The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 2)

[fantome profane]

Even if the authors of the Gospels said who they were, then the objection would be "How do we know that they actually wrote it, they could be lying".

or

"Anyone could have claimed to write it"

The point is, you are going to play the role of skeptic no matter what argument is being placed before you.

Second, if you can't believe that the testimony of the early church regarding the Gospels, then you also can't logically believe the testimony of any person in antiquity regarding authorship of anything, which would be flat out predjudiced. You weren't there, so you don't know.

You wish to characterize me as an automatic thoughtless nay-sayer. And I think this is unfair.

For example there are several books in the New Testament that actually have a claimed author, and the Gospels are not among them. The author of several books of the NT claims to be Paul, and I accept that claim, at least in some cases. I accept that claim because it makes sense given the historical context and the textual analysis. I do in fact evaluate each claim of authorship individually and decide on the available evidence. I do not automatically deny every claim.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In reality, arguing about the resurrection of Jesus is like arguing over the location of Santa Claus.
It makes sense when you do it scientifically but when you pause and realize you are searching for something fictional from the get go it just looks like a Mont Python episode.

Forget the Ministry of Walks, now we are at the Ministry of Silly Talks

 

[fantome profane]

Just to summarize.

Part 1) A man named Yeshua vaguely matching up with what we can think to be "Jesus" actually existed as a historical person.

Granted.

Part 2) The Author's of the Gospels are in fact who they say they are and not simply people who took their name and wrote them in the 3rd century or something.

Granted

Part 3) Dating the Gospels to being prior AD44

Not granted as the majority of historians believe the first was written at earliest, 70AD

Part 4) The tomb was really empty.

Not granted as no evidence has been given other than biblical verses. Biblical verses alone do not account as evidence. Biblical verses with verified historical evidence can hold water such as in the case of the first two points but not the latter two.

If you accept the claim made by most historians that the Gospels were written after 70 CE, what does that do to the claim of authorship?

If I have a book that I claim was written by Mark Twain, but it was written in the 1940's, decades after Mark Twain died, you know something is wrong.

 

[fantome profane]

In reality, arguing about the resurrection of Jesus is like arguing over the location of Santa Claus.
It makes sense when you do it scientifically but when you pause and realize you are searching for something fictional from the get go it just looks like a Mont Python episode.

Forget the Ministry of Walks, now we are at the Ministry of Silly Talks

Do not Blaspheme the holy name of Python!

[youtube]asUyK6JWt9U[/youtube]

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You wish to characterize me as an automatic thoughtless nay-sayer. And I think this is unfair.

For example there are several books in the New Testament that actually have a claimed author, and the Gospels are not among them. The author of several books of the NT claims to be Paul, and I accept that claim, at least in some cases. I accept that claim because it makes sense given the historical context and the textual analysis. I do in fact evaluate each claim of authorship individually and decide on the available evidence. I do not automatically deny every claim.

Cool, so you will agree that Paul wrote 1Corinthians, right? And in that letter to the church, he states his beliefs, and the beliefs on the Apostles...and this letter predates all of the Gospels.

So even if we were to EXCLUDE all of the Gospels, we still get the Resurrection/empty tomb belief from Paul...and the 4 Gospels that were to be written later would corroborate this.

So fine, exclude the Gospels...you still have an Apostle who met with the disciples and would have known there teachings...you still have his testimony, plus their testimony.

Sure, the Gospels gives us a more specific account of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection...but you don't necessarily need them to know what the original disciples were teaching.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you accept the claim made by most historians that the Gospels were written after 70 CE, what does that do to the claim of authorship?

First off, it isn't true that "most historians" believe that the Gosples were written after 70 CE. Don't know where you got that from...perhaps you can enlighten us.

If I have a book that I claim was written by Mark Twain, but it was written in the 1940's, decades after Mark Twain died, you know something is wrong.

Until you establish that the Gospels were written decades after the original disciples died, then the above analogy doesn't pertain to any claim that I've made thus far, so it is therefore irrelevant.

 

[Nakosis]

Better now than later. It is foolishness when I question something that you believe huh? But when you question anything biblical related, everything is just peachy, huh?

Why are you so intent on convincing others of your belief?

You can say you're not but your posts show otherwise.

What should it matter to you if you find no one to convince of your beliefs?

11 “Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

 

[Sapiens]

First off, it isn't true that "most historians" believe that the Gosples were written after 70 CE. Don't know where you got that from...perhaps you can enlighten us.



Until you establish that the Gospels were written decades after the original disciples died, then the above analogy doesn't pertain to any claim that I've made thus far, so it is therefore irrelevant.

That's the facts ... your claims not-with-standing. You can make it up as you go to suit your belief system but that just makes you look stupid and is a chain on your soul in your belief system (e.g., the truth shall set you free).

 

[Ingledsva]

If you have car and put it in gear, get out of it, and watch it continue to move forward in motion...you can say "The car is running just fine, with no driver in it".

But that says NOTHING about the origin of the car, does it?


ING - Don't try to compare known and continuing science, - with talking snakes and donkeys, and dead people wandering around, - MYTH!


You people can continue to make illogical statements, and I will continue to put things back in its proper and logical perspective.


ING - You have done a very poor job so far, as these last couple of threads show.


There is also no evidence of inanimate matter coming to life, either..but has that stopped you from believing that?


ING - I believe in science which is ongoing. You have no evidence whatsoever of your God - to share with us.


Sorry, but based on my religion, one is enough.


ING - Which wasn't the point. Your religion is no different than any other, - to us, - when it comes to trying to make us believe in your Gods, for which none of you has any proof.


I agree, and your lack of a belief in God doesn't make it a fact.


ING - Of course not. However, you have no proof of your invisible man.


I am just giving positive reasons why I believe Christianity is true...take it or leave it...it is your eternity, not mines.


ING - Baloney! As your ending on that sentence shows.



Check my posts.

I have read this whole latest series of threads which you have posted.


You have not in any way proven that your God exists.





*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have read this whole latest series of threads which you have posted.


You have not in any way proven that your God exists.

Ok Ingle, ok...have a :cigar: with me

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's the facts ... your claims not-with-standing. You can make it up as you go to suit your belief system but that just makes you look stupid and is a chain on your soul in your belief system (e.g., the truth shall set you free).

Me and Ingle are blazing up some :cigar:'s...

Here :cigar:..you may as well have one too. Relax.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why are you so intent on convincing others of your belief?

You can ask the above question...or you can ask "why are people so intent on proving Christianity wrong?"

But to answer the question...my intent is not to "convince" anyone, although it will be a thrill to know that the arguments have brought someone into the kingdom.

My intent is to give sound and valid arguments for Christianity, and answer objections that one may have regarding it.

That is my intent. It is mainly more for defense, than offense.

 

[Sapiens]

My intent is to give sound and valid arguments for Christianity, and answer objections that one may have regarding it.

That is my intent. It is mainly more for defense, than offense.

There seems to be a huge gap between you intent and your performance, "sound and valid arguments" are sorely lacking, your posts are pretty much confined to quoting scripture.

 

[Ingledsva]

You can ask the above question...or you can ask "why are people so intent on proving Christianity wrong?"

But to answer the question...my intent is not to "convince" anyone, although it will be a thrill to know that the arguments have brought someone into the kingdom.

My intent is to give sound and valid arguments for Christianity, and answer objections that one may have regarding it.

That is my intent. It is mainly more for defense, than offense.

We have also debated the meaning of texts with you.

You bring up "Paul" and say 1 Corinthians is first hand knowledge - written by Paul.

Well, in view of some of our recent debates, perhaps you should carefully read 1Corinthians 15.

It does NOT say Jesus actually got out of his grave and walked around.

He puts his own "seeing" with the other people claiming "seeing." (1Co 15:4-8)

We know from his own story that he didn't actually see anything. He had a "vision." None of them actually saw a dead Jesus wandering around, they had "visions," just like him

*

I got flack for saying no Hell, it is later added crap. - They await Judgment in Hades/Sheol. And that the Bosom of Abraham story is about the line-up of the dead there - awaiting Judgment. Again - no hell.

And for suggesting a different meaning for the Jesus rising story, = first from Sheol, etc.

1 Co 15:20-23 says -


1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (the dead)

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

So, in this story, the dead await in Hades/Sheol - in an order - even Christ's dead, - him being the first, - until he comes again.

That is the Hebrew Sheol idea, NO HELL.

It goes on to say -

1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.


We talked about this with the Revelation verses, - though of course by this late date - they are thoroughly confused - with the "hell" and evil "Satan" ideas. However, the Sheol idea remains mixed in.


Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and Hades/Sheol delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and Hades/Sheol were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Total destruction.)

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Very obviously we start with a Sheol idea, and Jesus being the first to rise from it, or escape it, (no walking dead,) and ALL of the dead lined up in Sheol, in anguish and sorrow for their acts which set their place in the lineup.

This story, with foreign influence, was changed to a Hell idea over time, and walking dead people, which were not originally there, by writers that weren't there.



*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We have also debated the meaning of texts with you.

Involving the Trinity, correct?

You bring up "Paul" and say 1 Corinthians is first hand knowledge - written by Paul.

Well, in view of some of our recent debates, perhaps you should carefully read 1Corinthians 15.

It does NOT say Jesus actually got out of his grave and walked around.

Now, it is times like this where all I would have to do is point you to the book of Acts, where Paul is clearly speaking about a physical, bodily Resurrection...but that won't be good enough, will it? Of course not...because skepticism is at an all time high on these forums and the truth and the path to eternal life is very difficult for you people to move towards...ok...so lets forget the book of Acts where Paul clearly speaks of a physical and bodily Resurrection...lets just focus our attention to 1Corin...even though I was hoping to save this for part 5...but whatever.

So what does "he was raised on the third day" mean to you, Ingle? To "rise/raise" is to GET UP.

He said "he was buried, and was RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY". Do you get it?? Buried first, raised second.

Buried first...raised second!!!

Buried first...raised second!!!

What does "RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY" mean?? Does it mean spiritually? What? What are you talking about???

If the whole idea was that Jesus appeared to them spiritually, then there would be no point in mentioning the fact that he was buried. Why mention the burial...the mentioning of the burial would have no significance whatsoever to a spiritual appearance...but if you want to emphasize that Jesus appeared physically, the burial mention is significant, because you are trying to convey that his body was BURIED AND THREE DAYS LATER THE BODY WAS RAISED...WHICH IS WHY HE SAID "HE WAS BURIED, AND WAS RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY"

But that is ok, keep making these miniscule objections...that just goes to show how much lengths people will go to deny the Son of God.

If the message was that Jesus appeared physically, then the empty tomb would be a given...just like if you were a teacher and one of your students said "my dog ate my homework"...that would imply "missing homework", doesn't it?

If the word was that Jesus appeared physically, that would imply "empty tomb". Plus, again, according to the early Church, the Jews were still running around town saying that the disciples stole the body...which would have been foolish to say if the tomb was OCCUPIED, wouldn't it?

Man oh man.

He puts his own "seeing" with the other people claiming "seeing." (1Co 15:4-8)

We know from his own story that he didn't actually see anything. He had a "vision." None of them actually saw a dead Jesus wandering around, they had "visions," just like him

*

I got flack for saying no Hell, it is later added crap. - They await Judgment in Hades/Sheol. And that the Bosom of Abraham story is about the line-up of the dead there - awaiting Judgment. Again - no hell.

And for suggesting a different meaning for the Jesus rising story, = first from Sheol, etc.

1 Co 15:20-23 says -


1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (the dead)

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

So, in this story, the dead await in Hades/Sheol - in an order - even Christ's dead, - him being the first, - until he comes again.

That is the Hebrew Sheol idea, NO HELL.

It goes on to say -

1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.


We talked about this with the Revelation verses, - though of course by this late date - they are thoroughly confused - with the "hell" and evil "Satan" ideas. However, the Sheol idea remains mixed in.


Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and Hades/Sheol delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rev 20:14 And death and Hades/Sheol were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Total destruction.)

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Very obviously we start with a Sheol idea, and Jesus being the first to rise from it, or escape it, (no walking dead,) and ALL of the dead lined up in Sheol, in anguish and sorrow for their acts which set their place in the lineup.

This story, with foreign influence, was changed to a Hell idea over time, and walking dead people, which were not originally there, by writers that weren't there.

We can talk about this other stuff in part 5

 

[fantome profane]

Cool, so you will agree that Paul wrote 1Corinthians, right? And in that letter to the church, he states his beliefs, and the beliefs on the Apostles...and this letter predates all of the Gospels.

So even if we were to EXCLUDE all of the Gospels, we still get the Resurrection/empty tomb belief from Paul...and the 4 Gospels that were to be written later would corroborate this.

So fine, exclude the Gospels...you still have an Apostle who met with the disciples and would have known there teachings...you still have his testimony, plus their testimony.

Sure, the Gospels gives us a more specific account of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection...but you don't necessarily need them to know what the original disciples were teaching.

We keep getting the threads crossed, I am going to try to keep them straight, as much as possible.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We keep getting the threads crossed, I am going to try to keep them straight, as much as possible.

Gracious. I will start part 5 tomorrow and wrap it up.

 

[Sapiens]

Gracious. I will start part 5 tomorrow and wrap it up.

Perhaps best if you sleep in and don't waste anyone's time on your complete lack of evidence while claiming to present evidence posts. We're collectively over it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Perhaps best if you sleep in and don't waste anyone's time on your complete lack of evidence while claiming to present evidence posts. We're collectively over it.

If I do sleep in, I hope I am dreaming about a time where I can come on here and see some actual meaningful posts from you. This hasn't happened in real life yet, so maybe I will have better luck in my dreams.

 

[Sapiens]

If I do sleep in, I hope I am dreaming about a time where I can come on here and see some actual meaningful posts from you. This hasn't happened in real life yet, so maybe I will have better luck in my dreams.

Yawn, I just consider the source, incapable of keeping his promises, eh? Where's the evidence? Maybe it'll come to you a dream ... fat chance.