It does not matter what the claim is. the danger of christianity is illogical and is used to stop critical thinking, scientific investigation, and particularly evolution.
I like Kabane's stuff, but if I'm to rely on his faith in the bible vs science, I'll take the science. The faith thing hasn't anything beyond helping my toddler mind to act morally. Science has helped me far more.
The idea that the disciples did not understand Jesus's prophecy about rising on the third day is inconsistent, considering that in Matthew, the Sanhedrin somehow understand perfectly well that Jesus intends to rise on the third day, yet the disciples are supposedly clueless.
The fact that in Matthew, "some doubted" lends credibility to the idea that it was a hallucination. They didn't believe what they were seeing. And that's assuming that the appearances were to everyone at once.
Likewise, the fact that they mistook Jesus for some stranger, or a gardener, strongly suggests a mistaken identity.
If the women had mistakenly identified a gardener as "Jesus," then told the disciples, then that right there is how the disciples got the idea that Jesus may have resurrected. Even though they didn't believe it, they got the idea.
You also assume that the women told the disciples about seeing an angel (or two), rather than just two men in white, as Luke said.
You assume WAY too much in this video. You assume that the authors' spin of the story is 100% accurate, and then draw all of your conclusions from that. Obviously, you are therefore going to conclude that the resurrection appearances weren't hallucinations.
Using this same logic, you could conclude that all of Jesus's miracles were real, since the Bible says they were witnessed by many people, who couldn't all have hallucinated.
I agree the Hallucination Theory does not seem to be a valid argument against the claims that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to the Corinthians and others.
However, assuming the Hallucination Theory is an invalid argument, it would not exclude other explanations of the claims made by ancient people that Jesus rose and appeared to the Corinthians and others: exaggeration, mistaken identity, the story changed over time, etc. The same could be said of the claims made by Paul and James.
If you honestly think it is irrefutable, you're stupid. I used to have a five-part refutation of it posted up here but the sound got corrupted unfortunately. I might redo it sometime.
The gospels describe Jesus resurrecting Lazarus from the dead. Were they lying? If you answer "no", then you can't argue that resurrection was unthinkable to the disciples.
With regards to your general belief that anything written by an eyewitness is de facto true, you need to develop better critical thinking skills.
No matter the source, testimony is not sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony being a lie would consitute a larger miracle than the miracle being attested.
Awful argument. Lazarus' resurrection was conceptually different than Jesus'. Jesus rose in the transformed resurrection body, and was viewed as the firstfruits of the general resurrection. The resurrection body is immortal and cannot die. Lazarus' body was still mortal, it was more akin to a resuscitation.
So...it is unthinkable to them that Jesus could be resurrected because they viewed his resurrection as the firstfruits of the general resurrection. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for demostrating how to properly construct an argument.
Here I was, trying to construct an argument linearly. Turns out that they're supposed to be circular. My bad.
Oh, and kudos on being able to read the minds of people who lived 2,000 years ago to know how they viewed things. That's a pretty cool super power.
Did not the disciples also know about the massive resurrection of the dead people in Jerusalem, according to Matthew, in addition to John's account of Lazarus?
I could just as easily say that, after witnessing/hearing about the resurrection of Lazarus and the "many holy people," they got the idea that resurrection was possible. Then, with this in mind, they hallucinated Jesus, who appeared to be able to teleport, etc. This led them to later consider Jesus's body to be a different kind of body.
You are assuming that the Jesus seen by the disciples was real and not a hallucination,
therefore the disciples believed that the risen Jesus must have actually been a transformed and immortal body, therefore this was a new and foreign concept to the disciples,
therefore the Jesus seen by the disciples was real and not a hallucination.
just because jesus has a new body doesn't mean he looks different, for all we know it could have been the exact same thing except a little less scared from the crucifiction.
Alright lets say you're historically correct and Jesus was resurrected. How do you prove that he is the son of God. How do you prove that God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, or any other supernatural concepts/entities mentioned in the bible exist? Just because he was resurrected doesn't mean everything the apostles said was true. Sure, you can prove that the apostles wrote about Hell near a certain date, but just because they wrote about it doesn't prove that it exists.
Hm. How accurate is the bible as a historical source, being that it deals with the supernatural? You can go back and quote an ancient egyptian writing that claims that the pharaoh is Horus in human flesh, but should we take this as an exact representation of historical events? I know you are going to use the multiple-authors thing again, but cmon they shared common beliefs. And the books were written long after the claimed event. Who knows what discussions and thought processes occurred during
"You have no evidence that they lied. The burden rests firmly on you."
"hamandcheese have based his theories on pure speculation"
The more I read you, the more I sense that you're completely losing your touch with reality. You yourself, in your introduction, admit that you must rule out all naturalistic possibilities. But now there seems to be fineprint: it is only your duty to rule out naturalistic possibilities that can be substantiated in some way. How convenient for you!
You don't really expect to persuade someone like that, do you?
It's no one's duty to prove that they lied or this or that - just pointing out the possibility is enough, given that naturalism is holds more sway in the mind of any rational individual. It's up to you to demonstrate their impossibility... DUH?
You asked had I just watched this one and none of your others and I said I'd only seen this one. And I plan to watch your other videos but I'm kinda busy at the moment.
However, my point stands, the gospels are unreliable and the life (or even existence) of Jesus Christ is not backed by any solid, uncontested evidence, external from the bible.
We do have archaeological confirmation of several places within the gospels. And why does it need to be extrabiblical? Does canonization make a document unreliable? Second, this nonsense about the existence of Christ having no external evidence is total BS. No historian takes what you are saying seriously. Annals 15.44 by Cornelius Tacitus is both solid and uncontested within the historical community.
Indeed, but it is expected that people living within a century of each other would write about the same places, although they may also add (accidentally) anachronisms such as camels or Nazareth. They may get facts, which they could never have witnessed, wrong, like the resurrection of not only one dead 'man' but an entire grave site and the zombies would great their families, or a massive exodus which never happened (at least not on such a scale) and the parting of a sea.
LOL at your opinion that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century. This opinion is about as maintstream as Jesus mythicism. As for the camels thing, you are using outdated information.
The earliest archeological evidence from Nazareth date to the Roman era (63 BC to 324 AD) and there are no external references to Nazareth till 200 AD when Sextus Julius Africanus refers to it as a village, not a city!
Outdated? Strange that Daniel Lazare in March 2002 authored the article 'False Testament' which says they were not domesticated until well after 1000 BC. And the evidence I've seen against this is rather weak, pots from Israel being in Greece, camel hair ropes, etc.
Number one-Nazareth was a village.A small village. It is never claimed to be a city. The New Testament evidence is enough to establish its existence in the first place. Second, there is an inscription at Caesaria Maritima referring to Nazareth as a place where Jews fled after the Hadrianic War. Meier, an eminent biblical scholar, also notes
"archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c."
Luke1.26,27 Luke 2.3,4 Matthew 2.22,23 Luke 2.39,40 all refer to it as a city. Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT, the Talmud never mentions it, nor any rabbinic literature, nor Josephus (seeing as you like him).
Caesaria Maritima was only built in 13 BC so any inscription there would have been after this, so the chances of it being less than 8years later as opposed to 18 or 80 are small.
If there is evidence, show me it (obviously not physically, although that would be kewl)
Fallacy, argument from silence, quite idiotic considered that we have four sources referring to Nazareth plus the inscription in 135 CE, which rebuts your theory of 200 CE. And you failed to respond to Dr. Meier, who is an eminent biblical scholar. The greek for city is polis, and it implies nothing as to the size of the town.
No indeed canonisation does not make something immediately unreliable, although it doesn't help, however if the living god came down to earth, performed miracles and defeated death as well as saving 'all' of humanity, then surely there would be some record of it. You cite Tacitus as this record, and then say that this source is uncontested, that would be a rash and inaccurate, even have a look at his wiki for a brief overview.
Yes. There is some record. It's called the four gospels, plus Paul's letters. Those are five sources. It IS uncontested by serious scholars. Only by idiotic Jesus mythicists. Yes, he was born after Jesus died. SO? HIstorians don't dismiss anything a historian writes just because he isn't contemporary. Special pleading on your part. And LOL x10 at the procurator/prefect thing. Tacitus was both. Both Josephus and Philo refer to Pilate as a procurator. It is an inscription that calls him a prefect.
Holding both titles in a backwater province like Judea was not unheard of. Your uncritical acceptance of points from Wikipedia only illustrates how you accept information without checking the facts. Please go read mainstream scholars on the subject.
I never said canonization helped, I said it made no difference, and demanding extrabiblical sources is silly, considering that the NT is not one book, but twenty-seven different documents, and should be treated as such.
As your criticism of my apparent 'uncritical acceptance' of wikipedia is completely unfounded, I just told you to look at it quickly and then I mentioned points that were not covered by wikipedia and you just ignored them completely.
"Demanding extrabiblical sources is silly"? What!? When you actually at how the bible was formed it is far from 'silly'. A group of men voting on what documents should be included based upon what was PC then and has not changed other than the protestant reformation
I replied to all your points on Tacitus. And another lol at your view of canonization. Name the council at which this alleged voting happened. Truth is, Eusebius gives us a rather good account of the disputes over canonicity in his Ecclesiastical History. There were certain books which came to be accepted all over the church very early. This included all of Paul's letters, and all four gospels. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about and seriously need to read up.
The four gospels is your fallback? Written by people who never met him and born up to a century after his supposed death, who took stories of a magic man and turned him into the son of god. I do not push the idea that Jesus never existed, just that it is no way definite and IS (yes I can use caps lock too) contested by professional scholars whether you chose to accept it or not. Also I never said that a historian has to be contemporary now, but then he had to be as they relied on stories.
BORN A CENTURY AFTER HIS DEATH? Give me a break! Even the late dates of 80-100 of liberal scholars for Mark-John doesn't allow such radical dating as you give it. And also give me a break on the never met him soundbite. I have two videos on the authorship and date of Matthew. I have similar information in my possession regarding the rest of the gospels. Had to rely on stories? Don't be silly. Tacitus drew extensively from Official Roman Records, and it is likely he got his information there.
"Show me Roman records of Jesus being put to death. "
Oh...my...gosh. This objection comes from only the most ignorant atheists. I was hoping they'd never come to this channel again...but here you are. I said Tacitus drew from Roman Records. ALL ROMAN RECORDS FROM THE OFFICIAL COURT OF PILATE ARE LOST. WE ARE IN POSSESSION OF NONE. PLEASE INFORM ALL YOUR OTHER ATHEIST BUDDIES OF THIS.
Oh, and the point doesn't stand. It collapes terribly. Even giving very liberal dates, the latest the authors wrote was 70 years after. The consensus dates are Matthew-80, Mark, 60-70, Luke, 80, and John, 90. I tend to date them a little earlier, with the exception of John.
He was born 20 odd years after Jesus apparently died, so his knowledge was based upon stories of the early Christians and he refers to Christus, rather than Yeshua, he is in error when he states Pilate's title as procurator.
Now this doesn't mean that his material is false or completely unreliable, but it does mean that it is not 'uncontested'.
There is no evidence that any supernatural events in the bible happened. Case closed.
A resurrection could be possible with twins. If nobody knew a person had a twin and after they killed that person and later saw the twin they could think that that person had risen from the dead.
It's still just a story written in a book either way. Why would you choose to believe the supernatural claims written down by someone about 2000 years ago? Why would you not believe the claims in the Qur'an or any other holy book? How do you distinguish fact from fiction?
Age of the document is a red herring. Has nothing to do with the truth of said document. Qu'ran has no evidence, the bible has evidence, don't ask "what evidence" because I have two videos proving the empty tomb and the appearances through evidence. If you whine about my use of the Bible, then explain how canonization makes a document unreliable.
The supernatural claims made in the bible were just made up by the writer. There's no proof that anything like that could ever happen. There's no proof of any god.
If I tell people I saw a magical pixie and it talked to me, people wouldn't believe me. I could write down the stories of my encounters with them but people still wouldn't believe it was true because I would someone need to demonstrate to people that there are pixies.
Nobody has demonstrated to me that there could possibly be a god.
Logical people don't just believe something because they cannot prove it's not true, they don't believe something until it's proven to be true. The first to have any claim is the bible and I don't believe it because it lacks sufficient evidence.
Honestly man, this entire channel is devoted to showing evidence. You said that they lied. I will not believe that just because your claim has not been disproven. You must prove your claim. Now prove your claim.
The first one with any claim wasn't me. There not being evidence beyond the word of the writer for those types of supernatural claims leads me to a very high probability that they are not true and I find no reason to believe the writer and that's why I would say the writer is a liar.
By it's very definition it is not of the natural world or subject to natural laws, and nobody has given us a way to demonstrate that the laws can be or ever have been lifted so for all intensive purposes I would say they are not possible at all, but simply because of lacking absolute certainty about anything I would say improbable.
If I was told we were actually inside the Matrix I would not believe it without a demonstration, probably many demonstrations, and written word would not be enough.
im not even sure of the content because the presentation was so bad. maybe get a haircut or something so you look less like that death cab guy? i mean who wants to listen to that guy.
Multiple eye witnesses may be sufficient for giving credibility to occurrences within the scope of known phenomena, but resurrections and journeys to some place called Heaven, ruled over by an entity known as God, I think require a little more.
It seems like believers disengage their scepticism and curiosity when reading scripture. A glassy, unquestioning acceptance passes over their faces, because this is The Bible, interpret but don't deny.
youre seriously mistaking understanding with expectation. so what if they didn´t understand what he said or were confused or whatever they believed in him strong enough to stick around therefore expected him to keep his promises. besides you still have failed to show evidence that they all witness the same appearance, for you only have the account of a few that say that what they saw was also what the rest of the disciple saw.
I don't consider your premise that the appearance of Christ was a historical event.
Other than the bible (circular reasoning), there is absolutely no evidence (consider the Josephus Flavius forgery notwithstanding) that this event ever happened.
There is more "evidence" of other Gods and prophets. Muhammed for example. He flew up to heaven on a winged horse. Thousands of people saw it.
Finally, a real divine Jesus, I think, would appear publicly to everyone on earth to all the generations that needed him. But if these were just religiously inspired hallucinations like any other, then we would expect only unique appearances isolated to a single time, place, and group. And lo and behold, that is what we have! :)
Unless you'd finally be willing to defend your new found Calvinistic disposition - I'm not without my arsenal on that too. ;)
"Only if God wanted to convince everyone that he exists and that he raised his son from the dead."
Thank you Captain Obvious. Why do you think I asked Kabane to discuss his Calvinist views with me?
And I noticed that you skipped this interesting point: "But if these were just religiously inspired hallucinations like any other, then we would expect only unique appearances isolated to a single time, place, and group. And lo and behold, that is what we have!"
The lack of obvious manifestations of God is better explained by assuming that God does not exist than by assuming that God does exist but chooses to remain hidden. The "doctrine," as you say, of divine hiddenness is just a theist patch that makes the belief system less falsifiable. And as I've said before, unfalsifiability is not a testament to the strength of an argument, but to its extreme weakness.
"no tehk, divine hiddeness is not an ad hoc rationalization."
We'll have to agree to disagree. I suppose the idea that Jesus died for all is ad hoc then - all those silly Christians upholding this absurd notion that Jesus loved and died for all - ABSURD! No biblical ground whatsoever.
aside from cherry-picked verses which would better support universal salvation, no there is no, or at most little ground for universal atonement. zkeuker88 has some good discussions on the oft-touted verses
Not interested. Fact remains that the lack of obvious manifestations of God is better explained by assuming that God does not exist than by assuming that God does exist but chooses to remain hidden.
can you elaborate what you mean by "lack of manifestations"? if you mean supernatural phenomena then you may have a bit of work ahead of you as I am not of the opinion that God simply does not do any miracles today.
"Hold whatever opinion you like, kiddo. NOT INTERESTED."
if you want to convince me (I doubt that you do want to convince me that your theological persuasion is correct) then you have to provide evidence for your premises (in this case, the lack of miralces) if the other person assumes ignorance on these matters.
"I doubt that you do want to convince me that your theological persuasion is correct"
Theological persuasion? Anyways, give yourself a pat on the back - you're right on the dot about my disinterest. You finally got it.
Arguing about modern miracles? BEEN THERE, DONE THAT - I'm so above it. You're self-deceived, that's all I can say. But hey, that's your prerogative. Believe what you like.
I always get a laugh when theists think that there are actually solid, incontrovertible records of the laws of physics being suspended, and in our favor too.
"Only if God wanted to convince everyone that he exists"
You do realise that God plainly told us that he has already done that, and paul also talks about how people can be saved who have not heared the gospel.
Divine hiddeness is true in the sense that god resists the proud and let people resist him who want to resist him, yet that ofcourse doesn't negate natural revelation which according to God makes us already without excuse.
There are no absolute unbelievers according to the bible
We also know that there are people in every generation who are what we call functional schizophrenics - they hallucinate frequently but otherwise act normal and sanely like anyone else. And these were the very people who gravitated toward tribal shaman, or the entourage of holy men like Jesus, and that explains why every religious group had members who saw visions of God and took trips to heaven and so on.
Zuzne and Jones tell us that in most cases, collective hallucinations are led by only one or several people at first. After which, as we now know, others join through the power of suggestive influence, and finally their stories are unified through false memory creation and comformism.
"there will always be some who will not see the hallucination. It is uncommon for them to speak out and deny it. They usually keep quiet, doubtful perhaps of their worthiness to have been granted the vision for which so many of their followers around them are fervently giving thanks. Later on, they may even begin to believe that they saw the vision too."
You cite Luke 24:15-16. By contrast, I'll refer you to Luke 24:13-32. Here, Jesus is mistaken for a stranger even by those who knew him, until they are placed in a psychological state receptive to "recognizing" the stranger as Jesus, and then they hype up the others into a state of expectation that only then leads to a sudden "appearance."
You cite John 21:4. By contrast, I'll refer you to Jhon 21:4-12. In this ending, no one recognizes Jesus at all except one or two disciples, and the others simply "go along" with it, simply following the lead of an authority figure - a clear demonstration of suggestive influence.
You cite Matthew 28:16-17 which only says that SOME doubted - perfectly in line with what we would expect, according to Zuzne and Jones.
Echoes of these factors remain in other verses: in the ending added to Mark, Jesus is said to have appeared "in a different form" (16:12). In John, Mary doesn't recognize Jesus, she even mistakes him for a gardener, and has a conversation with him without suspecting a thing, until he says her name, and then suddenly she "perceives" this stranger as Jesus (20:14-16). That this thread would remain in common across all four gospels suggests the truth began with something more mystical than actual.
"They dont even consider the testimony of the women!"
The apostles are alleged to have seen Jesus walk on water, make a fig tree wither up, heal the blind, cast out demons, make the lame walk, and raise people from the dead. Why then, should the story told by the women seem like an "idle tale"? Why should we think they would react with such skepticism at this point instead of having a sudden epiphany about what Jesus had told them (if we can assume that they didn't understand it initially)?
In Mark, the women go to anoint the body, not just "to look at the grave" (Mark 16:1 v Matt 28:1). There are no guards, the tomb is already open when the women arrive, there is no angel but a man wearing white who is sitting in the tomb. He doesn't descend from heaven--and this man creates the expectation in the women that Jesus will appear when he says: "he is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."
There is nothing supernatural here. Matthew has clearly added legendary, theological motifs--angels from heaven, terrified guards, etc.--and this leaves us to wonder what else he has added or changed.
Zuzne and Jones also say that all that is required in terms of beforehand information is "a broad outline of the phenomenon."
I once asked you "considering the general acceptance of the phenomenon of resurrection in those times as evidenced by Mark. 6:14-16, what was there to misunderstand when a man said he would "rise again" after he had been killed?"
You response (if memory serves me right) was that their misunderstanding involved particulars about how he is raised - but it still involved a raised body!
Zuzne and Jones don't say that 'excitement' is a pre-requisite but rather 'emotional arousal' which could mean alacrity (as you suppose) or something else...
In Sensory Deception: A Scientific Analysis of Hallucination (1988), Slade and Bentall found was that "hallucinations involving bereavement" are common. They found evidence that hallucination plays a role in reducing anxiety, and this anxiety-relieving property in turn has a reinforcing effect on the believability and frequency of hallucinations. These two factors fit the situation of the disciples after the crucifixion incredibly well, so how do you rule this out?
You assume that the eyewitness accounts of 500 people, 2000 years ago is proof enough. You simply try to prove that the accounts were real and not fabricated. Of course this is all just a distraction to avoid the reality that there is zero physical evidence for the ressurrection, or any of the miracles in the bible. What if instead of a mountain of physical evidence for evolution all we had was eyewitness accounts of some people who watched the whole thing happen over the course of eons?
2. There is no explanation other than the resurrection
Refute one of those two statements. If you can't, the resurrection is historically valid.
Stop comparing science to history, apples and oranges. There is no way they could have produced physical evidence, unless you count the shroud of turin as valid.
Response to 1: That would be asking me to prove a negative. You have to prove that it did happen. Of course you fail at that because the eyewitness accounts of primitive superstitious peoples are worthless. And that is all the evidence that you have. By your logic UFOs, Bigfoot, and Chupacabre are real because the eyewitness accounts prove it.
2. No explaination is needed for insuffecent evidence.
1. No, I'm asking you to refute the evidence presented. I have presented the evidence that they happened in segment two of the series. Are you aware that both Jews and Greeks thought that the rez was absurd? They weren't stupid, your modern arrogance is disgusting. They knew dead people stay dead. Are you saying they made it up? UFOs, Bigfoot, and chupacabre all have sufficient alternative explanations.
1. This is a concept valid in science, history is no longer there, therefore in history we MOSTELY depend on eyewitness accounts.
2. Not in history. Existence of evidence has to be explained one way or another.
And back to your original point:
if Marthin Luter King appeared on Wall Street tooday and you'd have 500 eyewitnesses, and he'd shown his wounds to everyone... would you NOT TRY TO FIND an alternative explenation in order to disprove MLK's ressurection?
2. I didn't have a point two, not sure what you are replying to.
Yes, I'd try to find an alternative explanation. But I wouldn't hold to an alternative explanation if the evidence refuted it. And the evidence refutes all the alt. explanations for the rez.
All of these arguments are a big joke. they still fail to address the real issue.We should be applying present knowledge of memory physiology in a long term setting to the mass sighting statements made in the bible.we need to evaluate whether these writings and subsequent memories are valid.By applying 21st century science we will find that long term human memories cannot be trusted. citing the bible for proof of a supernatural event is poor evidence.I already posted similar statements earlier.
You say you accept evolution correct? Well I have a question for you that I posted on AronRa's video.
Didn't Jesus die for our salvation? Well for that to be true, then Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden has to be true, along with the talking snake and the tree of knowledge. (which doesn't sit well with evolution) Otherwise there was no "fall of man" and Jesus (if he was even real) died for nothing.
Thats a good question but most people see the genesis story as allegorical. So while Adam and eve didn't exist the fall of man did and the garden of eden story is just an allegory.
Personally i find the 'fall of man' idea to be ridiculous but whatever.
We are born into sin according to the bible because of the sin of Adam. I know Jesus's death wasn't JUST for Adam's sin, it was for all sin but we are only sinful because of Adam.
Your problem isn't solved, you just made it worse. If you believe Adam was a real person then God created him from clay and Eve from his rib, which again goes against evolution.
DB, there's a difference between "sin" and "sins". "sin" is what recieved from Adam, and it is the natural inclination to sin and disobey God's commands. "sins" are the actual actions committed in disobedience to God.
Thanks for that migkiller, but I don't see how it's related to my question, perhaps you could explain how "sins" aren't from the fall of man? I was under the impression that we were without any form of sin (and death) before the "fall".
a problem I see with this video is again it quotes from sources that were written many years after the event. Doing this does not take into account for translation and memory distortion. Graham reed is quoted as saying about long term memories is' "what we remember is what we think we ought to remember." This is from anomalous psychology. This is a well held tenant in in memory neurophysiology. Memories can be altered by mere suggestion. Eric Kandel did amazing work in this field.
This could mean that some were just obstinate in their "rationality", or it could mean that it wasn't the resurrected Jesus, but maybe looked a lot like him. Sure, some, as you said, were "skeptics," but of course they nevertheless at least wanted to believe once it was all said and done--they died for their beliefs.
Third, there is plenty, PLENTY, of evidence for the power of the subconscious. Even if the disciples or whoever Jesus or the women told didn't understand or believe what he said, it was said to them nevertheless, and this information in whatever form could've been stored in their subconscious, coming out at whatever time their subconscious would allow (based on the information they received). Plus you said that a lot of them didn't even think it was Jesus who appeared (cont.)
LOL. So the apostles had no concept of a resurrection before the general resurrection but somehow their subconscious created Judaic concepts that didn't exist at the time? That's absolutely stupid.
Do 2-5-year-olds have a conceptual grasp of some of the things they can say regarding highly esoteric knowledge they may have seen or heard somewhere in their early childhood? I don't think so--this stuff is documented, I will try to look it up if you don't believe me. They didn't have to "create Judaic concepts" necessarily; they just needed to have the idea of Jesus rising from the dead, which you clearly demonstrated was in fact told to them, albeit unclearly.
Oh my god, you don't know how this shit works. The subconscious isn't part of the conscious, rational, thinking part of the mind--by definition it is chaotic, but god damned powerful to boot. Second, I'm not putting it forth as evidence belying your evidence. I'm simply suggesting an alternative that could be possible, one that I think is highly plausible, unless you can show me why it's not.
Stop your whining, we can all see that you are in tears. You just say WELL MEBBE THE SUBCONSCIOUS DID IT, but you don't elaborate on how their subconscious understood the proper meaning of what Jesus said without a framework to understand it. I don't need to disprove it's probability, you need to prove it.
The framework was provided when Jesus and the women told them. Even if they didn't comprehend it there, the information that was told was still told, and it was more than likely stored in their subconscious. If they just totally didn't get it 100 percent and it was all lost, then how do we know Jesus even said it to begin with?
They need a subconscious framework to properly interpret what Jesus said there. They had no such framework. It's akin to telling the disciples that jellybeans are good. Their subconscious or conscious mind wouldn't know what that meant because they didn't have the framework to interpret it.
Tell me, how did whoever wrote what Jesus said in Luke and wherever else derive what they wrote? I.e., how did they know that Jesus said such things regarding a resurrection if it was completely lost on them? If Jesus did in fact say the things he is quoted with saying, then this is adequate enough, even if they didn't understand it at the time, to provide a subconcious framework for it.
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, Mark derived his gospel from the testimony of Peter, and Luke built his gospel from Matthew, Mark, and general apostolic tradition. You asserting that it gives a framework doesn't prove it. I gave the jellybean analogy to demonstrate why. Jesus saying "jellybeans are good" is nonsense, even to their subconscious, and they don't know what a jellybean tastes like.
"The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again." Then they remembered his words. (Luke 24:5-8)
I ask you, Kabane, how what Jesus said could even be recorded if no one heard what he even said? And the women remembered his words about the resurrection, why couldn't the others have, even if it was in their subconcious. Also, Jesus, in Luke 12:8-9 says that anyone who disowns him will be disowned before the angels of God. They definitely did hear and understand this. They may have died for this. They had been told for a long time that faith comes first and is their ticket to heaven.
They did hear what he said, they didn't understand it. Big difference. When the angels told the women that Jesus had risen, it clarified exactly what Jesus had meant. Why do you think they weren't expecting it? And if you grant the appearances to the women, you must provide a trigger. What the heck does Luke 12:8-9 have to do with this?
Luke 12:8-9 was there to provide a reason for martyrdom--in so far as they may have felt that they had to believe that they had seen the risen Christ, or at least profess this after Jesus "appeared" to them, lest they be denied a spot in heaven.
Anyway, all I was saying with the subconcious thing is that Jesus in fact did say what was said in Luke 18:31-33, and it sounds pretty damn clear to me. The Son of Man will be blah blah blah. So they may have ben subconsciously expecting it.
LOL. If they didn't see the risen Jesus, then they would have known that he was a false messiah, therefore they would have known that accepting him would deny them a place in paradise. It sounds clear to you, and that's easy for you to say because we have the concept of resurrection before the general resurrection firmly ingrained in our heads. They did not. As I said in the video, when John saw the empty tomb, he thought Jesus had been assumed into heaven, not resurrected.
First of all, I'm not going to take one person's psychological "criteria" of an extremely complex event such as hallucination as the end all analysis of such a phenomenon. Second, every source you are pulling from is from the Bible, which contains only those texts that made the cut. Sure I don't have evidence of those (at the time) to necessarily contradict those claims, but absence of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary--esp. when dealing with something outside of science. (cont.)
These are credentialed psychologists, and you should provide some counters from credentialed psychologists if you really want to refute that claim. I drew from four sources. Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul. The Bible is not one book, stop treating it like one. And LOL at your making the cut comment. Would you care to defend any of the later apocryphal works?
Show me where I said it was one book, please. Second, I don't care if they're credentialed psychologists, psychology is an extremely complex subject, especially when dealing with stuff like hallucination and the like. Psychology has gone through so many changes in belief it's not even funny. There's no way to grasp something like that, at least now, with the amount a certitude that would satisfy me. And I can't defend the apocryphal works (cont.)
or the works or witnesses who were burned or killed or silenced by whatever means or for whatever reason. Of course this will sound like a moot point to you, but it isn't for me, because we're dealing with something outside of science or "rational" thought here, as you've clearly stated before.
Well I can attack any apocryphal book you want, as you named them as if they had the same amount or more credibility as the biblical works, which they do not. We are dealing outside of science when discussing the resurrection, but not outside rationality. It is a historical discussion.
You said it was all taken from the Bible. You are treating it like I am drawing from one source. I cite psychologists, you stomp your feet and say that nothing is good enough to prove that the disciples were not hallucinating. Thanks, you just demonstrated that your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore worthless.
I treated the fact that the Bible is more than one book as if it was implicit. And it's not unfalsifiable; we don't have the evidence has not yet been adduced to falsify it. It may never be. Does not mean it's unfalsifiable.
This will, of course, sound worthless to you. But it still raises the question of the matter. Now if this was some kind of hard science or even history w/o miraculous events, I would be satisfied. But it does deal with miracles, and therefore I can't accept it based on the presence of a few texts that claim certain events happened. I might sound stingy or stupid to you, but that's me. I look forward to the "twin" vid.
Now that I read back, I don't think I put forth a hypothesis, as much as I was trying to show how the evidence doesn't necessarily prove yours beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're talking about the idea below of the subconscious, you could falsify this, or any other claim against the resurrection, by having Jesus appear to me, or just something more than a couple of people saying this is what happened. I believe other historical accounts based on the same thing more than I do about a miracle.
You did. You said that their hallucination came from their subconscious mind and that that explanation was probable. So you want Jesus to appear to you? That would prove it beyond reasonable doubt? Did you know that the disciples were people as well? Was it proven beyond reasonable doubt to them? If so, is truth subjective or objective?
Ok, when I say appear, I mean subject to scientific analysis. "Truth," in the sense of something that we as humans can know about reality is always limited by our abilities, but it becomes closer to the truth with science. In their minds, sure, it did. But it was just an appearance--there exists no evidence beyond the fact that some people say they saw something. Sorry, that's not good enough for me.
Hey Tommy! .....Ever had a girlfriend - Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
the best haircut out of all the vids :D
LuvPeaceUnitySiberia 2 years ago
500 people don't hallucinate the same thing.
kris01987 2 years ago
It does not matter what the claim is. the danger of christianity is illogical and is used to stop critical thinking, scientific investigation, and particularly evolution.
I like Kabane's stuff, but if I'm to rely on his faith in the bible vs science, I'll take the science. The faith thing hasn't anything beyond helping my toddler mind to act morally. Science has helped me far more.
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
The idea that the disciples did not understand Jesus's prophecy about rising on the third day is inconsistent, considering that in Matthew, the Sanhedrin somehow understand perfectly well that Jesus intends to rise on the third day, yet the disciples are supposedly clueless.
The fact that in Matthew, "some doubted" lends credibility to the idea that it was a hallucination. They didn't believe what they were seeing. And that's assuming that the appearances were to everyone at once.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Likewise, the fact that they mistook Jesus for some stranger, or a gardener, strongly suggests a mistaken identity.
If the women had mistakenly identified a gardener as "Jesus," then told the disciples, then that right there is how the disciples got the idea that Jesus may have resurrected. Even though they didn't believe it, they got the idea.
You also assume that the women told the disciples about seeing an angel (or two), rather than just two men in white, as Luke said.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
As I've said before, there is just too little evidence to draw any conclusions, positive or negative.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
You assume WAY too much in this video. You assume that the authors' spin of the story is 100% accurate, and then draw all of your conclusions from that. Obviously, you are therefore going to conclude that the resurrection appearances weren't hallucinations.
Using this same logic, you could conclude that all of Jesus's miracles were real, since the Bible says they were witnessed by many people, who couldn't all have hallucinated.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Bible, the Fox news of history.
nolobede 2 years ago
I agree the Hallucination Theory does not seem to be a valid argument against the claims that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to the Corinthians and others.
However, assuming the Hallucination Theory is an invalid argument, it would not exclude other explanations of the claims made by ancient people that Jesus rose and appeared to the Corinthians and others: exaggeration, mistaken identity, the story changed over time, etc. The same could be said of the claims made by Paul and James.
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
Can you watch part one of Zeitgeist and refute it please??
riffMaster8686 2 years ago
If you honestly think it is irrefutable, you're stupid. I used to have a five-part refutation of it posted up here but the sound got corrupted unfortunately. I might redo it sometime.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
The gospels describe Jesus resurrecting Lazarus from the dead. Were they lying? If you answer "no", then you can't argue that resurrection was unthinkable to the disciples.
With regards to your general belief that anything written by an eyewitness is de facto true, you need to develop better critical thinking skills.
No matter the source, testimony is not sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony being a lie would consitute a larger miracle than the miracle being attested.
dw44119 2 years ago
Awful argument. Lazarus' resurrection was conceptually different than Jesus'. Jesus rose in the transformed resurrection body, and was viewed as the firstfruits of the general resurrection. The resurrection body is immortal and cannot die. Lazarus' body was still mortal, it was more akin to a resuscitation.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
So...it is unthinkable to them that Jesus could be resurrected because they viewed his resurrection as the firstfruits of the general resurrection. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for demostrating how to properly construct an argument.
Here I was, trying to construct an argument linearly. Turns out that they're supposed to be circular. My bad.
Oh, and kudos on being able to read the minds of people who lived 2,000 years ago to know how they viewed things. That's a pretty cool super power.
dw44119 2 years ago
Because his resurrection was not the same type of "resurrection" as the others.
Show how I was being circular. Show where the premise and conclusion are identical..
It's actually just contextualizing an ancient text and deriving stuff from that.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Did not the disciples also know about the massive resurrection of the dead people in Jerusalem, according to Matthew, in addition to John's account of Lazarus?
I could just as easily say that, after witnessing/hearing about the resurrection of Lazarus and the "many holy people," they got the idea that resurrection was possible. Then, with this in mind, they hallucinated Jesus, who appeared to be able to teleport, etc. This led them to later consider Jesus's body to be a different kind of body.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
This is how you are being circular:
You are assuming that the Jesus seen by the disciples was real and not a hallucination,
therefore the disciples believed that the risen Jesus must have actually been a transformed and immortal body, therefore this was a new and foreign concept to the disciples,
therefore the Jesus seen by the disciples was real and not a hallucination.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
just because jesus has a new body doesn't mean he looks different, for all we know it could have been the exact same thing except a little less scared from the crucifiction.
eatmygritsnow 2 years ago
Jesus did not die.
tudungsenduk 2 years ago
Go see my video on the swoon theory.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Wasn't the Old Test. written 200 years after Jesus died?
KingRatedRKO1511 2 years ago
No. We have found manuscripts of the OT before Jesus' death.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Alright lets say you're historically correct and Jesus was resurrected. How do you prove that he is the son of God. How do you prove that God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, or any other supernatural concepts/entities mentioned in the bible exist? Just because he was resurrected doesn't mean everything the apostles said was true. Sure, you can prove that the apostles wrote about Hell near a certain date, but just because they wrote about it doesn't prove that it exists.
brandonshred1 2 years ago 2
This is a video on the hallucination theory.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Woops
brandonshred1 2 years ago
Are you going to respond to the other one i posted?
brandonshred1 2 years ago
lol owned
es1skeetboard 2 years ago
The odds of people coincidentally having collective hallucinations despite this criteria>the odds of human resurrection.
brandonshred1 3 years ago
Hm. How accurate is the bible as a historical source, being that it deals with the supernatural? You can go back and quote an ancient egyptian writing that claims that the pharaoh is Horus in human flesh, but should we take this as an exact representation of historical events? I know you are going to use the multiple-authors thing again, but cmon they shared common beliefs. And the books were written long after the claimed event. Who knows what discussions and thought processes occurred during
brandonshred1 3 years ago
And I noticed that you skipped my comments above - care to respond to them? Otherwise, we can take it to TWeb and I can school you there if you like.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"You have no evidence that they lied. The burden rests firmly on you."
"hamandcheese have based his theories on pure speculation"
The more I read you, the more I sense that you're completely losing your touch with reality. You yourself, in your introduction, admit that you must rule out all naturalistic possibilities. But now there seems to be fineprint: it is only your duty to rule out naturalistic possibilities that can be substantiated in some way. How convenient for you!
tehknologik 3 years ago
You don't really expect to persuade someone like that, do you?
It's no one's duty to prove that they lied or this or that - just pointing out the possibility is enough, given that naturalism is holds more sway in the mind of any rational individual. It's up to you to demonstrate their impossibility... DUH?
tehknologik 3 years ago
This would be all well and good if the gospels were actually reliable.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
Do you just watch this one video and none of my other videos and then decide to post what you think is a clever comment?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I did indeed just watch this and then posted this comment, not because I believed it to be 'clever' but instead accurate.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
I said my other videos. I know you watched this. Watch my other videos.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
You asked had I just watched this one and none of your others and I said I'd only seen this one. And I plan to watch your other videos but I'm kinda busy at the moment.
However, my point stands, the gospels are unreliable and the life (or even existence) of Jesus Christ is not backed by any solid, uncontested evidence, external from the bible.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
We do have archaeological confirmation of several places within the gospels. And why does it need to be extrabiblical? Does canonization make a document unreliable? Second, this nonsense about the existence of Christ having no external evidence is total BS. No historian takes what you are saying seriously. Annals 15.44 by Cornelius Tacitus is both solid and uncontested within the historical community.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Indeed, but it is expected that people living within a century of each other would write about the same places, although they may also add (accidentally) anachronisms such as camels or Nazareth. They may get facts, which they could never have witnessed, wrong, like the resurrection of not only one dead 'man' but an entire grave site and the zombies would great their families, or a massive exodus which never happened (at least not on such a scale) and the parting of a sea.
(cont...)
theatheistguy 3 years ago
LOL at your opinion that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century. This opinion is about as maintstream as Jesus mythicism. As for the camels thing, you are using outdated information.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
The earliest archeological evidence from Nazareth date to the Roman era (63 BC to 324 AD) and there are no external references to Nazareth till 200 AD when Sextus Julius Africanus refers to it as a village, not a city!
Outdated? Strange that Daniel Lazare in March 2002 authored the article 'False Testament' which says they were not domesticated until well after 1000 BC. And the evidence I've seen against this is rather weak, pots from Israel being in Greece, camel hair ropes, etc.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
Number one-Nazareth was a village.A small village. It is never claimed to be a city. The New Testament evidence is enough to establish its existence in the first place. Second, there is an inscription at Caesaria Maritima referring to Nazareth as a place where Jews fled after the Hadrianic War. Meier, an eminent biblical scholar, also notes
"archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c."
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Luke1.26,27 Luke 2.3,4 Matthew 2.22,23 Luke 2.39,40 all refer to it as a city. Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT, the Talmud never mentions it, nor any rabbinic literature, nor Josephus (seeing as you like him).
Caesaria Maritima was only built in 13 BC so any inscription there would have been after this, so the chances of it being less than 8years later as opposed to 18 or 80 are small.
If there is evidence, show me it (obviously not physically, although that would be kewl)
theatheistguy 3 years ago
Fallacy, argument from silence, quite idiotic considered that we have four sources referring to Nazareth plus the inscription in 135 CE, which rebuts your theory of 200 CE. And you failed to respond to Dr. Meier, who is an eminent biblical scholar. The greek for city is polis, and it implies nothing as to the size of the town.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
(cont...)
No indeed canonisation does not make something immediately unreliable, although it doesn't help, however if the living god came down to earth, performed miracles and defeated death as well as saving 'all' of humanity, then surely there would be some record of it. You cite Tacitus as this record, and then say that this source is uncontested, that would be a rash and inaccurate, even have a look at his wiki for a brief overview.
(cont...)
theatheistguy 3 years ago
Yes. There is some record. It's called the four gospels, plus Paul's letters. Those are five sources. It IS uncontested by serious scholars. Only by idiotic Jesus mythicists. Yes, he was born after Jesus died. SO? HIstorians don't dismiss anything a historian writes just because he isn't contemporary. Special pleading on your part. And LOL x10 at the procurator/prefect thing. Tacitus was both. Both Josephus and Philo refer to Pilate as a procurator. It is an inscription that calls him a prefect.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Cont.
Holding both titles in a backwater province like Judea was not unheard of. Your uncritical acceptance of points from Wikipedia only illustrates how you accept information without checking the facts. Please go read mainstream scholars on the subject.
I never said canonization helped, I said it made no difference, and demanding extrabiblical sources is silly, considering that the NT is not one book, but twenty-seven different documents, and should be treated as such.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
As your criticism of my apparent 'uncritical acceptance' of wikipedia is completely unfounded, I just told you to look at it quickly and then I mentioned points that were not covered by wikipedia and you just ignored them completely.
"Demanding extrabiblical sources is silly"? What!? When you actually at how the bible was formed it is far from 'silly'. A group of men voting on what documents should be included based upon what was PC then and has not changed other than the protestant reformation
theatheistguy 3 years ago
I replied to all your points on Tacitus. And another lol at your view of canonization. Name the council at which this alleged voting happened. Truth is, Eusebius gives us a rather good account of the disputes over canonicity in his Ecclesiastical History. There were certain books which came to be accepted all over the church very early. This included all of Paul's letters, and all four gospels. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about and seriously need to read up.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Come to stickam today. 5 PM EST, 40 mins from now, room kabane52.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Ok I'll come, we'll talk then *shakes fist at having forgot my camera*
theatheistguy 3 years ago
Room open now.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
The four gospels is your fallback? Written by people who never met him and born up to a century after his supposed death, who took stories of a magic man and turned him into the son of god. I do not push the idea that Jesus never existed, just that it is no way definite and IS (yes I can use caps lock too) contested by professional scholars whether you chose to accept it or not. Also I never said that a historian has to be contemporary now, but then he had to be as they relied on stories.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
BORN A CENTURY AFTER HIS DEATH? Give me a break! Even the late dates of 80-100 of liberal scholars for Mark-John doesn't allow such radical dating as you give it. And also give me a break on the never met him soundbite. I have two videos on the authorship and date of Matthew. I have similar information in my possession regarding the rest of the gospels. Had to rely on stories? Don't be silly. Tacitus drew extensively from Official Roman Records, and it is likely he got his information there.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Sorry I actually meant to write they were writing up to a century after his supposed death, but the point still stands.
I'll watch your Matthew videos if you give me the links. Thanx.
Show me Roman records of Jesus being put to death.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
"Show me Roman records of Jesus being put to death. "
Oh...my...gosh. This objection comes from only the most ignorant atheists. I was hoping they'd never come to this channel again...but here you are. I said Tacitus drew from Roman Records. ALL ROMAN RECORDS FROM THE OFFICIAL COURT OF PILATE ARE LOST. WE ARE IN POSSESSION OF NONE. PLEASE INFORM ALL YOUR OTHER ATHEIST BUDDIES OF THIS.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Here are the links:
/watch?v=A0NgkrTuzhs&feature=channel_page
/watch?v=BVuNeQuNtoE&feature=channel_page
Have fun.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Oh, and the point doesn't stand. It collapes terribly. Even giving very liberal dates, the latest the authors wrote was 70 years after. The consensus dates are Matthew-80, Mark, 60-70, Luke, 80, and John, 90. I tend to date them a little earlier, with the exception of John.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
(cont...)
He was born 20 odd years after Jesus apparently died, so his knowledge was based upon stories of the early Christians and he refers to Christus, rather than Yeshua, he is in error when he states Pilate's title as procurator.
Now this doesn't mean that his material is false or completely unreliable, but it does mean that it is not 'uncontested'.
theatheistguy 3 years ago
There is no evidence that any supernatural events in the bible happened. Case closed.
A resurrection could be possible with twins. If nobody knew a person had a twin and after they killed that person and later saw the twin they could think that that person had risen from the dead.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
The twin theory rears its ugly head. I have a video tearing it apart. It's called "The Best Case for Christianity: Reconstruction"
Watch and weep.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
It's still just a story written in a book either way. Why would you choose to believe the supernatural claims written down by someone about 2000 years ago? Why would you not believe the claims in the Qur'an or any other holy book? How do you distinguish fact from fiction?
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
Age of the document is a red herring. Has nothing to do with the truth of said document. Qu'ran has no evidence, the bible has evidence, don't ask "what evidence" because I have two videos proving the empty tomb and the appearances through evidence. If you whine about my use of the Bible, then explain how canonization makes a document unreliable.
Cheers,
Kabane
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
The supernatural claims made in the bible were just made up by the writer. There's no proof that anything like that could ever happen. There's no proof of any god.
If I tell people I saw a magical pixie and it talked to me, people wouldn't believe me. I could write down the stories of my encounters with them but people still wouldn't believe it was true because I would someone need to demonstrate to people that there are pixies.
Nobody has demonstrated to me that there could possibly be a god.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
You have no evidence that they lied. The burden rests firmly on you. And you have failed. Now watch the entire series and weep.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
The spaghetti monster created the world and is your lord and savior...prove me wrong...
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
That's a positive claim. You made a positive claim. You said that they lied. Now prove that.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Logical people don't just believe something because they cannot prove it's not true, they don't believe something until it's proven to be true. The first to have any claim is the bible and I don't believe it because it lacks sufficient evidence.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
Honestly man, this entire channel is devoted to showing evidence. You said that they lied. I will not believe that just because your claim has not been disproven. You must prove your claim. Now prove your claim.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
The first one with any claim wasn't me. There not being evidence beyond the word of the writer for those types of supernatural claims leads me to a very high probability that they are not true and I find no reason to believe the writer and that's why I would say the writer is a liar.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
Why do you claim that supernatural claims are so improbable?
Kabane52 3 years ago
By it's very definition it is not of the natural world or subject to natural laws, and nobody has given us a way to demonstrate that the laws can be or ever have been lifted so for all intensive purposes I would say they are not possible at all, but simply because of lacking absolute certainty about anything I would say improbable.
If I was told we were actually inside the Matrix I would not believe it without a demonstration, probably many demonstrations, and written word would not be enough.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
im not even sure of the content because the presentation was so bad. maybe get a haircut or something so you look less like that death cab guy? i mean who wants to listen to that guy.
TheSilverFlyingCigar 3 years ago
Multiple eye witnesses may be sufficient for giving credibility to occurrences within the scope of known phenomena, but resurrections and journeys to some place called Heaven, ruled over by an entity known as God, I think require a little more.
It seems like believers disengage their scepticism and curiosity when reading scripture. A glassy, unquestioning acceptance passes over their faces, because this is The Bible, interpret but don't deny.
Valelacerte 3 years ago
How would you like me to slay you on this "theologyweb," would you like that? Hit me back, if you want a REAL debate. ;)
taabreakage1 3 years ago
FUCK UR KRISTIAN BULL SHIT
warhero138 3 years ago
what are you talking, dude, please make sense,
youre seriously mistaking understanding with expectation. so what if they didn´t understand what he said or were confused or whatever they believed in him strong enough to stick around therefore expected him to keep his promises. besides you still have failed to show evidence that they all witness the same appearance, for you only have the account of a few that say that what they saw was also what the rest of the disciple saw.
falsifying witnes
jrev37 3 years ago
I don't consider your premise that the appearance of Christ was a historical event.
Other than the bible (circular reasoning), there is absolutely no evidence (consider the Josephus Flavius forgery notwithstanding) that this event ever happened.
There is more "evidence" of other Gods and prophets. Muhammed for example. He flew up to heaven on a winged horse. Thousands of people saw it.
What you don't believe it?
Why not?
deconverts 3 years ago
Can I look at some eyewitness testimony?
chert95 3 years ago
Well darn, actually hallucination has always been my defense against the resurrection.
Damn, I cannot think of any other plausible alternative to be honest. You make a persuasive case. I'm kind of stumped.
So how does one actually become a christian?
AllisterA22 3 years ago
Finally, a real divine Jesus, I think, would appear publicly to everyone on earth to all the generations that needed him. But if these were just religiously inspired hallucinations like any other, then we would expect only unique appearances isolated to a single time, place, and group. And lo and behold, that is what we have! :)
Unless you'd finally be willing to defend your new found Calvinistic disposition - I'm not without my arsenal on that too. ;)
tehknologik 3 years ago
"Finally, a real divine Jesus, I think, would appear publicly to everyone on earth to all the generations that needed him."
Only if God wanted to convince everyone that he exists and that he raised his son from the dead.
"Unless you'd finally be willing to defend your new found Calvinistic disposition - I'm not without my arsenal on that too. ;)"
and what of the doctrine of divine hiddeness?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Only if God wanted to convince everyone that he exists and that he raised his son from the dead."
Thank you Captain Obvious. Why do you think I asked Kabane to discuss his Calvinist views with me?
And I noticed that you skipped this interesting point: "But if these were just religiously inspired hallucinations like any other, then we would expect only unique appearances isolated to a single time, place, and group. And lo and behold, that is what we have!"
tehknologik 3 years ago
"and what of the doctrine of divine hiddeness?"
The lack of obvious manifestations of God is better explained by assuming that God does not exist than by assuming that God does exist but chooses to remain hidden. The "doctrine," as you say, of divine hiddenness is just a theist patch that makes the belief system less falsifiable. And as I've said before, unfalsifiability is not a testament to the strength of an argument, but to its extreme weakness.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"Why do you think I asked Kabane to discuss his Calvinist views with me?"
Divine hiddeness isn't limited to calvinism. it's actually nicely supported by the scriptures.
"And lo and behold, that is what we have!"
that's also what we would expect if it actually happened.
and I dont think that Paul was part of this "isolated group"
"theist patch"
no tehk, divine hiddeness is not an ad hoc rationalization. See: Isaiah 45:15
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Divine hiddeness isn't limited to calvinism. it's actually nicely supported by the scriptures."
Kabane is a Calvinist! That's the basis of HIS circumvention. And I'm sure it is supported - but I'm not impressed by that.
"that's also what we would expect if it actually happened."
Yeah, and we'd also expect not to find Santa at the North Pole if his workshop is in fact invisible.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"no tehk, divine hiddeness is not an ad hoc rationalization."
We'll have to agree to disagree. I suppose the idea that Jesus died for all is ad hoc then - all those silly Christians upholding this absurd notion that Jesus loved and died for all - ABSURD! No biblical ground whatsoever.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Take your ridiculous garbage somewhere else, I'm not interested in discussing it with you - how many times do I have to say it?
tehknologik 3 years ago
"No biblical ground whatsoever."
aside from cherry-picked verses which would better support universal salvation, no there is no, or at most little ground for universal atonement. zkeuker88 has some good discussions on the oft-touted verses
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Not interested. Fact remains that the lack of obvious manifestations of God is better explained by assuming that God does not exist than by assuming that God does exist but chooses to remain hidden.
tehknologik 3 years ago
can you elaborate what you mean by "lack of manifestations"? if you mean supernatural phenomena then you may have a bit of work ahead of you as I am not of the opinion that God simply does not do any miracles today.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I am not of the opinion that God simply does not do any miracles today."
Hold whatever opinion you like, kiddo. NOT INTERESTED.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"Hold whatever opinion you like, kiddo. NOT INTERESTED."
if you want to convince me (I doubt that you do want to convince me that your theological persuasion is correct) then you have to provide evidence for your premises (in this case, the lack of miralces) if the other person assumes ignorance on these matters.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I doubt that you do want to convince me that your theological persuasion is correct"
Theological persuasion? Anyways, give yourself a pat on the back - you're right on the dot about my disinterest. You finally got it.
Arguing about modern miracles? BEEN THERE, DONE THAT - I'm so above it. You're self-deceived, that's all I can say. But hey, that's your prerogative. Believe what you like.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"Believe what you like."
I always get a laugh when atheists here on youtube just mindlessly swallow up the elitist bullshit ceaselessly pumped out by the new atheists.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I always get a laugh when theists think that there are actually solid, incontrovertible records of the laws of physics being suspended, and in our favor too.
"elitist bullshit"
Yeah, yeah... throw a fit all you like.
tehknologik 3 years ago 2
"Only if God wanted to convince everyone that he exists"
You do realise that God plainly told us that he has already done that, and paul also talks about how people can be saved who have not heared the gospel.
Divine hiddeness is true in the sense that god resists the proud and let people resist him who want to resist him, yet that ofcourse doesn't negate natural revelation which according to God makes us already without excuse.
There are no absolute unbelievers according to the bible
JaneyLife20 3 years ago
Would you like to discuss these ideas with me on AIM?
tehknologik 3 years ago
dont have aim
JaneyLife20 3 years ago
How about via the messaging system?
tehknologik 3 years ago
what specificly do you want to know then?
JaneyLife20 3 years ago
I want to discuss your ideas about your god's 'hiddenness' with you.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"The appearance to Paul and the appearance to James. Both of these appearances are appearances to Skeptics, which lends them even more credibility."
Not quite. Your worldview makes no difference, you can hallucinate anything if you're prone to it one way or another. As Zuzne and Jones tell us:
"the subject matter of individual hallucinations has virtually no limits"
tehknologik 3 years ago
We also know that there are people in every generation who are what we call functional schizophrenics - they hallucinate frequently but otherwise act normal and sanely like anyone else. And these were the very people who gravitated toward tribal shaman, or the entourage of holy men like Jesus, and that explains why every religious group had members who saw visions of God and took trips to heaven and so on.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Zuzne and Jones tell us that in most cases, collective hallucinations are led by only one or several people at first. After which, as we now know, others join through the power of suggestive influence, and finally their stories are unified through false memory creation and comformism.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"there will always be some who will not see the hallucination. It is uncommon for them to speak out and deny it. They usually keep quiet, doubtful perhaps of their worthiness to have been granted the vision for which so many of their followers around them are fervently giving thanks. Later on, they may even begin to believe that they saw the vision too."
tehknologik 3 years ago
You cite Luke 24:15-16. By contrast, I'll refer you to Luke 24:13-32. Here, Jesus is mistaken for a stranger even by those who knew him, until they are placed in a psychological state receptive to "recognizing" the stranger as Jesus, and then they hype up the others into a state of expectation that only then leads to a sudden "appearance."
tehknologik 3 years ago
You cite John 21:4. By contrast, I'll refer you to Jhon 21:4-12. In this ending, no one recognizes Jesus at all except one or two disciples, and the others simply "go along" with it, simply following the lead of an authority figure - a clear demonstration of suggestive influence.
You cite Matthew 28:16-17 which only says that SOME doubted - perfectly in line with what we would expect, according to Zuzne and Jones.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Echoes of these factors remain in other verses: in the ending added to Mark, Jesus is said to have appeared "in a different form" (16:12). In John, Mary doesn't recognize Jesus, she even mistakes him for a gardener, and has a conversation with him without suspecting a thing, until he says her name, and then suddenly she "perceives" this stranger as Jesus (20:14-16). That this thread would remain in common across all four gospels suggests the truth began with something more mystical than actual.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"They dont even consider the testimony of the women!"
The apostles are alleged to have seen Jesus walk on water, make a fig tree wither up, heal the blind, cast out demons, make the lame walk, and raise people from the dead. Why then, should the story told by the women seem like an "idle tale"? Why should we think they would react with such skepticism at this point instead of having a sudden epiphany about what Jesus had told them (if we can assume that they didn't understand it initially)?
tehknologik 3 years ago
This kind of appeal to the skeptic in story telling is dramatic, and if you ever study literature you'll see it pop up all the time.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"How the heck did the women see the angels?"
In Mark, the women go to anoint the body, not just "to look at the grave" (Mark 16:1 v Matt 28:1). There are no guards, the tomb is already open when the women arrive, there is no angel but a man wearing white who is sitting in the tomb. He doesn't descend from heaven--and this man creates the expectation in the women that Jesus will appear when he says: "he is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."
tehknologik 3 years ago
There is nothing supernatural here. Matthew has clearly added legendary, theological motifs--angels from heaven, terrified guards, etc.--and this leaves us to wonder what else he has added or changed.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Zuzne and Jones also say that all that is required in terms of beforehand information is "a broad outline of the phenomenon."
I once asked you "considering the general acceptance of the phenomenon of resurrection in those times as evidenced by Mark. 6:14-16, what was there to misunderstand when a man said he would "rise again" after he had been killed?"
tehknologik 3 years ago
You response (if memory serves me right) was that their misunderstanding involved particulars about how he is raised - but it still involved a raised body!
So how is a "broad outline" not fulfilled here?
tehknologik 3 years ago
Zuzne and Jones don't say that 'excitement' is a pre-requisite but rather 'emotional arousal' which could mean alacrity (as you suppose) or something else...
tehknologik 3 years ago
In Sensory Deception: A Scientific Analysis of Hallucination (1988), Slade and Bentall found was that "hallucinations involving bereavement" are common. They found evidence that hallucination plays a role in reducing anxiety, and this anxiety-relieving property in turn has a reinforcing effect on the believability and frequency of hallucinations. These two factors fit the situation of the disciples after the crucifixion incredibly well, so how do you rule this out?
tehknologik 3 years ago
I really enjoy this series, will there be another part soon?
JaneyLife20 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... lllllllllllllllllll ...
┏┫ ┏┓ ┏┓ ┣┓ ┃┃
┗┫ ┃ ┣┛ ┏━━┻┃ ┃ ┗━━━┛ ┃ ┣━━ ┃
.... ----llllllll---- ....
theman77777777232 3 years ago
You assume that the eyewitness accounts of 500 people, 2000 years ago is proof enough. You simply try to prove that the accounts were real and not fabricated. Of course this is all just a distraction to avoid the reality that there is zero physical evidence for the ressurrection, or any of the miracles in the bible. What if instead of a mountain of physical evidence for evolution all we had was eyewitness accounts of some people who watched the whole thing happen over the course of eons?
NotWhollySane 3 years ago
1. They happened.
2. There is no explanation other than the resurrection
Refute one of those two statements. If you can't, the resurrection is historically valid.
Stop comparing science to history, apples and oranges. There is no way they could have produced physical evidence, unless you count the shroud of turin as valid.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Response to 1: That would be asking me to prove a negative. You have to prove that it did happen. Of course you fail at that because the eyewitness accounts of primitive superstitious peoples are worthless. And that is all the evidence that you have. By your logic UFOs, Bigfoot, and Chupacabre are real because the eyewitness accounts prove it.
2. No explaination is needed for insuffecent evidence.
NotWhollySane 3 years ago
1. No, I'm asking you to refute the evidence presented. I have presented the evidence that they happened in segment two of the series. Are you aware that both Jews and Greeks thought that the rez was absurd? They weren't stupid, your modern arrogance is disgusting. They knew dead people stay dead. Are you saying they made it up? UFOs, Bigfoot, and chupacabre all have sufficient alternative explanations.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I forgot I commented on this vid. Anyway we had the same discussion going on here as another one of your vids. So I focused on that one.
NotWhollySane 3 years ago
1. This is a concept valid in science, history is no longer there, therefore in history we MOSTELY depend on eyewitness accounts.
2. Not in history. Existence of evidence has to be explained one way or another.
And back to your original point:
if Marthin Luter King appeared on Wall Street tooday and you'd have 500 eyewitnesses, and he'd shown his wounds to everyone... would you NOT TRY TO FIND an alternative explenation in order to disprove MLK's ressurection?
I mean, I surely would.
MarcinP2 3 years ago
1. Not seeing your point here.
2. I didn't have a point two, not sure what you are replying to.
Yes, I'd try to find an alternative explanation. But I wouldn't hold to an alternative explanation if the evidence refuted it. And the evidence refutes all the alt. explanations for the rez.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Umm, sorry. That was pointed at NotWhollySane.
And what I said was exactly that: if one wants to disprove ressurection he should start at searching for alternative explenation.
As a sidenote I picked MLK as my example because I think it is a good analogy.
MarcinP2 3 years ago
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
You know what? There is physical evidence of humans existing scince life has on Earth.
watch?v=opX5s57MKIk
You need to count all evidence, not only evidence that theories support.
Tdog283 3 years ago
All of these arguments are a big joke. they still fail to address the real issue.We should be applying present knowledge of memory physiology in a long term setting to the mass sighting statements made in the bible.we need to evaluate whether these writings and subsequent memories are valid.By applying 21st century science we will find that long term human memories cannot be trusted. citing the bible for proof of a supernatural event is poor evidence.I already posted similar statements earlier.
atheismmakessense 3 years ago
Kabane,
You say you accept evolution correct? Well I have a question for you that I posted on AronRa's video.
Didn't Jesus die for our salvation? Well for that to be true, then Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden has to be true, along with the talking snake and the tree of knowledge. (which doesn't sit well with evolution) Otherwise there was no "fall of man" and Jesus (if he was even real) died for nothing.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Thats a good question but most people see the genesis story as allegorical. So while Adam and eve didn't exist the fall of man did and the garden of eden story is just an allegory.
Personally i find the 'fall of man' idea to be ridiculous but whatever.
psycropticunt 3 years ago
psycropticunt,
"most people see the genesis story as allegorical"
I would hope so in this day and age.
"Personally i find the 'fall of man' idea to be ridiculous but whatever."
Yes ridiculous is a good way to describe it :D
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
Jesus didn't just die for Adam's sin. He atoned for all sin. Second, I believe Adam was a real person. Problem solved. Have a nice day.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Kabane,
We are born into sin according to the bible because of the sin of Adam. I know Jesus's death wasn't JUST for Adam's sin, it was for all sin but we are only sinful because of Adam.
Your problem isn't solved, you just made it worse. If you believe Adam was a real person then God created him from clay and Eve from his rib, which again goes against evolution.
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
DB, there's a difference between "sin" and "sins". "sin" is what recieved from Adam, and it is the natural inclination to sin and disobey God's commands. "sins" are the actual actions committed in disobedience to God.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Thanks for that migkiller, but I don't see how it's related to my question, perhaps you could explain how "sins" aren't from the fall of man? I was under the impression that we were without any form of sin (and death) before the "fall".
DistinctiveBlend 3 years ago
-_-. Why not watch my video on the subject over at my Kabane52 channel.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
a problem I see with this video is again it quotes from sources that were written many years after the event. Doing this does not take into account for translation and memory distortion. Graham reed is quoted as saying about long term memories is' "what we remember is what we think we ought to remember." This is from anomalous psychology. This is a well held tenant in in memory neurophysiology. Memories can be altered by mere suggestion. Eric Kandel did amazing work in this field.
atheismmakessense 3 years ago
This could mean that some were just obstinate in their "rationality", or it could mean that it wasn't the resurrected Jesus, but maybe looked a lot like him. Sure, some, as you said, were "skeptics," but of course they nevertheless at least wanted to believe once it was all said and done--they died for their beliefs.
robshred66 3 years ago
The twin theory now, that Jesus just had a lookalike. That will be answered in another video.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Third, there is plenty, PLENTY, of evidence for the power of the subconscious. Even if the disciples or whoever Jesus or the women told didn't understand or believe what he said, it was said to them nevertheless, and this information in whatever form could've been stored in their subconscious, coming out at whatever time their subconscious would allow (based on the information they received). Plus you said that a lot of them didn't even think it was Jesus who appeared (cont.)
robshred66 3 years ago
LOL. So the apostles had no concept of a resurrection before the general resurrection but somehow their subconscious created Judaic concepts that didn't exist at the time? That's absolutely stupid.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Do 2-5-year-olds have a conceptual grasp of some of the things they can say regarding highly esoteric knowledge they may have seen or heard somewhere in their early childhood? I don't think so--this stuff is documented, I will try to look it up if you don't believe me. They didn't have to "create Judaic concepts" necessarily; they just needed to have the idea of Jesus rising from the dead, which you clearly demonstrated was in fact told to them, albeit unclearly.
robshred66 3 years ago
They didn't get what Jesus meant at all. It is totally ad hoc and without evidence that the apostles subconscious somehow understood it.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I just explained how they didn't need to freakin' understand it.
robshred66 3 years ago
Ah, so not even their subconscious understood it and they hallucinated it? Stop straining, you have zero evidence.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Oh my god, you don't know how this shit works. The subconscious isn't part of the conscious, rational, thinking part of the mind--by definition it is chaotic, but god damned powerful to boot. Second, I'm not putting it forth as evidence belying your evidence. I'm simply suggesting an alternative that could be possible, one that I think is highly plausible, unless you can show me why it's not.
robshred66 3 years ago
Stop your whining, we can all see that you are in tears. You just say WELL MEBBE THE SUBCONSCIOUS DID IT, but you don't elaborate on how their subconscious understood the proper meaning of what Jesus said without a framework to understand it. I don't need to disprove it's probability, you need to prove it.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
**with tears running down face**
The framework was provided when Jesus and the women told them. Even if they didn't comprehend it there, the information that was told was still told, and it was more than likely stored in their subconscious. If they just totally didn't get it 100 percent and it was all lost, then how do we know Jesus even said it to begin with?
robshred66 3 years ago
They need a subconscious framework to properly interpret what Jesus said there. They had no such framework. It's akin to telling the disciples that jellybeans are good. Their subconscious or conscious mind wouldn't know what that meant because they didn't have the framework to interpret it.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Tell me, how did whoever wrote what Jesus said in Luke and wherever else derive what they wrote? I.e., how did they know that Jesus said such things regarding a resurrection if it was completely lost on them? If Jesus did in fact say the things he is quoted with saying, then this is adequate enough, even if they didn't understand it at the time, to provide a subconcious framework for it.
robshred66 3 years ago
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, Mark derived his gospel from the testimony of Peter, and Luke built his gospel from Matthew, Mark, and general apostolic tradition. You asserting that it gives a framework doesn't prove it. I gave the jellybean analogy to demonstrate why. Jesus saying "jellybeans are good" is nonsense, even to their subconscious, and they don't know what a jellybean tastes like.
Kabane52 3 years ago
32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again."
34The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
(Luke 18:31-34)
"The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again." Then they remembered his words. (Luke 24:5-8)
(question cont.)
robshred66 3 years ago
I ask you, Kabane, how what Jesus said could even be recorded if no one heard what he even said? And the women remembered his words about the resurrection, why couldn't the others have, even if it was in their subconcious. Also, Jesus, in Luke 12:8-9 says that anyone who disowns him will be disowned before the angels of God. They definitely did hear and understand this. They may have died for this. They had been told for a long time that faith comes first and is their ticket to heaven.
robshred66 3 years ago
They did hear what he said, they didn't understand it. Big difference. When the angels told the women that Jesus had risen, it clarified exactly what Jesus had meant. Why do you think they weren't expecting it? And if you grant the appearances to the women, you must provide a trigger. What the heck does Luke 12:8-9 have to do with this?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Luke 12:8-9 was there to provide a reason for martyrdom--in so far as they may have felt that they had to believe that they had seen the risen Christ, or at least profess this after Jesus "appeared" to them, lest they be denied a spot in heaven.
Anyway, all I was saying with the subconcious thing is that Jesus in fact did say what was said in Luke 18:31-33, and it sounds pretty damn clear to me. The Son of Man will be blah blah blah. So they may have ben subconsciously expecting it.
robshred66 3 years ago
LOL. If they didn't see the risen Jesus, then they would have known that he was a false messiah, therefore they would have known that accepting him would deny them a place in paradise. It sounds clear to you, and that's easy for you to say because we have the concept of resurrection before the general resurrection firmly ingrained in our heads. They did not. As I said in the video, when John saw the empty tomb, he thought Jesus had been assumed into heaven, not resurrected.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
First of all, I'm not going to take one person's psychological "criteria" of an extremely complex event such as hallucination as the end all analysis of such a phenomenon. Second, every source you are pulling from is from the Bible, which contains only those texts that made the cut. Sure I don't have evidence of those (at the time) to necessarily contradict those claims, but absence of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary--esp. when dealing with something outside of science. (cont.)
robshred66 3 years ago
These are credentialed psychologists, and you should provide some counters from credentialed psychologists if you really want to refute that claim. I drew from four sources. Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul. The Bible is not one book, stop treating it like one. And LOL at your making the cut comment. Would you care to defend any of the later apocryphal works?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Show me where I said it was one book, please. Second, I don't care if they're credentialed psychologists, psychology is an extremely complex subject, especially when dealing with stuff like hallucination and the like. Psychology has gone through so many changes in belief it's not even funny. There's no way to grasp something like that, at least now, with the amount a certitude that would satisfy me. And I can't defend the apocryphal works (cont.)
robshred66 3 years ago
or the works or witnesses who were burned or killed or silenced by whatever means or for whatever reason. Of course this will sound like a moot point to you, but it isn't for me, because we're dealing with something outside of science or "rational" thought here, as you've clearly stated before.
robshred66 3 years ago
Well I can attack any apocryphal book you want, as you named them as if they had the same amount or more credibility as the biblical works, which they do not. We are dealing outside of science when discussing the resurrection, but not outside rationality. It is a historical discussion.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
You said it was all taken from the Bible. You are treating it like I am drawing from one source. I cite psychologists, you stomp your feet and say that nothing is good enough to prove that the disciples were not hallucinating. Thanks, you just demonstrated that your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore worthless.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
I treated the fact that the Bible is more than one book as if it was implicit. And it's not unfalsifiable; we don't have the evidence has not yet been adduced to falsify it. It may never be. Does not mean it's unfalsifiable.
robshred66 3 years ago
This will, of course, sound worthless to you. But it still raises the question of the matter. Now if this was some kind of hard science or even history w/o miraculous events, I would be satisfied. But it does deal with miracles, and therefore I can't accept it based on the presence of a few texts that claim certain events happened. I might sound stingy or stupid to you, but that's me. I look forward to the "twin" vid.
robshred66 3 years ago
Okay, what would I need to do to falsify your hypothesis then?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Now that I read back, I don't think I put forth a hypothesis, as much as I was trying to show how the evidence doesn't necessarily prove yours beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're talking about the idea below of the subconscious, you could falsify this, or any other claim against the resurrection, by having Jesus appear to me, or just something more than a couple of people saying this is what happened. I believe other historical accounts based on the same thing more than I do about a miracle.
robshred66 3 years ago
You did. You said that their hallucination came from their subconscious mind and that that explanation was probable. So you want Jesus to appear to you? That would prove it beyond reasonable doubt? Did you know that the disciples were people as well? Was it proven beyond reasonable doubt to them? If so, is truth subjective or objective?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
Ok, when I say appear, I mean subject to scientific analysis. "Truth," in the sense of something that we as humans can know about reality is always limited by our abilities, but it becomes closer to the truth with science. In their minds, sure, it did. But it was just an appearance--there exists no evidence beyond the fact that some people say they saw something. Sorry, that's not good enough for me.
robshred66 3 years ago