This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

T. stillson's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by T. stillson

Comment 18 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 17 by T. stillson Jesus also rose from the dead after three days.

No, he didn't - and you have no evidence to show that he did.And just for the record, it wasn't "after three days", it was a day and a half tops. He was allegedly crucified on Friday afternoon, allegedly rose again early on Sunday. That's clearly not "after three days", it's maybe 36 hours - I've had naps last longer.You're confusing "after three days" with the Nicene Creed which states: "and on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures".A circular argument, if ever there was one.

Mr. Durden, what kind of "evidence" would you like to see or hear. Since you say "No he didn't", then I believe that you bear a certain burden of proof for that statement as well as I do for mine. What's your evidence that He didn't rise from the dead ? Like I stated before, no one alive today was alive then to be an eye witness to anyof that part of history. If historical documents can't be used or believed then there's an aweful lot of history that needs to be disbelieved as well. As for the 3 days, your correct about "on the third day." I'm glad you pointed that out, because as a believer that talks primarily with other believers, they would've known what was meant, but technically you're correct, it was ON the third day.

Understanding what marked the days in that culture is important also. In Jewish culture, a day begins at sundown or when 3 particular stars are visible, and ends at sundown the next day. Anything that might have happened before sundown on any given day, that day is counted. So, we have Friday, Jesus was crucified on Friday around noon, then there was Saturday, and then Sunday morning was the third day. We have to study and try to understand culture. Jesus' resurrection on the third day was not based on using the modern western worlds way of measuring it, but on Jewish methods alone. I also struggled for a while to understand that, but when I looked at their culture and saw that they measured a "day" differently it made more scence.

Comment 20 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 17 by T. stillson> For example, I never saw Napolean or Alexander the Great, and what they did or didn't do, with my own eyes, and neither did anyone that's alive today. But I choose to believe, or reject, for myself what history tells us about them.

These sort of comparisons are just ridiculous. You can't seriously compare the historical veracity of some obscure 1st century carpenter who barely gets a mention outside of tracts from half a dozen or so fanatical followers........with men who by their very definition impacted a good deal of the known world in their own lifetimes and who are massively recorded as such.I mean....for the blazes do you think Alexandria got it's name ? Is there a contemporary 'Jesusville' from Christ's time ?

Hi Schrodinger's Cat,

I guess I would have to ask if the number of times that someone "gets a mention" has any bearing at all on who or what they actually are ?? I used non-biblical references, from first century people who would've been much like yourself in their way of believing, just to show some evidence of an historical Jesus. If you have a writer that's something like a Richard Dawkins of their day,in their way of believing for example, that records that there was at least a man named Jesus that claimed to be someone special, then I would say that the existence of Jesus is sure. It's just up for debate as to whether or not he actually was who he said. People back then hated Jesus just as much as people today who want to believe he never even existed, but they didn't have the luxury of choosing whether or not to believe in his existence, they saw him in the flesh, they knew he was real and they wanted to get rid of him just as much then, as people want to get rid of everything He still stands for today. Also, comparing what Jesus did (a carpenter) to Alexander the Great is precisely what threw people for a loop in Jesus' day. I assuming that people will look at what Alexander did and what Jesus did and say that Alexander did greater things. Everything Alexander did was materialistic in nature. Conquering cities and such. Everything Jesus came to do was spiritual in nature. The physical things of this world will pass away (cease to exist as we know it), but the spiritual things will never pass away. But I guess none of us will truly know, from first hand knowledge that is, until after we draw our last breath will we?? There can only be ONE real truth about anything, people will believe what they CHOOSE to believe based on how we interpret the evidence. Thank you !! Have a Great Day !!!

[Formatting fixed by moderator.

NB. To show one level of indentation - i.e. a quote of someone else's comment - put a > at the beginning of the quote, and press Enter a couple of times at the end. Putting >> at the start of a line is a double indent - for if you're quoting someone else quoting something else, as above. Again, press Enter a couple of times at the end of the quoted section to clear it at the end. You can see how your comment will look by checking the Preview panel before posting your comment; and you have about 5 mins to edit it afterwards if it's not what you were expecting (click on the yellow pencil icon to edit)]

Tue, 22 May 2012 12:38:22 UTC | #942811