The long awaited KRKEY VS YAHWEH debate..

Skeptical Greg

Agave Wine Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
20,735
Location
Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Just trying to kick this off..


krkey has selected Yahweh as his first opponent and wishes to begin by defending the veracity of: ( in his words )


a.) the resurrection of Jesus


If krkey feels I have misrepresented his claim, I request he address the issue in another thread, and I will edit this post to reflect any changes as directed.

All other posters please grab a chair and post any observations and comments here:

Beer in here!!

As the challenger, krkey will begin by making an opening ( relevant) statement and a maximum of 10 points, to which Yaweh will then reply..

Beleth ( who claims experience that has not been disputed ) has volunteered to judge, and I move that he be accepted as such.
 
Wow, this "debate" is rather slow paced...

I'll start by saying anything, anything at all:

(Under the assumption Jesus actually existed, under the assumption the Crucifixion occurred as written in the Bible) There are no supernatural explanations, it is perfectly possible to survive 3 days of torture. In the days where all the Biblical "stuff" is set to occur, torture was an artform designed to pro-long suffering. The Vietcong were familiar with this.

It is also concievable that Jesus did survive. For virtually any given scenario where somebody has died, there is another person who survived "against all odds" (I still dont recommend hurling yourself over Niagra Falls).

To describe the resurrection of Jesus Christ in terms of God is to describe exactly nothing. To say Jesus was in fact dead, then rose from the dead is wishful thinking.
 
Yahweh I wished you would have waited a bit for me, I am still preparing my opening point. I had seriously not planned on starting this to monday but I will try to post a bit earlier. Until then, why don't you simply do what I am doing and prepare a longer opening, if you so desire.
 
Diogenes, you have stated my correct position, or my correctly my position is that the best explanation for the start of Christianity is the resurrection.

I am afraid Yahweh and I had a misunderstanding about the format of this debate, the format I had emailed him was a thus.

a.) we both get an opening statement to make our argument, this can be as long as we so desire
b.) after the opening statements we each essentially get ten threads apiece to further drive in our arguments, rebut the other side or make new arguments.
c.) after the ten rounds of threads we make our closing statements.

I had not planned on starting this till monday, truth be told I am still typing my opening statement. If Yahweh so desires he could rewrite his opening statement or come to a total different position, I will not object.

I simply ask everyone to be patient, and that patience will be rewarded with a worthy debate
 
An opening point due on Monday (seeing as today would be Wednesday)... I think you are taking this too seriously. I recommend you divvy up into smaller bits and pieces, or build a website of some sort.

Myself on the other hand, I would be happy to give the "burden the debate" over to Yahzi, or a much more productive and "fair" form debate would be (as suggested previously) a big "post and respond" thread. The system has been working quite well for a while (if your position is valid, you wont be overwhelmed by 20:1 skeptics to believers ratio), its open to many more viewpoints than the 2 between ourselves, and quite frankly, I dont have the patience the necessary to "care", I would actually find it a much more appropriate use of my time to <s>compose love sonnets to Luciana</s> enjoy myself in the way I have done on the board in the past 4000+ posts (welcome to the wonderful world of Social Fora).

Believe me, if you do happen to compose something rather lengthy, I'll take upon myself to respond to it (I have responded to quite a few of the lengthier posts).

But please, if you must do anything, enjoy yourself here.
 
I'll revive this on Monday, If Yaweh cares to wait that long..

Meanwhile I suggest that all participate in the forums as usual..

Particularly krkey..

Look over some other topics, and participate as the occasion moves you..

We have had some great discussions in the past regarding the veracity of the Jesus tales, and had substantail representation from both sides..

Krkey, Your recent
...the best explanation for the start of Christianity is the resurrection.
But this assumes that the resurrection took place.. And if it didn't, it couldn't have caused the start of Christianity..

If you change your statement to:

..... the best explanation for the start of Christianity is the belief in the resurrection.

We have a substantially different issue..
I pointed out earlier, that the latter form may not garner a lot of opposition here, as it is somewhat more subjective.
It would appear that all of the major players in the early years of Christianity did believe in the resurrection, but can it be established that they had rational reason to do so. i.e. Did it really happen?

That said, I believe you need to affirm exactly what it is you intend to defend, and see if you still have any takers..

Planning this debate was based on your statement that you would: ( your words )

defend a.) the resurrection of Jesus
 
I can accept that addendum Diogenes. In the end no matter how well I do in the end it is up to the person to accept the apostles were truthful and correct about what happened on easter sunday.

Yahweh if you do not want to continue farther then I can understand, I am on my last semester in college and the work load is light for me, light enough that I have full time to devote to a debate. Just let me know
 
krkey said:
Yahweh if you do not want to continue farther then I can understand, I am on my last semester in college and the work load is light for me, light enough that I have full time to devote to a debate. Just let me know

Unfortunately, as a Junior in highschool, I've only written 1 or 3 original speeches required to be 8 - 10 minutes in length, must be memorized by Oct. 30, and must be humorous for one class, 2 rough drafts of 2 other speeches for another class, 5 other classes that need attending to, a Chess Club to participate in, I'm wrapped up from the times of 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM... yeah, I have little time at all to devote to debate.

Oh well, plenty of other people here will be happy to take my place, possibly TriadBoy, Yahzi, Diogenes, and plenty of others.
 
Wow, Yahweh, that's alot of work.

I don't remember being that busy in high school.

Good luck.
 
Thats fair Yahweh. Dude you make me feel old, I am a 25 year old college senior. Lets see about another person. Your high school career remind me of mine, I was captian of the academic team and the JROTC. Best of luck
 
Well, as a concession to the forum at large, if you choose to debate me, I'll actually forgo my usual habit of flaming my opponent when they say something so blindingly stupid it makes me see stars.

See, that's exactly the sort of thing I won't be doing.

Just make a thread called "Krkey and Yahzi," and I'll be happy to respond. I'd prefer not to debate NDEs though, because they bore me silly. Given that actual live people see Elvis, I just can't get worked up over what dying people think they see.
 
krkey said:
In the end no matter how well I do in the end it is up to the person to accept the apostles were truthful and correct about what happened on easter sunday.

Greetings my friend.
This statement is rather presumptuous is it not? I may be reading your intent of this statement in the wrong way. But it seems you are saying regardless if you are “defeated” in debate and fail to prove your case/debate what you believe is still fact ( and I respect you believe that) and the flaw is in others including the one who just ‘defeated” you and they are “lost” and “blind”?

Is this not a bit like a fighter talking it up in the weeks leading up to the fight as to how great and powerful he is and after the bight or even right before he declares that if he loses, gets his ‘ass kicked” he is still the best fighter and the other is inferior?

Be well my friend.
 
I have to wonder about the competance of any man who compares NDE's which have been the subject of several scientific studies, which have all stated that it is medical unexplainable to "elvis sightings"

You misunderstand my point on this one Pahansiri, you might want to read the Ludemann-Craig debate Craig clearly won this debate. His opponent, Ludemann admitted that Jesus existed, He was crucified and killed, and that the apostles sincerely believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. Ludemann explained it as multiple hallucination and offered no explanation for the Conversion of Paul, James or the why didnt the Sanhedrin simply retrive the body. That is why I said there always an out.


Well Yahzi You know my position on the best explanation for Christianity, what is yours ( I do insist you defend an alternative position, fair is fair). I suggest we kick this off on monday or tuesday
 
krkey said:


You misunderstand my point on this one Pahansiri, you might want to read the Ludemann-Craig debate Craig clearly won this debate. His opponent, Ludemann admitted that Jesus existed, He was crucified and killed, and that the apostles sincerely believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. Ludemann explained it as multiple hallucination and offered no explanation for the Conversion of Paul, James or the why didnt the Sanhedrin simply retrive the body. That is why I said there always an out.



Greetings krkey.

I am not sure at all what that has to do with post?
 
Originally posted by krkey
Ludemann admitted that Jesus existed, He was crucified and killed, and that the apostles sincerely believed they saw the resurrected Jesus.

Ludemann must've been drunk

offered no explanation for the Conversion of Paul

Paul was a gnostic who doesn't know anything about the Jesus of the Gospels. His Jesus was the familiar dying god-man - who is 'awakened' spiritually. Doesn't it interest you that the first story of Jesus (Pauls writings) are so drastically different then the Gospel stories?

Read this debate:

http://www.ffrf.org/debates/barker_horner.html

In it, Barker shows Paul referring to a spiritual Jesus. Which follows exactly with my studies. Barker doesn't say it - but it seems clear to me - Paul was gnostic.
 
Triadboy I have this thing for using nonscholars and Dan Barker is among the worst incompetants to ever walk the face of the earth.

I decided to simply cut and past an argument from a earlier debate rebutal I had wrote.

Your views on the apostles coming to a belief in a spiritual resurrection are flawed for two major reasons.
a.) There was no belief among the Jews about the idea of a spiritual resurrection. For example read the following verses
1.) Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
2.) Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
3.) Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
These following verses all come from the time of Jesus
4.) 4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.
5.) 1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.
6.) Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.
7.) 2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.
8.) Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.
b.) These verses easily demonstrate the Jewish view of resurrection from the dead. It was always a physical occurrence. The Pharisees even debated as to whether the resurected dead would still wear their burial cloths, thus there are no good historical reasons to believe that the apostles or Paul( who was a Pharisee) would have believed in a spiritual resurrection. It was simply an idea that had no meaning to a Jew.
c.) The verses you use to postulate an original spiritual view shall be listed below and properly explained.
1.) 1st Corinthian 15:42- 49 -42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man isj from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we willk also bear the image of the man of heaven
2.) Ist Peter 3:18 –19 18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison
I shall begin with Corinthians. The spiritual body that is being discussed is the resurrected body. The resurrected body is a physical body, but a physical body with spiritual significance. ( an analogy would be the Bible, it is clearly physical, but to many it has spiritual value) Verse 47 discusses Adam, which is clearly a physical creation. Pagans did not believe in a bodily resurrection. To them that idea was simply obscene. That is why the pagans in 1st Cor 15:12 were saying, “there is no resurrection from the dead” because they did not believe in bodily resurections. They already had a belief in a spiritual resurrection so this question simply would not have come up had Paul been preaching a spiritual resurrection. Verse 20 “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.” This verse discusses the idea that Christ had been bodily resurrected from the dead and then others shall be resurrected from the dead. This is clearly referring to the Jewish view of resurrection, a good example of this can be found in John 11:23-24 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 4Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Verse 15:22 of 1st Corinthian –“for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.” It refers to the death of Adam, which was clearly a physical event .
In verse 44 Paul use of the word soma twice, proving that he intended for the Corinthians to understand the resurrected body to be physical. The word simply has no other meaning ( Soma in Biblical Theology by Robert Gundry) A proper exploration of the word soma and its use in Greek will be explored below. (the high lighted word is where soma is used)
MT 6:22-25 "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; 23but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.i 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink,j or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
MT 27:58-59 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth
MK 14:8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial.
LK 23:52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus
JN 2:20-21 The Jews then said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?" 21But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
And now lets have a little from Paul and Jude
1st Co. 6:13 "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,"e and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1st Co 6:16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh
2nd Co 4:10 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies
Gal 6:17 From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.
Jude 1:9 But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slande against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
There simply is no compelling reason to accept the notion that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection. It went against the Jewish world view, the view of the Pharisees, is not the proper reading of the text and lastly his word soma has no meaning besides that of physical. The best view of what Paul is trying to say is this “ The resurrected body will be physical, but have spiritual aspects.”

You can also read this by a scholar

Triadboy, please tell me where you are getting your scholarly claims? I have never, ever seen anyone say Paul was Gnostic( who was a opponent of the Gnostics) or Mark was a Gnostic( possibly the Secret Gospel of Mark preserved completely and originally on a 18th century copy. And if you believe that...) document. I am going to be so very disappointed with you if is some nonsense like Archyra S.
 
I also just asked a Jewish friend of mine, according to her there is no such thing as a belief in a spiritual resurrection among Jews.

Let me repost a few reasons why the copy cat thesis is as dead as the dodo in current scholarship.

a.) The differences between the pagan deity in question and Jesus are vast and the similarities are few.

b.) Among the alleged similarities are only a superficial similarity, for example Horus'( or Osiris) resurrection was done by I believe his wife , sewning him back together. The resurrection of Dionysus was symbolic, it was meant to represent seasonal changes.

c.) Jewish culture was extremely hostile to Paganism. For example one can witness the reaction to Pontius Pilate placing pagan symbols on Jewish coins within circulation, and the fact Roman legions did not display their pagan banners in Judea. Also to be considered is the fact Romans would even execute their own troops for entering into Jewish Temple area, which shows again extreme Jewish hostility toward Paganism and the cause of 2nd Judean revolt was attempting to build a pagan temple to Zeus in Jerusalem.

d.) Biblical command did not allow for association with Paganism and pagans.

d.) Jewish Culture already had two negative enocunters with Paganism. The Seleucids and the Romans. This alone would have made them hostile toward these Pagan ideas

e.) what do you think caused the Maccebean wars?

f.) Jewish culture already had a dim view of Egyptian Gods, because of the historicial belief of enslavement of Jews by Egyptians.

g.) how would the apostles have come to this Paganism in the first place, do you seriously believe that they had a copy of the Egyptian book of the dead on them?

h.) odd, all this Pagan influences in Judea, yet it never left any archaelogical remains from the 1st century BC- 1st century AD. You might just think it never existed in there.

Well folks, now I have another job. Email New testament Scholar Gerd Ludemann and inform him that triadboy from randi.com thinks he was drunk and is basically incompetant. I am sure he will immediatelly change his position because of this prestigious person correcting him.
 
Lastly, might I recommend that you take your books, which you obviously stole from Rhett Butler's library ( or was it Jefferson's, perhaps Paine) and as soon as possible put them on ebay. Take the money from that and as soon as possible buy something from the twentieth century and if it is so possible perhaps the later part. Might want to start here
 
krkey said:
I also just asked a Jewish friend of mine, according to her there is no such thing as a belief in a spiritual resurrection among Jews.

Let me repost a few reasons why the copy cat thesis is as dead as the dodo in current scholarship.

Saying that it's dead as the dodo in modern scholarship is a grotesque exaggeration. It certainly is among the scholars representing the Christian bias. Let me see If I can give my side on the reasons why you think It's invalid.

Originally posted by krkey
a.) The differences between the pagan deity in question and Jesus are vast and the similarities are few.

Dead, dead wrong. The similarities go much deeper than you care to give credit for. For instance, one of Dionysus' miracles was turning water into wine, sound familiar? Dionysus also commanded his followers to drink wine and eat bread as symbolic of his blood and body respectfully. Osiris not died and was ressurected, but ascended to heaven and had the capability to grant followers eternal life. Obviously there are many more, if you want to read further, pick up a copy of Earl Doherty's book "The Jesus Puzzle."

Originally posted krkey
b.) Among the alleged similarities are only a superficial similarity, for example Horus'( or Osiris) resurrection was done by I believe his wife , sewning him back together. The resurrection of Dionysus was symbolic, it was meant to represent seasonal changes.

This argument is unsubstantiated because you omit the strikingly close similiarities and put up the superficial ones as refutation of the whole thing.

Originally posted by krkey
c.) Jewish culture was extremely hostile to Paganism. For example one can witness the reaction to Pontius Pilate placing pagan symbols on Jewish coins within circulation, and the fact Roman legions did not display their pagan banners in Judea. Also to be considered is the fact Romans would even execute their own troops for entering into Jewish Temple area, which shows again extreme Jewish hostility toward Paganism and the cause of 2nd Judean revolt was attempting to build a pagan temple to Zeus in Jerusalem.

This argument loses it's weight once one considers the fact that almost all of the Christians throughout the first 350 years of Christian history were non-Jewish.

Originally posted by krkey
f.) Jewish culture already had a dim view of Egyptian Gods, because of the historicial belief of enslavement of Jews by Egyptians.

Which the Egyptians have no record of, at least not one of which I'm aware.

Originally posted by krkey
g.) how would the apostles have come to this Paganism in the first place, do you seriously believe that they had a copy of the Egyptian book of the dead on them?

There were lost of religious traditions that flourished in the Mediteranian area during early Christian history. That's most likely why Christianity wasn't a unified movement until Roma Persecution ended and the Catholic and Orthidox chruches were established.

Originally posted by krkey
h.) odd, all this Pagan influences in Judea, yet it never left any archaelogical remains from the 1st century BC- 1st century AD. You might just think it never existed in there.

Mnay of the archaelogical remains are right in the bible, even in the old testament. The Judaic Satan, for instance, was an adaptation of the Zoaroastrian Ahirman. Most of the early Christian practices (Baptism, Eucharist) came directly from paganism.
 
Time for me to bury these points once again( and I thought the posters in this forum did not believe in Resurrections. They constantly hope dead ideas in scholarships will do that)

Saying that it's dead as the dodo in modern scholarship is a grotesque exaggeration. It certainly is among the scholars representing the Christian bias. Let me see If I can give my side on the reasons why you think It's invalid.



Actually the scholars that hold these views are both Christians and atheist. Ludemann and Crossan, both atheist do not hold this theory. And finally for the first time in my life I found a use for Christ Mythers. They dont even use that theory

which version of Osiris has this, the stories of him are hopelessly contradictory

This argument loses it's weight once one considers the fact that almost all of the Christians throughout the first 350 years of Christian history were non-Jewish.
and this argument loses it forces when we remember that the NT books were composed, with the exception of John, by 70 AD

Which the Egyptians have no record of, at least not one of which I'm aware.

The historicial belief of the Jews is all that matters on this.

Mnay of the archaelogical remains are right in the bible, even in the old testament. The Judaic Satan, for instance, was an adaptation of the Zoaroastrian Ahirman. Most of the early Christian practices (Baptism, Eucharist) came directly from paganism there has been no remains of pagan practices found within Israel from at least one hundred BC to 100 years after Christ. Actually a lot of the ideas you mention already existed before Jesus, check the noncanocials from the Qumran time

Sorry not enough, the theory is still dead as the dodo. Atheists scholars would tell you that just as quickly as Christians. I need a source for Dionysus, that claim has been floating around the web, but no source has ever been provided. I know it is in Randel Helm's book who wrote the Gospels, but he didn't provide a source either. I would be extremely cautious with the use of Doherty, its better to use scholars, in any subject you so research
 

Back
Top Bottom