Bible study for the atheist

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So Jesus is tied to the OT by his hands and legs. That is simply how it is. Once the OT goes out of the door, so does his claim for divinity, and the possible resurrection doesn't change that. Because without the OT account, it has no meaning, since the sins that he supposedly died for were committed against YHWH of OT, the "god" of Abraham.

Jesus was born into the world of the OT and had to deal with the OT because it was the prevailing world view among his people. But the resurrection stands on its own. Are you serious in your statement that without the OT a resurrection has no meaning?  A real resurrection means that there is hope of eternal life, irrespective of Jewish messiahs or original sin. It means that someone conquered death, and offers the same hope to us. It doesn't matter that early Jewish Christians interpreted the resurrection in terms of the OT. We are not bound by the OT 2000 years later. But if the resurrection occurred, then we have to deal with what that means, and it means that there is hope for the same thing to happen to us.  To me, that's a hope worth investing in. And if the means to appropriating the reality of resurrection for myself is faith, that's pretty good news.

Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony.  You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.  Take it or leave it.

And gawen's statement that "many people were resurrected" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus' resurrection. It wasn't a resuscitation like that of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter - it was a conquest of death.  So, again, take it or leave it.  But don't misinterpret it.

[history_geek]

So Jesus is tied to the OT by his hands and legs. That is simply how it is. Once the OT goes out of the door, so does his claim for divinity, and the possible resurrection doesn't change that. Because without the OT account, it has no meaning, since the sins that he supposedly died for were committed against YHWH of OT, the "god" of Abraham.

Jesus was born into the world of the OT and had to deal with the OT because it was the prevailing world view among his people. But the resurrection stands on its own. Are you serious in your statement that without the OT a resurrection has no meaning?  A real resurrection means that there is hope of eternal life, irrespective of Jewish messiahs or original sin. It means that someone conquered death, and offers the same hope to us. It doesn't matter that early Jewish Christians interpreted the resurrection in terms of the OT. We are not bound by the OT 2000 years later. But if the resurrection occurred, then we have to deal with what that means, and it means that there is hope for the same thing to happen to us.  To me, that's a hope worth investing in. And if the means to appropriating the reality of resurrection for myself is faith, that's pretty good news.

Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony.  You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.  Take it or leave it.

And gawen's statement that "many people were resurrected" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus' resurrection. It wasn't a resuscitation like that of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter - it was a conquest of death.  So, again, take it or leave it.  But don't misinterpret it.

First of all, yes, I was and am serious when I say that without the OT the death and resurrection of Jesus have no meaning, because it is the will of the OT "god" that this all happens. That is what the scripture says, as far as I can understand it. Without that context, that meaning, his resurrection is no more "special" then those of any other claimed ones.

And as for "evidence of the resurrection", eye witness testimonies are not alone sufficient evidence. As has been many times noted, that also holds true in the court of law, where an eyewitness testimony is considered as the most unreliable pieces of evidence. It this wasn't the case, archaeology might be in trouble every time it brings up other evidence that might contradict these testimonies that until then have been considered as cold hard facts. And as I like to say, only religions sell absolutes. Geology, and all history related fields, are based upon science which doesn't give absolute answers to everything, but gives us the most accurate answers based upon the evidence presented. With noting but religious scriptures to go by, the story of Jesus and his miracle re-birth have very little credibility.

But if we agreed that eyewitness testimonies were sufficient, stand-alone evidence that require nothing else to support them, what about these other guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_god#List_of_life-death-rebirth_deities

Wouldn't it mean that all of these guys are just as true as Jesus, and have just as much claim to divinity? If not, why? And how wouldn't you be playing the favor game , where you ignore the other in favor of one that you want to be true? Besides, there is no method to test personal experiences to verify their accuracy with reality. Well, maybe brain scans, but....

Lastly, I do not consider it "misinterpretation" to disagree with you interpretation, especially when all subjective interpretations are of equal value when it comes to religious scriptures.

[Stevil]

Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony.  You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.  Take it or leave it.

There were no eye witnesses. He was supposedly buried in a tomb and then someone found the tomb empty. So the exciting event was missed.

Historical events have other evidences, birth certificates, death certificates, government records. Some historical events have evidence in the rocks or fossils.
If we are to take knowledge from the account of two eyewitnesses, then we must accept alien abductions, big foot, loch-ness, ghosts, fairies all to be true.

I have read somewhere that there is significantly more evidence for the Roswell incident than there is for the resurrection, hence going by that standard you must accept that aliens crashed at Roswell.

[Gawen]

Lastly, I do not consider it "misinterpretation" to disagree with you interpretation, especially when all subjective interpretations are of equal value when it comes to religious scriptures.

...and religious experiences.

[Gawen]

A real resurrection means that there is hope of eternal life, irrespective of Jewish messiahs or original sin.

A "real" resurrection? And your evidence is that of a person whom never met Jesus except in a vision and another who wrote decades after the event?

It means that someone conquered death, and offers the same hope to us.

Even if one single solitary person was brought back to life after 3 days dead...2000 years ago...what possible difference could it make to anyone, especially since no one has been brought back from death agter being dead 3 days since?

It doesn't matter that early Jewish Christians interpreted the resurrection in terms of the OT. We are not bound by the OT 2000 years later.

I have already explained to you (and others) how wrong you are.

And if the means to appropriating the reality of resurrection for myself is faith, that's pretty good news.

It would seen that for those who have had this faith for the last 2000 years has faith misplaced.

Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony.

And it hasn't gotten anyone very far, has it?

You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.  Take it or leave it.

The evidence is spurious in the case of Paul, who used the early stories to his own greed and theology. John is so far removed from any actual evidence that his mystic Jesus rivals that of astrology.

And gawen's statement that "many people were resurrected" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus' resurrection. It wasn't a resuscitation like that of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter - it was a conquest of death. 

Either a person is dead and resurrected from death or he/she isn't. There is no difference from any of the several resurrections proclaimed in the NT. Either that, or the laws of physics were different around the years 30CE.

[Too Few Lions]

And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.

Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.

No Bruce, I think you're wrong as everyone else on this forum is saying. The point is that Jesus' claim to divinity is that he's the son of Yahweh, the god of the Israelites / Judahites / Jews. Jesus makes it clear in the gospels that the god of the OT is his father. Destroy that god and you destroy Jesus' claims to divinity, Jesus is then just the son of a mythical deity, no different from Heracles.

It also seems to me that right from the beginning, Christians have specifically linked the story of Jesus to the Old Testament, believing Jesus supposedly freed people from the laws of the OT and redeemed the 'original sin' of Adam.

[MadBomr101]

I think it is a very hard read.

The language is aweful, the thou's thy etc
The amount of repetition and the unnecessary babble.

I was in a hotel last week and they had a bible, I had another go at reading it but really only got to page 3 or 4. It is such an awful ready.

"Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
6 And Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.
7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
9 And Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan.
10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters.
11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.
12 And Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel.
13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters.
14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.
15 And Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared."

Isn't this just dull, boring and stupid writing. Who can read through this rubbish?

For reasons I'll never understand, all this bland, witless, dull as dust crapola gives Xians a raging hard-on...spiritually speaking.

[Sandra Craft]

I think it is a very hard read.

The language is aweful, the thou's thy etc
The amount of repetition and the unnecessary babble.

I was in a hotel last week and they had a bible, I had another go at reading it but really only got to page 3 or 4. It is such an awful ready.

"Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. (etc., etc.)

Isn't this just dull, boring and stupid writing. Who can read through this rubbish?

For reasons I'll never understand, all this bland, witless, dull as dust crapola gives Xians a raging hard-on...spiritually speaking.

I've just checked out Asimov's Guide to the Bible from my local library (and nearly wrenched my arm out of its socket carrying both volumes to my car), so I hope in about 3 weeks to have at least some clue.