Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here, why don't you do some proper due-diligence for a change?


"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

Cool Gish Gallop

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't refute squat.

You say this quite often. I used to think that you said that just to me, but now I see that you say it to anyone that refutes your beliefs. I thought that we had something special

It appears that you did not understand the refutation. In that case you should has asked how he refuted it. Denial only makes one look bad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your choice, your time, yes, no argument. You have the right to believe as you think best ─ even in magic.

Regardless, I hope you greatly enjoy your coming trip to Israel.

Huh? I've read entire Metzger works and logically, not magically, concluded they are academic BS. I don't think you get what textual criticism is, and how it's removed from forensic evidence as science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are Catholics Christians?

Some are, sure, just like in any group. The difference is officially, my church agrees with me and vice versa, that the Bible teaches salvation comes as a one-time act, trusting Jesus, His death and resurrection, to pay for sin, and officially, Rome teaches Jesus can point towards faith but Catholics must have intense works to avoid Hell and also, horrible purgatory.

Can a Catholic trust Jesus for salvation? Of course! Can their Bible knowledge be harmed by studying with Rome's teachers? Yes.

 

[blü 2]

Huh? I've read entire Metzger works and logically, not magically, concluded they are academic BS. I don't think you get what textual criticism is, and how it's removed from forensic evidence as science.

I don't know why you're seizing on Bruce Metzger: I mentioned him solely in passing as a co-author of one of the twelve Bart Ehrman books I listed dealing with the NT texts.

Why don't you want to know what we know about the NT texts?

 

[night912]

You didn't refute squat.

Show me why.

 

[Spartan]

Show me why.

Show me your best ONE example of what you refuted?

 

[night912]

Show me your best ONE example of what you refuted?

Pick one. Did it ever occur to you that you have to do your own work and think for yourself. So go ahead and address my points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pick one. Did it ever occur to you that you have to do your own work and think for yourself. So go ahead and address my points.

Thinking for oneself is highly frowned upon by some sects of Christianity. Especially the more cultic ones.

 

[Spartan]

Pick one. Did it ever occur to you that you have to do your own work and think for yourself. So go ahead and address my points.

LOL. How would I know which one you claim to be your best ONE example of something you claim to have refuted?

Pick out your best ONE and cite it.

 

[night912]

LOL. How would I know which one you claim to be your best ONE example of something you claim to have refuted?

Pick out your best ONE and cite it.

That means you never even read what I posted. There you have it. You just ignored my points.

 

[Spartan]

That means you never even read what I posted. There you have it. You just ignored my points.

Wrong. What it means is you don't have a prize refutation to show the world. You just turned tail and ran. Or, as they say in Texas, you're all hat and no cattle.

 

[night912]

Wrong. What it means is you don't have a prize refutation to show the world. You just turned tail and ran. Or, as they say in Texas, you're all hat and no cattle.

Then address my points.

 

[Spartan]

Then address my points.

Show me what you refuted. You bragged about it but can't produce it. Put up or go away.

 

[sojourner]

Tsk tsk. The first mention of the Resurrection of Jesus goes back to only a HANDFUL of years after the event.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Jesus was crucified 33 CE. 1 Thessalonians -- the oldest extant book of the NT written 48-50 CE. At least 15 years. That's more than "only a handful." And Paul was not an eyewitness.

 

[sojourner]

The synoptic gospels certainly aren't independent sources.

Two-source hypothesis - Wikipedia

Of course they are. Mark is a source. Q is a source. Matt. and Lk. certainly add their own unique material.

 

[sojourner]

who cannot disprove the historicity of the empty tome generally agreed to by most scholars as factual.

The Resurrection isn't "history." It's mythology. There are no admissible facts or evidence to show that it actually happened. The earliest account of the story (which was written by a not-eyewitness nearly 40 years after the alleged event simply has the tomb empty. That's not evidence of a resurrection. It may be evidence of a grave robbery. Or it may be evidence that the story was simply made up.

but not true for the gospel of JOHN who was a first hand eye witness and one of the 12 Apostles who was with JESUS the whole time during his ministry, before his death, during his death and burial and an eye witness to his resurrection and everything JESUS as well as being privy to many things that many of the other apostles were not in the life of JESUS.

The author of John was not a first hand eyewitness. The gospel was written far too late for it to have been written by an eyewitness.

 

[sojourner]

What I wrote was "Yes. Eyewitness accounts fill the NT and all 12 NT writers spoke of the resurrection. An apostle in NT times was one who saw the resurrected Christ and preached about that fact."

An author can remain anonymous while claiming to be reporting an eyewitness account, yes?

Paul's are the only writings early enough to account for an eyewitness. And Paul admits that he's not an eyewitness. There are no eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. None.

 

[sojourner]

You should recall the Jews who wrote the NT were under threat of expulsion from Jewish religious and secular life and under threat of martyrdom from Rome. Stop this nonsense, please...

Not all the NT writers were Jews. Not even all the gospel writers were Jews.

The documents (with the exception of early Paul) were written following the expulsion, so that's not a factor as you claim.

 

[Spartan]

Jesus was crucified 33 CE. 1 Thessalonians -- the oldest extant book of the NT written 48-50 CE. At least 15 years. That's more than "only a handful." And Paul was not an eyewitness.

The earliest mention of the Resurrection goes back to only a handful of years after the event: Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Paul was an eyewitness - he saw Jesus after he was crucified:

1 Corinthians 9:1 (Paul speaking): "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"