St. Januarius, Miracles, and the Proof of God.

[EscAlaMike]

@begbert2

Actually Mormonism also claims it was founded by Jesus - in fact it claims it was founded by Jesus twice. That has to count for something.

Note that I used the qualifier “credible”.

@begbert2

(Also, general question here, why do we give a flying crap about why you’re a fan of the Catholic Church again? You’re just some dude, and your opinions on this magic religion or that magic religion don’t have a lot to do with whether atheists will suddenly turn into theists the second they see christ’s face on their morning toast.)

Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I’m a fan of the Catholic Church. I’m only responding to direct questions.

I happen to believe that miracles are generally not very powerful in persuading people to change their beliefs.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

I name all of them(including yours), since not a one has come up with hard evidence to support the existence of the god/goddess/godthing they worship.

I’m not sure how “hard” evidence is different from just plain evidence. Jesus claimed to be God. He was executed, and then rose from the dead. His resurrected body and his ascension into heaven were witnessed by hundreds of people including his mother and his disciples. And every one of his disciples testified to his resurrection, and most were executed as martyrs.

Regular people don’t rise from the dead. My conclusion: Jesus is God.

This might be complete nonsense to you, but it’s credible to me.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

Note that I used the qualifier “credible”.

But the only claims you find credible are the ones made by the Catholic church. Circular logic at work here.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

I’m not sure how “hard” evidence is different from just plain evidence. Jesus claimed to be God. He was executed, and then rose from the dead. His resurrected body and his ascension into heaven were witnessed by hundreds of people including his mother and his disciples. And every one of his disciples testified to his resurrection, and most were executed as martyrs.

Regular people don’t rise from the dead. My conclusion: Jesus is God.

This might be complete nonsense to you, but it’s credible to me.

1. Saying hundreds witnessed something is not the same as having a hundred witnesses.
2. It would help your case if the different accounts of the resurrection and/or the ascension matched up.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

But the only claims you find credible are the ones made by the Catholic church. Circular logic at work here.

Well yeah, that’s why I’m Catholic.

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

1. Saying hundreds witnessed something is not the same as having a hundred witnesses.
2. It would help your case if the different accounts of the resurrection and/or the ascension matched up.

1. Well they lived 2,000 years ago, so they’re dead now.

2. Please show me some discrepancies.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

1. Well they lived 2,000 years ago, so they’re dead now.

2. Please show me some discrepancies.

1. Still stands. Not only are they dead, but they remain anonymous. An unconfirmed witness is useless for verification.
2. Who was in the tomb when Jesus wasn’t found where he had been placed, and who was told about it?

[rat_avatar]

I personally think that the the great Jewish zombie uprising of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:49-54) would have been mentioned in more places than one religion’s stories.

As the four gospels contain somewhat different accounts of the resurrection, and because it is highly likely that those accounts were written at different times that is probably not the best example to pick with the lack of non-bible sources to convince a non-believer.

[etasyde]

@EscAlaMike

Schisms and antipopes? What’s the relevance? Yes, people and groups have left the Catholic Church. What does that have to do with anything?

Did you read your own definition?

Integrity: the state of being whole and undivided

A schism is the opposite of that. Have you never heard of the Orthodox churches, or Protestant churches, or all those Christian’s the pope had murdered when he ordered CRUSADES against former Catholic/Christian populations (Albigensian Crusade & Waldensian crusade), or the Thirty Years War?

Undivided? The Catholic Church is the exact opposite and you’re ignoring its entire history (which is basically a long cavalcade of division, infighting, and frequent violence).

[begbert2]

@EscAlaMike

Note that I used the qualifier “credible”.

I don’t consider claims that the Catholic church has an unbroken line of divine succession from Jesus on down through all its leaders through all of history credible. Even putting aside the fact I’m barely convinced Peter even existed, you do realize that there’s been a fair amount of historical fuckery in the papal line, right?

It’s less about claiming that Joe Smith was credible, than me finding claims that the football has been successfully passed without being dropped once in all this time incredible.

(Well, that and I think the football in question is fictional; that does degrade its credibility to me somewhat.)

[rat_avatar]

@EscAlaMike

1. Well they lived 2,000 years ago, so they’re dead now.

2. Please show me some discrepancies.

Was it only Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb? (John)
Or did others go too? (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)

Did one angel appear? (Matthew and Mark)
Or two? (Luke and John)

Did Jesus appear in Galilee? (Matthew and Mark)
Or near Jerusalem (Luke)

I can keep going but…

[EscAlaMike]

@Czarcasm

1. Still stands. Not only are they dead, but they remain anonymous. An unconfirmed witness is useless for verification.
2. Who was in the tomb when Jesus wasn’t found where he had been placed, and who was told about it?

1. What about the disciples and Jesus’ mother?

2. I know what you’re getting at, but just because there are minor differences in the
   details of the accounts does not mean the incident was fabricated. There is nothing that is outright contradictory, and the discrepancies can easily be attributed to the fact that the Gospel authors are getting their information from different sources possibly decades after the fact with different perspectives.

[EscAlaMike]

@etasyde

Did you read your own definition?
A schism is the opposite of that. Have you never heard of the Orthodox churches, or Protestant churches, or all those Christian’s the pope had murdered when he ordered CRUSADES against former Catholic/Christian populations (Albigensian Crusade & Waldensian crusade), or the Thirty Years War?

Undivided? The Catholic Church is the exact opposite and you’re ignoring its entire history (which is basically a long cavalcade of division, infighting, and frequent violence).

Of course I have heard of the Orthodox and Protestants. They are not Catholic. They left the Catholic Church. They didn’t split and still claim to be Catholic, though groups have done that too. If you think the Catholic Church is divided, then you misunderstand institutional unity.

[EscAlaMike]

@begbert2

I don’t consider claims that the Catholic church has an unbroken line of divine succession from Jesus on down through all its leaders through all of history credible. Even putting aside the fact I’m barely convinced Peter even existed, you do realize that there’s been a fair amount of historical fuckery in the papal line, right?

It’s less about claiming that Joe Smith was credible, than me finding claims that the football has been successfully passed without being dropped once in all this time incredible.

(Well, that and I think the football in question is fictional; that does degrade its credibility to me somewhat.)

Yeah, I used to read anti-Catholic history too.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

1. What about the disciples and Jesus’ mother?

2. I know what you’re getting at, but just because there are minor differences in the
   details of the accounts does not mean the incident was fabricated. There is nothing that is outright contradictory, and the discrepancies can easily be attributed to the fact that the Gospel authors are getting their information from different sources possibly decades after the fact with different perspectives.

1. Nice avoidance.
2. The Telephone Game…which really isn’t an argument in your favor, you realize?

[EscAlaMike]

@rat_avatar

Was it only Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb? (John)
Or did others go too? (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)

Did one angel appear? (Matthew and Mark)
Or two? (Luke and John)

Did Jesus appear in Galilee? (Matthew and Mark)
Or near Jerusalem (Luke)

I can keep going but…

Is any of this relevant to whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead? The truth of the Gospel does not hinge on whether or not one or two angels appeared.

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

Yeah, I used to read anti-Catholic history too.

What history are you reading now?

[Czarcasm]

@EscAlaMike

Is any of this relevant to whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead? The truth of the Gospel does not hinge on whether or not one or two angels appeared.

If it doesn’t hinge on the contradictory accounts, then what does it hinge on?

[etasyde]

@EscAlaMike

Of course I have heard of the Orthodox and Protestants. They are not Catholic. They left the Catholic Church. They didn’t split and still claim to be Catholic, though groups have done that too. If you think the Catholic Church is divided, then you misunderstand institutional unity.

Didn’t take you long to go to No True Scottsman, did it?

Edit: Also, yes, they do call themselves Catholic (Catholic (term) - Wikipedia), and no, the Great Schism was not one party leaving the church. It was both parties declaring the other excommunicated.

[begbert2]

@EscAlaMike

1. What about the disciples and Jesus’ mother?

Jesus’s mother wrote an account of seeing Jesus alive? I mean, sure, some yahoo wrote a story claiming she saw him, but that’s not quite the same.

Heck, from what I’ve heard the supposed accounts of the apostles were also written by some yahoos rather than by actual disciples.

@EscAlaMike

2. I know what you’re getting at, but just because there are minor differences in the
   details of the accounts does not mean the incident was fabricated. There is nothing that is outright contradictory, and the discrepancies can easily be attributed to the fact that the Gospel authors are getting their information from different sources possibly decades after the fact with different perspectives.

Are the accounts credible or aren’t they? Why are the ludicrously impossible parts the ones you hold to be unimpeachable fact, while the possible (but contradictory) parts the ones you’re willing to dismiss as inaccurate?