Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Rosscoe]

OK, so "dead" doesn't mean what you said it means. "Dead" can also mean "not dead"?

Yes Jesus redefined death.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yes Jesus redefined death.

So you’re having a bet each way. “Dead” means dead except when it means not dead?

It’s a pretty important word in human discourse, so I think it’s crucial we establish what it means.

 

[Rosscoe]

So you’re having a bet each way. “Dead” means dead except when it means not dead?

It’s a pretty important word in human discourse, so I think it’s crucial we establish what it means.

When your phone dies; is it really dead?

 

[Opine]

Much of the indirect evidence been made up by the Church. The passages like Great Commission and 'let the one without sin cast the first stone' were outright forgeries. When Arianism and Gnosticism was gaining momentum it was necessarily to turn Jesus into God or risk losing ground to paganism and Judaism.

You ever heard of the Gospel of Judas? Basically Jesus tells Judas to betray him so that he can actually be the guy who does the thing. Unfortunately the only copy that's ever been found has only partially survived.

The basic idea was that Judas knew the truth, and the others believed more what current Christians do, so Jesus went to Judas when he needed someone to make sure he was killed so prophesies could be completed.

The point was more that Judas wasn't betraying him, but was his one follower who really understood.

As interesting as this is, it’s little more than possibility. Without more, it’s certainly not enough to substantiate what you’ve contended above.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

When your phone dies; is it really dead?

No.

But I'm a little more exacting when it comes to human life and death.

So we've established your definition of a human being "dead" can also mean "not dead".

My definition is absolute. If you're dead, you're dead.

If you "rise from the dead", you clearly weren't ever dead, if language is to have any use at all.

Are all you Christians' word meanings so vague, or just the important ones?

 

[Boston tiger]

Once again.

When claims are made to truth without supporting evidence on a public forum, (which is effectively proselytizing), then those claims will be challenged.



Too late for what?



Errr....yes. So?



Those making claims to truth and wishing to convince people of the correctness of their position do need to provide at least some supporting evidence.

What you are saying is for Roy to believe 2000 years later is that he needs extraordinary evidence because it’s an extraordinary claim.
Obviously those that were there were witness to the only extraordinary evidence available in those times and that was Jesus stood in front of them . Extraordinary evidence indeed. Jesus appeared to Peter Jesus appeared to Mary. People wrote about this etc
Roy now wants extraordinary evidence from 2000 years ago. He needs something like picture of Jesus talking to Mary with the date putting them both after the crucifixion. It’s not going to happen and Jesus knew this .
Fortunately Roy he has left us with Holy Spirit . Let the Holy Spirit into your heart and you won’t need that Polaroid snap of Jesus talking to Mary. It that simple and beautiful.

 

[Opine]

And on your other point, Western democracies haven’t just accepted Christianity, the two have been symbiotically related for millennia. But democracy is not the fixed monolith you presume it to be. We live in a pluralistic society, another inevitable outcome of Western democracy, and Christianity no longer has the only mic.

Dawkins observes contrasting trends between secularist structure founded on plural belief system v that of Christian State; he reckons that the former inexplicably moves towards religion, while the latter moves away. It’ll be interesting to see whether AU breaks that trend. I dare say it’ll bother the earthly hell out of you if it doesn’t.

 

[Total Power]

As interesting as this is, it’s little more than possibility. Without more, it’s certainly not enough to substantiate what you’ve contended above.

I have over 1,000 posts in this thread, i will dig up my older posts when i have time but i have extensively posted about this before, from how the resurrection story evolved from Mark to Matthew to finally John even to Catholic church admitting to fabrications.

 

[Opine]

I have over 1,000 posts in this thread, i will dig up my older posts when i have time but i have extensively posted about this before, from how the resurrection story evolved from Mark to Matthew to finally John even.

I think it’s an interesting thesis. I’ve no doubt that you’ve mounted a well researched and arguable case.

 

[Roylion]

They have 2000 odd years on their side.

The length of time that a belief system has lasted is not a presumption of truth.

The worship of the sun god Ra from the Second Dynasty (c. 2890 – c. 2686 BC) onwards to well into the 4th century AD doesn't imply that Ra is a real deity or the stories that grew up around that god were actually true.

 

[Roylion]

There’s also indirect evidence;

And what "indirect evidence" are you referring to?

 

[Opine]

And what "indirect evidence" are you referring to?

I think the burden falls on you to identify the relevant circumstancial obstacles to your contention; which by the way seems firmly atheist, not agnostic as I think you’ve written.

 

[Opine]

I have over 1,000 posts in this thread, i will dig up my older posts when i have time but i have extensively posted about this before, from how the resurrection story evolved from Mark to Matthew to finally John even to Catholic church admitting to fabrications.

Is it primarily your research thesis?

 

[Total Power]

Is it primarily your research thesis?

No, i have an interest in all religions, i can go on about Buddhism for hours as i can do about Islam. My interest in religion came from experience in meditation, i i was an atheist before that. I am not preaching anything btw...i can only speak about my experiences, although i know meditative monks who are 100 times better than me with experiences far greater than mine. My attempt to decode religion came from the archetypes i seen during meditative state.

 

[Roylion]

Obviously those that were there were witness to the only extraordinary evidence available in those times and that was Jesus stood in front of them .

And that seems to be not the case at all.

Here's how it very likely was without all the fictitious supernatural additions to present Jesus as the messiah and the morrtal son of God.

A Yeshua ben-Yosef in Roman Judea who was some sort of seer / teacher very possibly lived sometime in Roman Judea before AD 40 and was perhaps was arrested for blasphemy and sedition, and was subsequently executed.

Certainly by the time the Gospels came to be written, the writers of the Gospels took pains to interpret Jesus through the Jewish scriptures: indeed they presented Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish scriptures. In the opening verse, Mark wrote: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it in written in the prophets."

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

Who "Mark" might have been is essentially unknown, but the two main candidates in the Early Christian tradition were:
- John Mark: the companion of Peter
- Mark the cousin of Barnabas

According to Eusebius the Church historian (AD 260–340), Papias claimed that John “the Elder” (believed to be the apostle John) told him (Papias) that John Mark had written it. So....

• Eusebius (fourth century) tells us that
• Papias (first–second century) said that
• John the Elder told Papias that
• Mark wrote this gospel based on
• The Apostle Peter’s reminiscences

Unfortunately none of Papias's writings have survived and indeed what is known of his writings are recorded in the later "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus in about AD 180 and much later by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" finished about AD 324. It was in fact Eusebius who wrote that Papias wrote the following "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered." However the consensus is that this is not historically accurate.

The early Church fathers weren't beyond altering or bending the evidence to suit their own doctrine.

One of them even says that it was his duty to do so, to convince the unbelievers or enemies of the truth of their message.

The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written anywhere from AD 80 – 145 and originated in in Antioch and was clearly wqritten after Mark's and further embellished. The Gospel of Matthew was largely written to present Jesus's ministry as largely the fulfilment of messianic prophecies from Isaiah and to a lesser extent other Biblical prophets and is part of the process to transform Jesus from executed criminal to divine Messiah and to base it in a solid foundation in existing Jewish and Greek doctrine.

Matthew includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses with further additions. Now we have a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb (Mark), an angel - blazing like lightning - descended from the sky and paralysed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single-handedly before several witnesses - and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Not to mention the rising of the saints who rose from their graves and walked around the city at the time of the crucifixion. All new.

Nowhere does the author of Matthew claim to have been an eyewitness to events, which seems strange if the author was the apostle Matthew.

Then “the Gospel according to Luke” appears. Most experts date the composition of Luke (and Acts of the Apostles which is generally believed to be written by the same author as Luke) to around AD 80-90, although some suggest AD 90-110 . There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century and the supernatural aspects are greatly enhanced from Mark and Matthe.. Suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic re-enactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself. As happened from Mark to Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, who became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.

Matthew and Luke both use the virgin birth (or more accurately the divine conception that precedes it) to mark the moment when Jesus becomes the Son of God. Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14 to support his narrative, but scholars agree that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah, almah, signifies a girl of childbearing age without reference to virginity, and was aimed at Isaiah's own immediate circumstances. The earlier Mark, dating from around AD 70, has no birth story and states that Jesus's mother had no belief in her son as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. This in itself places considerable doubt on the story. Then even later John never mentions it. And neither does Paul.

Finally along comes the Gospel of John. John is usually dated to AD 90–110, so after Luke, most likely written in AD 80-90, 40-60 years after the events it purports to describe.. By now the legend has grown considerably, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. John now has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes considerable license to make up quite a few details. To reinforce that notion the story of the raising of Lazarus was added, a totally new 'miracle.'

The number 7 features also prominently. Seven signs. Seven "I am" discourses. Jesus does not work "miracles", but "signs" which unveil his divine identity. John also contains metaphorical stories or allegories rather than parables. As history or the recording of an actual event its is virtually worthless. What it does show is how Christians of the early 2nd century were beginning to view Jesus.

Even Clement of Alexandria implied that the Gospel of John should not be taken as a literal biography.

By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified the author of the Gospel with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship, are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".

So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” he/they lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and had a completely different level of education. It certainlu cannot have been the apostle John and was thus certainly not an eyewitness to any of the purported miracles including the resurrection.

The 'Gospel according to John' also appears to have been composed in two or three stages. The earliest surviving New Testament manuscript with parts of what appear to be from the Gospel according to John is a Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Egypt in 1920.

While “the Gospel according to John” identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", the text does not actually name this disciple. By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland list the probable date for this manuscript as c. AD. 125, indicating that at least one stage of John was in existence at this time.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered". So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and with a completely different level of education and cannot have been the apostle John.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear that the consensus is that none of the authors of the Gospels, whoever they were, were eyewitnesses of the events they described and they were writing at the very least forty odd years after said events.

So the Gospels were clearly written to push an agenda that Jesus was supposedly the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize. As Ive said the character and many of the deeds of Jesus are effectively a theological and literary construct. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. W.D. Davies and E.P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus' early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could

It was quite common for books to be written anonymously in antiquity than it is today. Just within the pages of the New Testament alone, nine of the books – fully one third of the writings – were produced by authors who did not reveal their names. When the early church fathers were deciding what books to include in “Scripture” however it was necessary to "know" who wrote the books since only writings with clear apostolic connections could be considered authoritative Scripture.

Just to give a simple example, in the third and fourth centuries there was a book in circulation called "Against All Heresies", which we still have today and which gives a description of thirty-two individuals or groups which held beliefs that the anonymous author considered false. One of the great "heresy hunters" of the early Christian centuries was Tertullian from the early third century. Some readers of Against All Heresies” came to think that even though the book was anonymous, it must have been written by him. So scribes who copied the book identified Tertullian as the author and the book was added to the collection of Tertullian’s works, even though it never claims to be written by him. Modern scholars are convinced on stylistic grounds that Tertullian did not write the book. Some have argued that "Against All Heresies", was written by an unknown author some seventy years earlier in Greek rather than Tertullian’s Latin so the book we now have is a translation into Latin of an originally anonymous work.

Why be anonymous? In some instances an ancient author did not need to name himself because his readers knew perfectly well who he was and did not need to be told. This is almost certainly the case with 2 and 3 John. These were private letters sent from someone who called himself "the elder" to a church in another location.

Some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman for example, have argued the Gospels were like that – written by leading persons in congregations who did not need to identify themselves because everyone knew who they were. But then as books and writings were copied and circulated, names were still not attached to them. As a result the identities of the original author (or authors) were soon lost. And importantly in support of this the Church fathers writing in the second century AD allude to or quote from the Gospels but do not name them. Justin Martyr, writing about AD 150-160, quotes verses from the Gospels but does not indicate what the Gospels were called. For him the books are collectively known as the “Memoirs of the Gospels”.

As I said earlier, the first reference gospel being assigned to “Mark” and “Matthew" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340). Irenaeus, another church father, also assigned names to them in his work "Against Heresies" written sometime between AD 174 and 189, approximately one hundred years after the gospels had gone into circulation. At one point in his writing he insists that “heretics” (false teachers) have gone astray because they use Gospels that are not real Gospels or because they use one or the other of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the Gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be only four gospels and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Eusebius:

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

The point is that there were many "gospels" in circulation at the time. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were "legitimate". For orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that has apostolic authority behind them – either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who spoke with his authority. So the Church fathers ascribed the chosen manuscripts they regarded as canonical to apostles or close companions of Church figures.

The actual writers of the Gospel are unknown....i.e. 'anonymous'. and in any case they are not historical works. The Jesus of the Gospels is a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure, whose earthly remains quite likely to this day lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem.

Roy now wants extraordinary evidence from 2000 years ago. He needs something like picture of Jesus talking to Mary with the date putting them both after the crucifixion. It’s not going to happen and Jesus knew this .

See above.

Fortunately Roy he has left us with Holy Spirit . Let the Holy Spirit into your heart and you won’t need that Polaroid snap of Jesus talking to Mary. It that simple and beautiful.

That is just another unsubstianted claim.

 

[Total Power]

What you are saying is for Roy to believe 2000 years later is that he needs extraordinary evidence because it’s an extraordinary claim.
Obviously those that were there were witness to the only extraordinary evidence available in those times and that was Jesus stood in front of them . Extraordinary evidence indeed. Jesus appeared to Peter Jesus appeared to Mary. People wrote about this etc
Roy now wants extraordinary evidence from 2000 years ago. He needs something like picture of Jesus talking to Mary with the date putting them both after the crucifixion. It’s not going to happen and Jesus knew this .
Fortunately Roy he has left us with Holy Spirit . Let the Holy Spirit into your heart and you won’t need that Polaroid snap of Jesus talking to Mary. It that simple and beautiful.

You realise Bible mentions that resurrected Jesus wasn't immediately recognized by Mary and other disciples in three different incidents, even noting that he appeared in a different form.

Imo the church's portrayal of the resurrection takes these events out of context. A spiritual resurrection in the form of visions and through the flesh of other people if you will, not Jesus' physical being back to life.

Think about what the reaction would be from the authorities if this story was actually widespread directly after the execution. What would they have thought? Would they have felt shaken and afraid? No - they would have assumed that the execution had been botched.

Also BT they would have hauled in for questioning all of the christians they could find. No record of that, though, even in Acts and other religious writings, let alone in the contemporary secular records.

And if they brought them in and they all said something about the empty tomb, what then? Well, then the authorities would assume the christians stole the body - a capital crime in the roman empire. So once again, haul all the christians in and get to the bottom of it.

None of it happened.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It’ll be interesting to see whether AU breaks that trend. I dare say it’ll bother the earthly hell out of you if it doesn’t.

Spare us the barracking.

 

[Rosscoe]

No.

But I'm a little more exacting when it comes to human life and death.

So we've established your definition of a human being "dead" can also mean "not dead".

My definition is absolute. If you're dead, you're dead.

If you "rise from the dead", you clearly weren't ever dead, if language is to have any use at all.

Are all you Christians' word meanings so vague, or just the important ones?

There were plenty of people that witnessed the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.

I am sure when someone is sentenced to the death penalty; they make sure the person is dead. I do not believe that soldiers who were that brutal; do not know how to carry out a death penalty especially in front of an audience.

You are free to believe what you want though.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There were plenty of people that witnessed the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.

I am sure when someone is sentenced to the death penalty; they make sure the person is dead. I do not believe that soldiers who were that brutal; do not know how to carry out a death penalty especially in front of an audience.

You are free to believe what you want though.

So now “dead” does mean “dead”.

But only a few posts back you were telling me “dead” can also mean “not dead”.

Worryingly inconsistent, to say the least.

What other words do you Christians change the meaning of as the mood suits you?

 

[Roylion]

There were plenty of people that witnessed the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.

But no eyewitnesses that wrote anything down.

I am sure when someone is sentenced to the death penalty; they make sure the person is dead.

Crucifixion was of course a long drawn out execution. According to the Gospels (Mark says he was crucified at 9 (at the third hour of the day) and died at 3 pm (on the 9th hour of the day). John 19.26 says Jesus was still before Pilate on the sixth hour of the day.

There are a few problems with the Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion when supposedly there were eyewitnesses.

Mark mentions a three hour period of darkness in the daytime during Jesus' crucifixion, and the Temple veil being torn in two when Jesus dies. Luke follows Mark; as does Matthew, additionally mentioning an earthquake (there was a 6.3 magnitiude earthquake between AD 26-36) and the resurrection of dead saints. No mention of any of these appears in John.

According to John 19:31, the Jews asked Pontius Pilate to send a centurion to break the legs of Jesus and the two thieves crucified with him so the three of them could die and be entombed before the Sabbath began. Pilate granting their request is equally odd. Since the Romans used crucifixion to intimidate their subjects, isn't it logical that Pilate would say "no" and allow the bodies to remain on their crosses at a time that Jewish law would have required them to be wrapped and entombed? If this was a request normally granted to the Jews on the Sabbath, why would the Romans schedule these crucifixions mere hours before the Sabbath began? Wouldn't they wait until the Sabbath was over and then crucify Jesus and the two thieves?

The three hours of darkness is interesting too. It can't have been a solar eclipse because Passover is celebrated around the time of a full Moon, whereas solar eclipses only occur at the time of a new Moon. Solar eclipses also do not last three hours. And most of all, not a single record from any civilization in the world records such an event. Even if it was localized, surely at least the Romans would have remarked on it. A lunar, rather than solar, eclipse might have taken place. However lunar eclipses are not visible during daylight hours which counts that out.

 

[Rosscoe]

So now “dead” does mean “dead”.

But only a few posts back you were telling me “dead” can also mean “not dead”.

Worryingly inconsistent, to say the least.

What other words do you Christians change the meaning of as the mood suits you?

I am sure I am being consistent the resurrection happened on the third day.

 

[Roylion]

I think the burden falls on you to identify the relevant circumstancial obstacles to your contention;

It was you who said "There’s also indirect evidence;". I ask you for specific examples for what you mentioned and you tell me that the burden falls on me to identify that indirect evidence. Look if you don't have any examples just say so.

which by the way seems firmly atheist, not agnostic as I think you’ve written.

I've stated my position before on a number of occasions.

Here's what I said, thirteen years ago in 2008. I'll repeat it here for your benefit.

"An agnostic is someone of the view that hold that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existance of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. An agnostic does not necessarily deny the existence of God (as atheists do) but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not it or they exist, as defined. Many agnostics (as I do) therefore live their lives without concern for observing the worship of an unknowable god and do not concern themselves with attempting to 'know' God. If some type of supernatural being does exist then I have no knowledge of the nature of such a being or whether such a Being exists at all

Agnostics will most likely treat, with considerable disbelief and incredulity, those who claim to definitely 'know' that there is a god or gods through their own 'experiences' or through the reading of a 'Holy' text or other works. As such they will often reject 'religion' in its various forms.

However an agnostic will also not claim there is definitely no god or gods, as they believe that this conclusion is also unknowable.

I generally define 'god' in two ways:

- an immortal supernatural being or deity that is the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

or alternatively...

- any supernatural being (deity), worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

In both the above definitions 'God' or 'the gods' are regarded as transcendent, meaning that God or 'the gods' is / are outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.

Therefore as God is transcendent, anything beyond material phenomena is unknowable by humans.

As such, I will not live my life worrying about god/gods, religion or other possible phenomena such as the 'afterlife'. They are unknowable."


So I will treat those who claim to know 'god',with considerable disbelief and incredulity, and ask those who claim to definitely 'know' that there is a god or gods through their own 'experiences' or through the reading of a 'Holy' text or other works, what those experiences are or how they know that 'holy' text' is in fact true.

Same with any supernatural event/s claimed as historical such as, for example, the resurrection.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I am sure I am being consistent the resurrection happened on the third day.

“Consistent” is hardly how I would describe flitting willy-nilly from a word’s meaning to its diametric opposite meaning and then back.

 

[Rosscoe]

“Consistent” is hardly how I would describe flitting willy-nilly from a word’s meaning to its diametric opposite meaning and then back.

You are being petty.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You are being petty.

You are being fast and loose with the meaning of very important words.

If your definition of “dead” is functionally useless, as you’ve demonstrated here, what word do you suggest we use instead?

Or, alternatively, you have to agree that if Jesus “rose from the dead”, he can’t have been dead.

You can’t have it both ways.