David Koresh Rose from the Dead

[Rhea]

Are you sure you don't find me excruciating?

I said I didn’t.

Admittedly, I did 'twist' the angle of the dialogue a little, a use of the double meaning if you will - not with any disengenous intention, just a play on the wording to imply the assumption.

No matter how hard you try to change my mind.

 

[Learner]

I suppose then we can at least say... the LDS discussion has reached its course and is settled?

Yes. We agree that by asking to be called a specific name and not be called another one that they don’t like, the Mormons are fucking hypocrites. And that you bringing up that topic is a perplexing derail. That is settled.

Ok then. The conversation we've been having on the LDS is settled.

And er... cheers for being complicit on the perplexing derail.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't see any difference between LDS and the usual Christian.

Both belief systems are based on myths. The only difference is with LDS we know exactly who started the myth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm uncertain how an argument for a religion based on the alleged scriptural testimony is invalid for any other scriptural based religion. IE, why is Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism or any number of religions that have gone away, invalid? The issue with the "New" Testament is that it seems to provide little in the way of any additional justification to be adhered to in part with the Tanakh as The Book of Mormon does with the New Testament.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Several women reported it. He appeared to his remaining disciples later. Then he promised to come back, real soon, and cleanse the entire world of unbelievers. It’s all in the gospel of Koresh, which at present is just oral. Soon it will take over the world.

Prove me wrong.

Quote your sources.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Alleged miracle events
and the sources they're based on

I'm uncertain how an argument for a religion based on the alleged scriptural testimony is invalid for any other scriptural based religion. IE, why is Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism or any number of religions that have gone away, invalid?

All these scriptures are equally valid along with New Testament scripture.

All the written accounts (containing historical events) are valid, which report a claimed miracle event, if:

• The account was written some time near to the reported event, like less than 100 years later.

• There's more than only one source/written account reporting the event.

• There's no source written near the time in question which denies that the event happened.


The above 3 points are not exhaustive, and could be expanded upon to elaborate the criteria further. But the above is enough to make the 4 Gospels and Paul epistles a legitimate source for the Jesus Resurrection, confirming it as a likely historical event, while at the same time ruling out at least 99% of all miracle event claims in the various other "scriptures" claiming miracle events. The Jesus Resurrection is not based on "faith" only, without evidence, as in the case of most miracle claims.

A fourth criterion might be that some modern sources, like YouTube or Internet message boards, etc., are non-legitimate sources. A proper comparison to an ancient event, e.g., 1st century AD, calls for examples also from that period, or at least more than 500 or 1000 years ago, when publishing was so vastly different than today. Or at least, if a modern example is used for comparison, like David Koresh, we have to include that the many sources denying the miracle are evidence which cancels the few sources claiming it happened.

A fifth criterion might be that the primary sources in question MUST be quoted by whoever is making the miracle claim. Or at least the sources must be already very well known to everyone. This requirement is seldom met by those claiming Joseph Smith did miracle acts, like healing someone.

 

[SLD]

Several women reported it. He appeared to his remaining disciples later. Then he promised to come back, real soon, and cleanse the entire world of unbelievers. It’s all in the gospel of Koresh, which at present is just oral. Soon it will take over the world.

Prove me wrong.

Quote your sources.

God himself, sir!

 

[SLD]

Alleged miracle events
and the sources they're based on

I'm uncertain how an argument for a religion based on the alleged scriptural testimony is invalid for any other scriptural based religion. IE, why is Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism or any number of religions that have gone away, invalid?

All these scriptures are equally valid along with New Testament scripture.

All the written accounts (containing historical events) are valid, which report a claimed miracle event, if:

• The account was written some time near to the reported event, like less than 100 years later.

• There's more than only one source/written account reporting the event.

• There's no source written near the time in question which denies that the event happened.


The above 3 points are not exhaustive, and could be expanded upon to elaborate the criteria further. But the above is enough to make the 4 Gospels and Paul epistles a legitimate source for the Jesus Resurrection, confirming it as a likely historical event, while at the same time ruling out at least 99% of all miracle event claims in the various other "scriptures" claiming miracle events. The Jesus Resurrection is not based on "faith" only, without evidence, as in the case of most miracle claims.

A fourth criterion might be that some modern sources, like YouTube or Internet message boards, etc., are non-legitimate sources. A proper comparison to an ancient event, e.g., 1st century AD, calls for examples also from that period, or at least more than 500 or 1000 years ago, when publishing was so vastly different than today. Or at least, if a modern example is used for comparison, like David Koresh, we have to include that the many sources denying the miracle are evidence which cancels the few sources claiming it happened.

A fifth criterion might be that the primary sources in question MUST be quoted by whoever is making the miracle claim. Or at least the sources must be already very well known to everyone. This requirement is seldom met by those claiming Joseph Smith did miracle acts, like healing someone.

I’m close here. I meet the first criteria. So far there is no contemporaneous denial. Just need a few more secondary sources and it’s definite!

Im going to be the first pope! I’ll be passing out indulgences to those I deem worthy soon. If interested PM me and I’ll let you know what you need to pay. You can also just work at my house rebuilding my deck. That would definitely get you out of purgatory. A few other “services” can work too.

 

[blastula]

All the written accounts (containing historical events) are valid, which report a claimed miracle event, if:

• The account was written some time near to the reported event, like less than 100 years later.

Exactly, it's only the miracle stories told over 100 years later that are suspect, and not actually all of them. Everybody knows that.

 

[bilby]

Im going to be the first pope!

St Peter beat you to it, by about 1,993 years

 

[James Brown]

All the written accounts (containing historical events) are valid, which report a claimed miracle event, if:

• The account was written some time near to the reported event, like less than 100 years later.

Exactly, it's only the miracle stories told over 100 years later that are suspect, and not actually all of them. Everybody knows that.

Right. And those Old Testament miracle stories? The one's told by a single source thousands of years after they occurred? Those are even more reliable, because they're referenced in the New Testament.

Common sense, really.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is your SOURCE for claiming that a miracle happened?

Several women reported it. He appeared to his remaining disciples later. Then he promised to come back, real soon, and cleanse the entire world of unbelievers. It’s all in the gospel of Koresh, which at present is just oral. Soon it will take over the world.

Prove me wrong.

Quote your sources.

God himself, sir!

No, I mean a recognized source, such as written documents dated near the time in question when the reported event(s) happened.

Like the Koran is a recognized source for events happening around 600 AD. Recognized by believers and nonbelievers alike. (Not recognized as "infallible," but just as a normal source for that time, like the Books of I and II Maccabees are recognized by all scholars as sources for events happening around 180-140 BC.)

You must have a source like this in order for your claim to be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Alleged miracle events
and the sources they're based on

I'm uncertain how an argument for a religion based on the alleged scriptural testimony is invalid for any other scriptural based religion. IE, why is Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism or any number of religions that have gone away, invalid?

All these scriptures are equally valid along with New Testament scripture.

All the written accounts (containing historical events) are valid, which report a claimed miracle event, if:

• The account was written some time near to the reported event, like less than 100 years later.

• There's more than only one source/written account reporting the event.

• There's no source written near the time in question which denies that the event happened.


The above 3 points are not exhaustive, and could be expanded upon to elaborate the criteria further. But the above is enough to make the 4 Gospels and Paul epistles a legitimate source for the Jesus Resurrection, confirming it as a likely historical event, while at the same time ruling out at least 99% of all miracle event claims in the various other "scriptures" claiming miracle events. The Jesus Resurrection is not based on "faith" only, without evidence, as in the case of most miracle claims.

A fourth criterion might be that some modern sources, like YouTube or Internet message boards, etc., are non-legitimate sources. A proper comparison to an ancient event, e.g., 1st century AD, calls for examples also from that period, or at least more than 500 or 1000 years ago, when publishing was so vastly different than today. Or at least, if a modern example is used for comparison, like David Koresh, we have to include that the many sources denying the miracle are evidence which cancels the few sources claiming it happened.

A fifth criterion might be that the primary sources in question MUST be quoted by whoever is making the miracle claim. Or at least the sources must be already very well known to everyone. This requirement is seldom met by those claiming Joseph Smith did miracle acts, like healing someone.

I’m close here. I meet the first criteria.

So you have published something saying this happened? You mean here in this message board. But if that makes you a reliable "source" for this, then so is everyone alive today who has said anything about this "miracle" event, and those denying it happened vastly outnumber you. One reasonable criterion for whether the miracle claim is true is whether those sources claiming it are a larger number than those denying it, so your miracle claim is refuted by this standard.

So more than this is necessary for you to be a genuine source for this. E.g. you must have some special connection to the event, like being a direct witness, or at least having contact with such a witness. Or something which distinguishes you from everyone else who makes a claim about it.

So far there is no contemporaneous denial.

There are thousands, millions even. Just as reliable sources as you, being contemporary and having heard something about the character you're saying resurrected, and claiming it's not true.

Plus -- (can we get serious?) anyone can see that you're not really making this claim at all, but only goofing off to get a few laughs. So -- on the count of three, let's all chuckle at SLD's cute little snarkle about the Resurrection of Koresh :

Ho! Ho! Ho! -- Haw! Haw! Haw!
Snarkle! Snarkle! Snarkle! ​

Aren't you funny!

Just need a few more secondary sources and it’s definite!

You'll need more than "a few more" in order to outnumber the millions of other credible "sources" which contradict you.

I'm going to be the first pope! I’ll be passing out indulgences to those I deem worthy soon. If interested PM me and I’ll let you know what you need to pay. You can also just work at my house rebuilding my deck. That would definitely get you out of purgatory. A few other “services” can work too.

You're too late. Several other New-Age "Popes" (with more charisma than you) have already beat you to it: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sri+quackananda%27s+charisma

 

[Learner]

All the written accounts (containing historical events) are valid, which report a claimed miracle event, if:

• The account was written some time near to the reported event, like less than 100 years later.

Exactly, it's only the miracle stories told over 100 years later that are suspect, and not actually all of them. Everybody knows that.

Right. And those Old Testament miracle stories? The one's told by a single source thousands of years after they occurred? Those are even more reliable, because they're referenced in the New Testament.

Common sense, really.

Do you mean by a "single source" you mean like... 'books you can get online, written by several different authors' who sell books solely on Amazon? Amazon being the single source for those books.

The NT has at least nine authors which is quite widely accepted. It should be 'sensible' therefore.. to suggest that nine authors make nine sources. The bible or NT provides those collections as the single source for those many books.

 

[James Brown]

No, I mean 'single source' as in, we have only a single source for the miracle stories of the Old Testament, such as the Tower of Babel, the Noahic deluge, and Joshua's stopping the earth from rotating. The earliest copies of those documents date back to the Babylonian exile.

This undercuts a certain someone's insistence that one small set of miraculous stories in the Bible (namely, a Resurrection) must be true because we have "four or five" sources that were written "very close" (i.e., forty to sixty years) of the event, and they more or less agree (ignore the differences down to stylistic flourishes, please.)

All those other miraculous stories in the Bible--the single-source, far-from-the-original-event stories? Well, skeptics can ignore those because they don't count for very much--not really. Unless you have a change of heart and accept Jesus into your heart, in which case you should believe those Old Testament miracle stories as completely true, because God wouldn't allow such unverified stories into the Bible.

At least that's how I interpret certain 'walls of text'.

Counting authors in a collection of works is not very compelling in evaluating the veracity of the works. Otherwise, a collection of ghost stories that has "forty unique authors!!!" would also have to be accepted as true.

 

[SLD]

What is your SOURCE for claiming that a miracle happened?

Several women reported it. He appeared to his remaining disciples later. Then he promised to come back, real soon, and cleanse the entire world of unbelievers. It’s all in the gospel of Koresh, which at present is just oral. Soon it will take over the world.

Prove me wrong.

Quote your sources.

God himself, sir!

No, I mean a recognized source, such as written documents dated near the time in question when the reported event(s) happened.

Like the Koran is a recognized source for events happening around 600 AD. Recognized by believers and nonbelievers alike. (Not recognized as "infallible," but just as a normal source for that time, like the Books of I and II Maccabees are recognized by all scholars as sources for events happening around 180-140 BC.)

You must have a source like this in order for your claim to be taken seriously by anyone.

You mean as opposed to something that was written about 30 years after the event, by someone who was not an eyewitness, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is your SOURCE for claiming that a miracle happened?

Several women reported it. He appeared to his remaining disciples later. Then he promised to come back, real soon, and cleanse the entire world of unbelievers. It’s all in the gospel of Koresh, which at present is just oral. Soon it will take over the world.

Prove me wrong.

Quote your sources.

God himself, sir!

No, I mean a recognized source, such as written documents dated near the time in question when the reported event(s) happened.

So, which documents are those for Jesus? Virgin birth, resurrection, raising the dead.

Like the Koran is a recognized source for events happening around 600 AD. Recognized by believers and nonbelievers alike. (Not recognized as "infallible," but just as a normal source for that time, like the Books of I and II Maccabees are recognized by all scholars as sources for events happening around 180-140 BC.)

Yes, but the NT seems more about the writers of the NT, than Jesus. In fact, almost none of the NT is actually about Jesus's life. Repeating the same thing four times doesn't count as four times the history.

You must have a source like this in order for your claim to be taken seriously by anyone.

So what sources are you suggesting for the miracles of Jesus?

 

[SLD]

What is your SOURCE for claiming that a miracle happened?

Several women reported it. He appeared to his remaining disciples later. Then he promised to come back, real soon, and cleanse the entire world of unbelievers. It’s all in the gospel of Koresh, which at present is just oral. Soon it will take over the world.

Prove me wrong.

Quote your sources.

God himself, sir!

No, I mean a recognized source, such as written documents dated near the time in question when the reported event(s) happened.

So, which documents are those for Jesus? Virgin birth, resurrection, raising the dead.

Like the Koran is a recognized source for events happening around 600 AD. Recognized by believers and nonbelievers alike. (Not recognized as "infallible," but just as a normal source for that time, like the Books of I and II Maccabees are recognized by all scholars as sources for events happening around 180-140 BC.)

Yes, but the NT seems more about the writers of the NT, than Jesus. In fact, almost none of the NT is actually about Jesus's life. Repeating the same thing four times doesn't count as four times the history.

You must have a source like this in order for your claim to be taken seriously by anyone.

So what sources are you suggesting for the miracles of Jesus?

Second hand stories written 30+ years after the event. Like I said, I’m really close. Just need to get some quotes from the eyewitnesses to throw in there, and maybe another someone to write a gospel or two. In 300 years we will take over, baby! And I’m going to be a saint!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

multiple sources vs. one source only
-- early source vs. centuries later

. . . 'single source' as in, we have only a single source for the miracle stories of the Old Testament, such as the Tower of Babel, the Noahic deluge, and Joshua's stopping the earth from rotating. The earliest copies of those documents date back to the Babylonian exile.

So it makes sense to say there is less evidence for these earlier "miracle" stories, whether they might be true or not -- in any case, a critical skeptic has more reason to doubt these ancient legends ("legends" at the time our account(s) of them was/were written), whereas for the miracle acts of Jesus we have 4(5) accounts very close to when the event(s) in question reportedly happened (and thus not ancient legends when our sources were written), making these events more credible, to a critical skeptic seeking the truth about what happened.

It's significant WHEN the source was written and HOW MANY sources there are. Where there are multiple sources (rather than only one) and these are closer to the reported event(s), the claimed event is more credible. There shouldn't be much disagreement on this point.

. . . one small set of miraculous stories in the Bible (namely, a Resurrection) must be true because we have "four or five" sources that were written "very close" (i.e., forty to sixty years) of the event, and . . .

More correctly, 20 to 70 years.

Yes, "very close" by comparison to most (ancient) historical writings, the sources we rely on, which report events typically 50-200 years later than when the events happened (or you could argue 50-100), and especially by comparison to most or all reported miracle events, which are reported typically many centuries later than the event allegedly happened. (Events reported in a source contemporary to the event are rare exceptions to the norm.)

. . . and they more or less agree (ignore the differences down to stylistic flourishes, please.)

What the multiple sources agree on is more credible, whereas the details where they differ are less credible, or more doubtful. The reasonable conclusion is to accept the general points they agree on, as having high probability, but set aside the doubtful details.

So, e.g., for the Resurrection of Jesus, it's reasonable to conclude that the place where he was buried was found to be empty, the body missing, but it's doubtful who discovered it first, who or what they encountered there, what words were spoken to whom, etc. Likewise probable that he was encountered alive later by several witnesses (all the accounts agree), but exactly where the encounters happened or who said what, etc., is doubtful (less agreement between the accounts).

Counting authors in a collection of works is not very compelling in evaluating the veracity of the works.

What "collection of works"? the New Testament? That didn't exist at the time in question, the 1st century. All written accounts relating to the disputed claims should be counted. Where the number of sources is greater, the reported events are more credible.

Just because the writings are gathered into a "collection" by later editors or scribes or ecclesiastics does not make them less credible than other writings not gathered into such a "collection" by someone 200 or 300 years later.

Otherwise, a collection of ghost stories that has "forty unique authors!!!" would also have to be accepted as true.

No, there's much in the "collection" that can be doubted or disbelieved as not true in those cases where the authors contradict each other. Each source or author is judged according to how much his account is corroborated by other sources, not by whether it's part of a "collection" someone compiled.

If those ghost story writers all agree on some point of fact about something that happened, all saying it's true (not fiction), then it adds credibility to their claim that it happened, regardless of other details they disagree about. Maybe they're all reporting a real event where witnesses did see something weird. This weird phenomenon then becomes more credible, whatever the explanation for it. This credibility is not then undermined because someone later collects the accounts into a "collection" about the particular subject matter.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is your SOURCE for claiming that a miracle happened?

God himself, sir!

No, I mean a recognized source, such as written documents dated near the time in question when the reported event(s) happened.

Like the Koran is a recognized source for events happening around 600 AD. Recognized by believers and nonbelievers alike. (Not recognized as "infallible," but just as a normal source for that time, like the Books of I and II Maccabees are recognized by all scholars as sources for events happening around 180-140 BC.)

You must have a source like this in order for your claim to be taken seriously by anyone.

You mean as opposed to something that was written about 30 years after the event, by someone who was not an eyewitness, right?

Of course, or 50 or 70 or 90 years after, like 90% of our ancient history sources, which were not eye witnesses to the events they reported, in the documents they left behind and which you rely on for virtually all you know about ancient history events.

For the modern events there are differences, as I noted before. But the rules for credibility arguably are about the same, in that you have to also take into account those sources which DENY the claimed miracle event. So for the Jesus miracle-worker events there are no sources from the period which contradict the accounts we have, whereas most modern claims of miracle acts by someone are contradicted by other modern sources (usually more numerous) which say those events are fiction.

And thus both the modern and ancient miracle-worker beliefs are generally not credible, based on the available evidence. E.g., the pagan myths, hero legends, etc., and various religious miracle legends through the centuries, but with the Jesus miracle accounts standing out as a conspicuous exception to this rule, since they're based on credible evidence from the time, in multiple sources not contradicted by other evidence of the period.