I just put this to a friend of mine who is a judge. She laughed, hysterically, for several minutes.
6 Likes
No, I don’t think so.
In the late 1970’s, a house in Amityville, New York (on the south shore of Long Island in Suffolk County) was possessed by ghosts and demons, and drove the Lutz family out 28 days after they purchased it.
The story was the source of a best selling book, Mediums, witches, exorcists, Satanists, and necromancers descended upon this town in droves, there were endless television specials and news stories, and there have been–quite literally–over 45 movies based this story . . . including such gems like “Amityville Vibrator,” “Amityville in the Hood,” and “Amityville Death Toilet.”
The concensus of the mediums and assorted necromancers was that this house was on unholy ground that covered a spiritual conduit to Hell, that the house rests on a sacred Indian burial ground, that demons had been summoned in revenge for a mob hit on a Voodoo priest, and so on. The local cops also started finding animal remains in pentagrams (drawn on the ground) that suggested ritualistic sacrifice.
At the time this was happening, my family lived in Rockville Centre, which is about 25 minutes away (depending on traffic), and my mother drove me past the house several times so that I could see and gawk (I was about 12 at the time).
And here’s the kicker: It’s all bullshit!!!
It has been established that it was a hoax from beginning to end . . . dreamed up by the Lutzes, an attorney, and a local real estate agent over several bottles of wine. The motive was (a big shocker) money.
My point is that these “supernatural occurrences” happened in modern times with modern documentation, at a specific time and place that was well-known, involving many people (such as myself) who are alive today.
And yet there are many people who refuse to accept the idea that this story was a piece of cynical bullshit that was done for money.
There is much, much more evidence (and of better quality) for this house being demon-possessed than there ever was for the resurrection of Christ.
I know everyone here likes to fact-check, so please see below:
So, my point is that concensus and popularity doesn’t add truth to a patently bullshit story.
Just my two cents.
P.S. BTW, if anyone disagrees with my arguments on this subject, then please let me know. Christianapologist seems civil enough, and I want to make sure that I’ve been fair in the way that I’ve disagreed with him on the subject of Christ’s ressurrection, as this idea is very special and sacred to him. Even though I disagree with him, I still wish to be respectful.
2 Likes
First you have to establish that the Jesus figure as described in the gospels actually existed. As Cog has said there is not one mention of the jesus figure or any of the “magical” events contemporary to his life. That there may have been a very human figure that was the inspiration for the tales in the gospels, is just not proven.
The evidence for the magical demi divine figure as described in the gospels is just non existent apart from the tales themselves.
I will break the story down even further: 500 witnesses, yet not one name. Not one surviving account. Graves opening and the undead walking about all over Jerusalem, yet not one eye witness account. Darkness at noon and disembodied voices…not one independent account. All this in the most recorded period of History until the advent of paper. We even have complaints from legionaries about the quality of leather for their shoes, Bills of lading for ships, news of far away events…yet not ONE mention of these astounding happenings. Philo was resident of Jerusalem at the time…do you think he would not have written about it? Or the Prefect? …
m’lud I rest my case.
2 Likes
And the story of the talking cross, fully demonstrates people were making shit up.
2 Likes
ludicrous 
1 Like
Firstly the gospels are anonymous hearsay, we have not one contemporary word written about anything Jesus may or may not have said or done. The names Mathew Mark Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily to the gospel texts three and half centuries later, to lend them some gravitas.
There are multiple responses, read them.
What evidence? This is that person’s subjective opinion, based on his subjective religious beliefs, it is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy. Do you really imagine a jury can weigh supernatural claims based on anonymous hearsay written thousands of years ago, decades after the events it purports to describe, from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition?
Yet you have posted without reading any of them?
Exactly, the evidence is scant at best that the character Jesus described in the anonymous hearsay of the gospels existed at all.
Again this is a fact, there is no more evidence for the claims contained within the anonymous hearsay of the gospels, than there is to support the Legends of Hercules.
2 Likes
Howdy, Christian. Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I’ve been away for awhile due to sight complications, but… 
“Eyes can see clearly now, the pain is gone…” So, on that note…
For starters, I don’t know who the helicopter Simon Greenleaf is. Not that it really matters. That posted quote is nothing more than a bold (bland?.. blind? 
) assertion. A personal opinion of sorts. It’s no different than me saying, “My high school annual has my best friend Bud Weiser listed as the Most Popular Student in the whole world. And every student in the school signed my annual confirming it. Any judge in any court in the world would rule it to be a fact that Bud was indeed the most popular student who ever existed.” And in this case, we at least would know Bud is actually REAL, right? Anyway, there’s my two cents worth. Hope it helps.
(Edited for 20/20 hindsight.)
1 Like
In high school, we used to say that Budweiser means:
Because
u
deserve
what
every
individual
should
enjoy
regularly
1 Like
Having read through this thread (is there a self flagellation award) and let me add there was a shitload of repetition I was reminded of what I do. Smile sweetly while pushing the door closed hopefully on their foot. Of course your way had a certain entertainment value.
1 Like
Award?.. For THAT?.. … Well, sounds pretty cool, I suppose. Kinda perverted, but cool, nonetheless. Quick question before I get started, though: Uh, what happens if I go blind in my attempt to win the award? I mean, I was always told as a kid I would go blind if I did that too much. And not meaning to brag, but I really should have won that award a LONG time ago… (reading your post again)… Oh, uh, disregard all that I just said. I looked up that word. Doesn’t mean what I thought it did. Uh, my bad. Carry on…
HA! You hear that, all you ungrateful criticizing heathens? Canuk says I have “entertainment value”! 
And the rest of you are repetitious and BORING! Ha-ha-ha! I win!.. (happy dance)…
Luckily it seems that you stopped when you needed glasses or was it when you noticed hair growing on the palms of your hands. I stopped at the glasses stage and had to shave my palms weekly. But since the laser treatments that is behind me now.
1 Like
Hair growing on my palms?.. Oh, hardy-har-har! You’re funny as a crutch. As IF you didn’t know that’s not possible for me. Making fun of the metal guy now, huh? (Although, in all fairness, I DID start noticing excessive corrosion.)
1 Like
Ok, folks, take the partying over to the Random Fun room. This is the Debate Forum.
Quite right but TM started it I only goaded him on.
It’s been a minute, but I’m back. Thanks for the reply Cognostic. I have two responses for you and a request:
-
Method
Your response to a claim is to call it stupid, make claims of your own, and use no evidence to support your claims. Oh yes, and then demand evidence for the initial claim. Inconsistent at best. Where’s your evidence? -
Evidence
Hearsay is not allowed in a courtroom. I agree. It must be eyewitness testimony. Even better corroborating eyewitnesses. Ideally, their testimony would be anchored in historically verifiable facts to further give us confidence to believe the eyewitnesses.
This is precisely what we have in the New Testament. There is good reason to believe many of the documents were written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. There is no ironclad case in either direction (that I’m aware of), but I will give some reasons for dating them during the 50s and 60s AD. You would do well to offer evidence to the contrary if you truly value evidence as much as you claim to…
The Book of Acts contains many historical anchors (often in the form of government officials), which gives it some credibility. What it does not contain, points to a strong likelihood it was written earlier than AD 62. It does not discuss, allude to, or even indirectly reference the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. The narrative includes a LOT of governing authority situations and how they interfaced with the Christian church and individual believers. The destruction of their Jewish temple as a very big deal. Acts is written in historical style (unlike the genre of the letters), so to leave out the temple would be very unlikely. Similarly, it doesn’t mention the death of James, the brother of Jesus, who died in AD 62 according to an outside source (Josephus). Acts records the imprisonments of several believers and martyrdom of Stephen. James was a more significant figure than Stephen in the Christian church, he is involved in important matters of doctrine in the Book of Acts, but his death is not mentioned. This gives more weight to the claim that Acts was written before AD 62.
If Acts was written in about AD 60, only 30 years after Jesus was crucified, eyewitnesses were still alive. People who saw Jesus with their own eyes could have denied these claims. Do you have any eyewitnesses to call to the stand? I would call Peter, James, John, Mary, Paul, and over 500 eyewitnesses. The Apostle Paul had this very same conversation in the first century, and what did he write? Essentially: “If you don’t believe me, go ask the 500+ people who saw it with their own eyes.” That would be a very long courtroom trial with that many witnesses!
Request:
Present evidence. I know you will also present objections to my claims, I get it. But please also use evidence to support your claims.
Example of NOT evidence…
Let me follow your logic in my own words and see how you respond to hearing it back from my perspective…
Logical Progression:
I saw a hoax once.
People created the hoax to make money.
Therefore, Christianity is a hoax to make money.
Related points you made:
People deny the evidence that the modern-day hoax was fabricated.
@Sheldon likes to reference which fallacy he believes people are using in their arguments. I’d love for him to break down yours. I’m going with common sense…
One instance of a hoax created for financial gain does not make all claims hoaxes or all motives selfish. Your argument would require evidence for why you think Christianity is a hoax or why you think it was put forth for financial gain.
By the way, I’ll grant you that the haunted house was a hoax. I don’t care to even investigate that one. I’ll also grant that people have inappropriately used Christianity for personal gain. Just look at any American political candidate. I seriously doubt these folks have any true devotion to Christ. It appears they are using a false allegiance to gain votes (and money, and power, etc.). But that, also, does not imply that Christianity was created by people seeking financial gain…
You would have to provide some historical evidence for the original authors of the New Testament or the influential Christian church figures gaining from their involvement with Christianity. Let’s start with Jesus, himself, shall we? Simple craftsman, denied the wishes of others to make him a political figure, and crucified. How about Peter? Killed. Stephen? Killed. James? Killed. Paul? Repeatedly imprisoned, beaten, and killed. It’s actually hard to find any of Jesus’ core people who kept their lives, much less got rich.
1 Like
The majority of biblical scholars do not date it at ~60 CE. Instead, most date it (and Luke, typically considered by the same author) at ~90 CE. Given that life expectancy at that time, in that place was ~50 years (adjusted up to account for high infant mortality rate), then I am quite dubious there were any eyewitnesses alive. Additionally, I think there were likely never any.
5 Likes
Please describe what true devotion is.
3 Likes
I gave a lot of evidence for my proposed date of Acts. Where’s yours? There are plenty of scholars to be had on all sides. They disagree on dates because it’s not a science experiment where you follow the protocol and achieve the same result to verify a repeatable phenomenon. Instead, we have to decide what is most reasonable based on historical, textual, and situational evidence. I gave my set of evidence. It’s not perfect. I’m not an archaeologist or historian. But it’s discussion-worthy evidence. What information would you provide as consideration?
THE BIBLE IS HEARSAY - NO ORIGINALA MANUSCRIPTS - NO FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
“according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm”
Merriam-Webster has an excellent definition of what hearsay is: “… evidence based not on a witness’s personal knowledge but on another’s statement not made under oath.” In American courts, hearsay is often not allowed in as evidence to prove the truth of what is testified to. Another definition spells it out clearly:
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts. Hearsay evidence is often inadmissible at trial. However, many exclusions and exceptions exist. For something to be hearsay, it does not matter whether the statement was oral or written. Generally speaking, hearsay cannot be used as evidence at trial.
Wrong. You have no first hand accounts. Paul never met Jesus. You have a blank first century with no accounts contemporary to the live of the Jesus character. NONE. The bible is a book of stories written by followers. You have no corroborating evidence at all.
Regardless of Acts or when it was written. it is a story and not a first hand accout 20 years after the death of this person supposedly to be a savior. Hearsay! Not admissible in court. End of story. You have no good evidence for your claim.
3 Likes