT WAS TO PROVE THEIR BELIEF.

  It was biased writing of belief.

  Thus the Gospels of Jesus were “An Argument-----NOT A WORK OF HISTORY.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  pistolpete,

  Let me just say that I appreciate many of your posts and look forward to what you have to say most of the time in agreement. This of course is an exception. I still appreciate you even though we are at odds on this issue.

  No SB, I am dealing with historical and you are dealing with Faith.

  Earlier you assumed that the "minimum facts" were historical. It seems that you no longer believe that being "deluded" is an adequate explanation for the events described. I agree with you. Finding plausible explanations for the "12 minimum facts" is not so easily achieved.
  
  Are you now suggesting that the minimum facts that skeptic and other scholars agree are the minimum agreed upon facts surrounding the events of the Resurrection are no longer historical?

  I believe that it takes more faith to believe in the one-word explanation you provided (deluded) for what can only be described as astounding: (the sudden embracement of Sunday as a day of rest and worship among thousands of orthodox Jews)...

  without providing for any apparatus, religious, educational, social or familial impetus that could account for this proposed delusion right in the heart of Judaism. That takes a lot of faith to believe that. And, you have 11 more facts to try to explain away! Will you present any facts to explain those? Or, will you continue to rely upon faith in your "deluded" explanation? If so, I think you are much more of a man of faith than I am.

  Is there any eyewitness of this Jesus outside of the Bible ?

  Many of the eye witnesses became Christians and their writings became part of the bible. Even the harshest skeptic scholars will allow 6 or 7 of the NT books of the bible as genuine. Even if you disallow everything the skeptic scholars want, the best explanation is still that Jesus was raised from the dead using only the materials they allow.

  ---

  There are also non-biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus. But, even the biggest atheist scholars use parts of the bible as history. So, to ignore ANYTHING written in the bible is not in line with modern scholarship.
  
  Here is a good written purvue of the data: https://reasonsforjesus.com/risen-historical-evidence-jesus-rose-dead/

  Here is a lecture at the University of California Santa Barbara where Dr. Habermas masterfully lays out the facts.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0O4bHuQmX8&ab_channel=ScottishIndependence
• 

  waton

  I have it on good read, that the supernatural, if any, has a capital J in it. but

  I would think that to mean Joseph, a story with no metaphysical, 'beyond -natural-laws' happenings in it.