Jesus-didn't-die-on-the-cross-theory

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...its nonsense to try to rationalise ...”

LOL.

Don't you see anything wrong with that statement fragment? -it is clearly a contradiction.

“...Once you agree
that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations. ...”

how could the concoction of a d ...[text shortened]... tories to address hypothetical situations” but reason-based; based on the reasons I just gave.

well if it made you smile i am glad, but i do think its both illogical (how can that which is
supernatural be subject to rationality) and unreasonable to limit your search of truth to
unintelligent agencies and thus concoct a whole series of hypothetical events in an
attempt to rationalise a supernatural event.

Originally posted by Agerg
Rejecting twinkle dust 'theories' is not "illogical"; you haven't answered my second query.

rejecting it an then supplying your own twinkle toes and fairy dust stories is even more
illogical, as you have not even tried to ascertain the validity of the Biblical text. Its
pathetic!

Originally posted by Agerg
You haven't successfully eliminated the proposition that the Bible isn't a true historical account of what happened 2000 years ago. There is no valid reason to *deduce* it must have been a supernatural event.

i dont need to eliminate it, i have examined the text and to me its sound, have you?
noooo!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rejecting it an then supplying your own twinkle toes and fairy dust stories is even more
illogical, as you have not even tried to ascertain the validity of the Biblical text. Its
pathetic!

Please explain how I have made an appeal to magic and fairy dust.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont need to eliminate it, i have examined the text and to me its sound, have you?
noooo!

Well we all know

Bible implies God implies Bible implies God implies Bible implies ... implies God
or
assuming the Bible is true implies what the Bible says happened, actually happened, corroberates your asumption the Bible is true implies ... implies what the Bible says happened, actually happened

is sufficient argument for you but for us we need a little less circularity ;]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its nonsense to try to rationalise the event and then proceed to explain it away in
pure speculative terms, simply because you deny the divine element. Once you agree
that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.

Truer words were never spoken: There is no need to concoct elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.

Originally posted by JS357
Truer words were never spoken: There is no need to concoct elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.

Well it's not treated so much a hypothetical situation given that the vast majority of Christians buy into the Jesus myth. Secondly if you're hit with such an account you have a number of choices:

1) Accept it without question
2) Reject it, and shrug your shoulders when asked to provide an account for what could have happened were it not true.
3) Shrug your shoulders in ambivalence and carry on with the rest of your day

4) Reject it and find a rational alternative explanation.

Atheists that post on these boards tend to opt for (4), and fundies opt for (1). What Andrew Hamilton posted is perhaps a bit too elaborate for my liking yes, but it's still far more plausible than the Biblical account. - No appeals to magic.

Originally posted by JS357
Truer words were never spoken: There is no need to concoct elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.

the hypothesis is that Christ survived, the elaborate stories are those which Hamilton
and Agers seek to proffer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the hypothesis is that Christ survived, the elaborate stories are those which Hamilton
and Agers seek to proffer.

nothing elaborate with mine ;]

Originally posted by Agerg
nothing elaborate with mine ;]

ok, simple fairy tales of Agers!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, simple fairy tales of Agers!

again...please explain where the appeals to magic are

Originally posted by Agerg
again...please explain where the appeals to magic are

that Christ survived after having been publicly executed by the Romans, stabbed in the
side with a spear and flogged prior to his execution. If that is not magic then what is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that Christ survived after having been publicly executed by the Romans, stabbed in the
side with a spear and flogged prior to his execution. If that is not magic then what is it?

not my claim!!! mine was post 2 that suggests someone, perhaps a wise charismatic feller did get crucified, did die, and the garbage about Jesus was attributed to that bloke - nothing out of the ordinary, no appeals to magic! Just an appeal to human nature 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
not my claim!!! mine was post 2 that suggests someone, perhaps a wise charismatic feller did get crucified, did die, and the garbage about Jesus was attributed to that bloke - nothing out of the ordinary, no appeals to magic! Just an appeal to human nature 😵

mmm, grumble grumble.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, grumble grumble.

Perhaps you can now concentrate on what *I* said now and show me where I've made any appeals to magic (Andrew Hamilton made no such appeals either) or retract your assertion that I did?

Nah...you'd never do either of those ;]