Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[alang1216]

No you haven't. Not in any detail and not in any way that explains how so many texts exist if they are diametrically opposed to what happened in reality. All you have done is make vague references that are more like nitpicking. Your arguments don't make sense, are based entirely upon conjecture and have no supporting evidence.

You are using the NT to prove the NT. Not possible.

You claim Jesus was never buried so that's why he wasn't in the tomb. Yet that very statement validates that there was a tomb. Your only basis for believing the body of Jesus wasn't in the tomb is that as a practice Romans left the bodies of the people they crucified to rot and feed the birds to serve as examples to others. Yet you dismiss that that wasn't the custom for Jews and that the Gospels recorded that Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish high court, requested and received Jesus's body from Pontius Pilate.

"the Gospels recorded..." Written by Christians for Christians with no supporting evidence. You can accept them as historically accurate, I don't.

Was the narrative that Joseph of Arimathea requested and received Jesus's body from Pontius Pilate a lie or was it an embellishment? Walk me through how that can be an embellishment instead of a lie.

What is the difference?

The reason you have been so vague is because whatever inconsistencies you think exists don't change anything. There is no rational explanation for the number of narratives concerning the miracles performed by Christ. They can't be the product of the telephone game error. That would be impossible. They can only either be true or a conspiracy. And since there is no way it was a conspiracy (a point you seem to agree with) the only possible explanation is that it is true.

You say 'impossible' I say probable.

 

[alang1216]

Paul was a devout Jew. Paul believed in the God of Abraham. Prior to his conversion Paul was a Pharisee who persecuted the followers of Jesus. Are you suggesting Paul betrayed the God of Abraham for financial gain? Do you even know what history recorded as Paul's fate?

Paul was officially imprisoned at least two times according to the Book of Acts: once in Philippi and once in Caesarea, followed by a period of house arrest in Rome. However, early Christian tradition and Paul's own writings suggest he was imprisoned many more times, with Clement of Rome claiming he was imprisoned seven times.

Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown into a Roman prison. Paul was held under guard in Caesarea for two years before his trial before Felix. After his journey to Rome, Paul was kept under house arrest for two years, awaiting trial before Caesar. Paul was executed, most likely by beheading, during the Nero's reign around 64-67 AD for his Christian faith and witness to the resurrection of Jesus, a central tenet of the faith, during a time when Christians were persecuted in Rome.

So where was Paul's financial gain? Where is the embellishment in this history and for what purpose would it be embellished?

Because it seems that you are arguing Paul lied for financial gain. Is that correct? How is that not a conspiracy?

Paul's biography was written by Paul's followers so it is impossible to separate fact from legend. Note that I only said it was possible that Paul was a fraud, not that I believed he was. We can't know for sure.

 

[alang1216]

Why would I?

You claimed "No one is that dumb to build such a large body of work based upon errors". If you believe that is true how do you square that with large bodies of work like the Koran and the Book of Mormon?

 

[ding]

You are using the NT to prove the NT. Not possible.

No. You are claiming those texts are lies. All of them. I know you like to call them embellishments. But because of the sheer number I am showing you how poorly constructed that argument is because you have not explained how such a massive amount of accounts could be so blatantly wrong. But to your point (which wasn't directed at what I wrote) I use non-Christian sources to validate those texts.

"the Gospels recorded..." Written by Christians for Christians with no supporting evidence. You can accept them as historically accurate, I don't.

I use non-Christian sources to validate those texts. And then there is Paul who lived in those times, witnessed the risen Christ, wrote about it, evangelized it and is a credible witness because he had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

But we are talking about a specific account. One that you argued that Jesus was never buried so that's why he wasn't in the tomb. That very statement validates that there was a tomb. Your only basis for believing the body of Jesus wasn't in the tomb is that as a practice Romans left the bodies of the people they crucified to rot and feed the birds to serve as examples to others. Yet you dismiss that that wasn't the custom for Jews and that the Gospels recorded that Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish high court, requested permission from Pontius Pilate to bury Jesus.

Why are you dismissing the Jewish custom to bury their dead on the day they die? Why are you dismissing the account where permission to bury Jesus was granted by Pontius Pilot?

What is the difference?

The difference is if they are blatant lies used to trick pagans into converting to Christianity, then you need to prove it was a conspiracy.

So, was the narrative that Joseph of Arimathea requested and received Jesus's body from Pontius Pilate a lie or was it an embellishment? Walk me through how that can be an embellishment instead of a lie. Because that's what you are arguing, right? Everything was embellished. How was Joseph of Arimathea requesting permission from Pontius Pilate to bury Jesus's body an embellishment?

You say 'impossible' I say probable.

It's impossible because there is no rational explanation using the telephone game error for the 37 miracles performed by Christ. There's too many and you can't explain even one of them. You can't even explain how Joseph of Arimathea requesting permission from Pontius Pilate to bury Jesus's body is an embellishment. The number of details in these accounts is staggering. You'd need to explain how each were embellished. It's impossible. The only viable explanation is it was a conspiracy. That they were all lies. All fabricated.

 

[ding]

Paul's biography was written by Paul's followers so it is impossible to separate fact from legend. Note that I only said it was possible that Paul was a fraud, not that I believed he was. We can't know for sure.

You were arguing that what Paul wrote was done for financial gain (see post #516). Which is a conspiracy argument, not an embellishment argument. That's what I was responding to. So are you now arguing there was a conspiracy surrounding Paul's biography? Where was Paul's financial gain? Where is the embellishment in this history and for what purpose would it be embellished? Because it seems that you are very much making a conspiracy argument.

Because it seems that you are arguing Paul lied for financial gain. Is that correct? How is that not a conspiracy?

The doctrine of the resurrection is central to Christianity – so much so that St. Paul states:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead… Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied (1Cor 15:13-15,18-19).

It is truly extraordinary that Paul made the claim that if there is no resurrection from the dead, that the faith of believers is useless and that all who have died in Christ have died in their sins. Paul knows that if he is lying, he and the other disciples have jeopardized the salvation of the whole Christian community, and furthermore he emerges as a false witness (a perjurer) before God, and is answerable to Him. The consequences of lying to (or even deceiving) believers about the resurrection cannot be overstated, because the resurrection is the foundation of Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive Son of God – and the unconditional love of God with us.

So was this an embellishment or was it a lie?

 

[ding]

You claimed "No one is that dumb to build such a large body of work based upon errors". If you believe that is true how do you square that with large bodies of work like the Koran and the Book of Mormon?

You forgot to include the rest of my post. Can you explain how Jesus appearing to 515 individuals over a 40 day period after he was executed are embellishments instead of lies?

How does that prove your belief that the 37 accounts of miracles performed by Christ are embellishments? How does that prove your belief that every reported encounter with the risen Christ are embellishments?

In all Jesus appeared a dozen different times over forty days to more than 515 individuals. He appeared to women and to men, He appeared to individuals and to groups, He appeared indoors and outdoors, He appeared to people who were skeptics and people who were believers, He appeared to people who were hardhearted and people who were tenderhearted. And He talked with people, He ate with people, He even invited Thomas - the skeptic, the doubter - to put his finger in the nail holes in His hands, put his hand in the spear wound in His side - to see and touch the evidence himself. Then what was Thomas's reaction? To say, "My Lord and my God!" He became convinced by the evidence that Jesus had returned from the dead. And what does history tell us about Thomas? He spent the rest of his life declaring Jesus did return from the dead, He is the Son of God, even to the point of being put to death for his faith in southern India.

But to your point, if you had read the part you parsed out, you would know that we aren't discussing the validity of the Koran or the Book of Mormon. We are discussing the validity of the NT. The argument you are trying to make is that since some religions are false, that all religions must be false. But I believe each claim should be evaluated on its own merits.

 

[alang1216]

Your previous posts were just rehashes of material on which we have offered our opinions. I feel no need to go over them again.

But to your point, if you had read the part you parsed out, you would know that we aren't discussing the validity of the Koran or the Book of Mormon. We are discussing the validity of the NT. The argument you are trying to make is that since some religions are false, that all religions must be false. But I believe each claim should be evaluated on its own merits.

Actually you opened the door to a discussion of the validity of the Koran or the Book of Mormon when you wrote "no one is that dumb to build such a large body of work based upon errors".

So, in light of your views on the evidence for Christianity, please let me know why you believe these two religions, both of which claim to be true followers of the God of Abraham, are false.

 

[ding]

Your previous posts were just rehashes of material on which we have offered our opinions. I feel no need to go over them again.

That's exactly what I would have expected you to say.

 

[ding]

Actually you opened the door to a discussion of the validity of the Koran or the Book of Mormon when you wrote "no one is that dumb to build such a large body of work based upon errors".

So, in light of your views on the evidence for Christianity, please let me know why you believe these two religions, both of which claim to be true followers of the God of Abraham, are false.

Actually I didn't. You are desperate to change the subject. I've got you arguing it was a conspiracy.

 

[alang1216]

That's exactly what I would have expected you to say.

And that's exactly what I would have expected you to say. Proves my point.

 

[alang1216]

Actually I didn't. You are desperate to change the subject. I've got you arguing it was a conspiracy.

You did and yes I'm desperate to change the subject and get out of this endless loop. No conspiracy but feel free to keep chanting that mantra if it gives you pleasure.

 

[ding]

And that's exactly what I would have expected you to say. Proves my point.

Your point is everything is made up because it's a massive conspiracy.

 

[ding]

You did and yes I'm desperate to change the subject and get out of this endless loop. No conspiracy but feel free to keep chanting that mantra if it gives you pleasure.

You've been all over the map and proven wrong at every turn.

 

[alang1216]

Your point is everything is made up because it's a massive conspiracy.

You sound like a child who puts his fingers in his ears and keeps repeating "nah nah nah" because he doesn't want to hear what you have to say.

 

[ding]

You sound like a child who puts his fingers in his ears and keeps repeating "nah nah nah" because he doesn't want to hear what you have to say.

I've proven it. According to you Paul wrote his letters for financial gain. You couldn't explain how the resurrection was embellished or any miracle performed by Christ for that matter.

Your conjecture that Christ wasn't placed in the tomb was destroyed.

 

[alang1216]

You've been all over the map and proven wrong at every turn.

You have never proven me wrong here. You may have offered evidence to contradict the evidence I offered, but never proof, neither of us will ever have that in this life.

That is another reason I don't believe in the God of Abraham, if he wants us to follow/obey/worship him, or whatever, it would be nice if he offered us proof of who he is and what he wants. Paul may claim we all know in our hearts but I, and millions of others, obviously do not.

 

[alang1216]

I've proven it. According to you Paul wrote his letters for financial gain. You couldn't explain how the resurrection was embellished or any miracle performed by Christ for that matter.

Your conjecture that Christ wasn't placed in the tomb was destroyed.

Actually you have not gotten a single fact right in this post.

 

[ding]

You have never proven me wrong here. You may have offered evidence to contradict the evidence I offered, but never proof, neither of us will ever have that in this life.

That is another reason I don't believe in the God of Abraham, if he wants us to follow/obey/worship him, or whatever, it would be nice if he offered us proof of who he is and what he wants. Paul may claim we all know in our hearts but I, and millions of others, obviously do not.

God wants you to exist and pass it down. It's not that complicated. You yourself have already admitted that you would believe in God if you saw Jesus perform miracles and rise from the dead. Well he did. You weren't around to see it. So you don't. You are without excuse.

 

[ding]

Actually you have not gotten a single fact right in this post.

Sure I did.

 

[alang1216]

God wants you to exist and pass it down. It's not that complicated. You yourself have already admitted that you would believe in God if you saw Jesus perform miracles and rise from the dead. Well he did. You weren't around to see it. So you don't. You are without excuse.

I think not being around to see it is a perfectly good excuse. If God expects us to believe in him, and not just take someone's word for it, I think he needs to step up his game. The evidence you've offered certainly would never stand up in any court.