This wouldnt have been any less believable than Jesus' resurrection if it was considered canonical and accepted into doctrine. And there are canonical works in the West that imply Enoch was taken into Heaven alive by God Himself to be put into a prominent position...yet what came of it? I just feel like it was discarded largely due to the story of Enoch's life being far less believable (365 years) than Jesus (33 years). There are parts of Enoch's tale that could have been adapted in, and were originally written in Aramaic both before and after Christ, yet for some reason, it isn't necessarily historically accurate. I just dont see the complete consistency except a bias to maintain dogma.
Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christianity
This wouldnt have been any less believable than Jesus' resurrection if it was considered canonical and accepted into doctrine. And there are canonical works in the West that imply Enoch was taken into Heaven alive by God Himself to be put into a prominent position...yet what came of it? I just feel like it was discarded largely due to the story of Enoch's life being far less believable (365 years) than Jesus (33 years). There are parts of Enoch's tale that could have been adapted in, and were originally written in Aramaic both before and after Christ, yet for some reason, it isn't necessarily historically accurate. I just dont see the complete consistency except a bias to maintain dogma.
And to clarify, they could have both happened. Enoch and the rest of them may have had exaggerated ages as a metaphor for wisdom or relative age or whatever. Jesus may have been crucified and resurrected etc. Not saying that one way or another...Im just trying to say that it seems as if both judaism and christianity have been carefully selecting "what counts" in an effort to keep the beliefs as cohesive as possible to avoid splits and minimize variance, which leads me to cast doubt on much of it in terms of historical precision..which brings me back to a point I made earlier that the spiritual side seems more believable to me than the alternative.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
VMR said:
That is of no consequence since the Book of Enoch wasn't considered non-canonical due to 'believability'. That, however, doesn't mean it wasn't considered 'Scripture' by Hebrews or Christians.
Last edited:
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Type Username Here said:
That's because it isn't a flaw, but your reading comprehension is faulty due to unfamiliarity with the position of current scholarship and the context of the narratives. This is evident from your allusions to the Catholic Church, editing, and 'agendas'. As I've stated earlier, you don't know what I'm arguing even though I stated it in plain English. You never even asked, just assumed, and have been running with it ever since. If your 'later post' has not rectified this, then you're going to continue debating in circles about things that don't matter mistakenly believing your argument is valid.
Type Username Here said:
Why would there be any evidence for that when no one witnessed the 'resurrection'? What does 'resurrection' even mean?
Last edited:
Ok, fair enough. I just find the whole thing surrounding Enoch (as a person) to be cloudy.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
VMR said:
There is no 'may'. He most definitely was crucified. As far as 'resurrected', there are no witnesses to that event. The evidence only shows that he 'appeared' after being publicly executed and there was no body in the tomb. The Sanhedrin or Romans could have squashed all the talk of 'resurrection' just by displaying Jesus' corpse and we wouldn't be having this discussion 2,000 years later.
A man was crucified. That man definitely died. And that man definitely turned up after his death some time later to his (let's be honest, cultish) friends. There is no way they could have been tricked, mistaken simple explanations that we understand today or that they would made any of this up about a figure they believed to be the son of god.
The fact that no one had written about a resurrection before proves this. It also proves the first story written about dragons must have been true, along with the first story written about ghosts, leprechauns and wizards.
The fact that no one had written about a resurrection before proves this. It also proves the first story written about dragons must have been true, along with the first story written about ghosts, leprechauns and wizards.
This is something I always point out to people.
Even nowadays with social media and video cameras, you'll almost always find different eyewitness accounts and just as many people saying shyt like "Freddie Gibbs stayed on The Bus and Didn't Preform in Detroit"
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
noon said:
Tricked by who? Why would they 'make it up'? Mistaken about what?
The only 'natural explanation' offered thus far has been 'mass psychosis'. The problem is, there were multiple cases of 'mass psychosis'. 1 is rare enough, but 12?
That still doesn't explain the empty tomb.
The only 'natural explanation' offered thus far has been 'mass psychosis'. The problem is, there were multiple cases of 'mass psychosis'. 1 is rare enough, but 12?
That still doesn't explain the empty tomb.
Last edited:
That's fine. If you want to go with that then you're welcome to. If them making it up doesn't seem plausible to you just carry on with your life. If people can't be mistaken about a man being dead and then being alive then you're absolutely welcome to continue with that belief. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not offering mass psychosis as an explanation for anything btw.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
noon said:
I have no problem with them 'making it up'. The question is: Why? Also, if they made it up, why would they not recant and, instead, choose to die by the most gruesome methods available at the time? People willingly sacrifice their lives for what they believe is true. I know of no examples of people willingly going to death for something they KNOW is a lie.
noon said:
If you wish to posit that they were mistaken, then you'd have to offer an alternate explanation as to why water came out of the spear wound (pericardial or pleural effusion). You'd also have to explain how someone being crucified would be able to survive without breathing for a couple hours after being flogged, nailed to a cross/tree, and falling into hypovolemic shock due to blood loss. Also, there is no report of the Roman soldiers being executed for allowing a prisoner to survive an execution.
This still doesn't explain the empty tomb.
You're absolutely welcome to continue believing things despite a lack of evidence to support it or evidence contrary to your belief.
This still doesn't explain the empty tomb.
You're absolutely welcome to continue believing things despite a lack of evidence to support it or evidence contrary to your belief.
Last edited:
No, I don't have to do anything. I can just sit here and say "I don't buy that bullshyt happened".
There are lots of mistakes they could have made. Maybe you're not seeing all the possibilities. Maybe the man they saw later wasn't Jesus, maybe he was a trickster, maybe he was a twin brother nobody knew was around. Maybe the whole thing was an elaborate ruse by some of the Romans. The possibilities are endless.
Sorry, pal I'm not buying the same stories you buy into. I don't need evidence because I'm not making any claims. I'm just saying there are reasonable possibilities.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
noon said:
That's a LOT of 'maybes' that would all be tossed in the bushes when the Sanhedrin or Romans just produced the body.
noon said:
People disbelieve in the Holocaust for the same reason and say the same thing. Doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen.
noon said:
We could talk about 'possibilities' forever, but I prefer to talk about what is reasonable given the evidence.
noon said:
What 'stories' am I buying into? You need to produce evidence to support those 'reasonable possibilities'. Otherwise, they're not really 'reasonable'. They're just shytty opinions you pulled out of your ass with nothing to back them up.
There's a lot of that going on in this thread from your side so, maybe it's best that you stay quiet or at least do some research on the subject.
Check Richard Carrier, Gerd Lüdemann, G. A. Wells, Michael Martin, or John Dominic Crossan. All are NT scholars and sources of most of my information.
There's a lot of that going on in this thread from your side so, maybe it's best that you stay quiet or at least do some research on the subject.
Check Richard Carrier, Gerd Lüdemann, G. A. Wells, Michael Martin, or John Dominic Crossan. All are NT scholars and sources of most of my information.
Last edited:
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,000
- Daps
- 122,429
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
noon said:
Go back to post 28.
Man, you are lost.
Last edited: