Jollybear
Hey
Unless they wer written down and circulating. Plus, what about luke saying he investigated it from the beginning?
Well, tell me what he got wrong so i can deal with it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus Resurrection
- Thread starter Prometheus85
- Start date
Unless they wer written down and circulating. Plus, what about luke saying he investigated it from the beginning?
Well, tell me what he got wrong so i can deal with it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Luke's own work demonstrated that he did not do that.
And I thought you were a student of the Bible. His obvious error is his version of the nativity of course. To meet a prophesy in Micah he concocted an obviously false tale based partially on a translation error in the Septuagint.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Because the authors knew very specific details about the geografy, political structure, demográfica etc. Only an eye witness or someone with proper sources would have known that + the fact that at least some events are confirmed by multiple independent sources. Including earlier sources like Paul and the creeds.
T
.
And historians can identify those cases. (In such cases we should skeptical)
And Jesus died in 30AD
Those who where 20yo where 60yo when the gospels where written. Why is it hard to believe that a relevant number of witnesses was still alive?
Granted, one should be skeptical about the birth of Jesus
Just like historians are skeptical on some details about the birth of Christopher Columbus.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a very bad assumption. Anyone that lived in the area at that time or near that time would be able to do the same. And by your standards we know that Luke at the very least is wrong as was Matthew. Luke made claims that were shown to be in error.
T.
Good, there is some hope for you.
Actually the date is far from written in stone.
Yet you tried to claim that Luke was accurate, now you are making excuses.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
What is your evidence?
Why is the bible true and not the Mahabharata? You have a guy narrating a story who had been given divine sight, which was a refreshing acknowledgement of the problem that he couldn't witness the things he discussed. The bible rarely even has that. The Holy Spirit gave them Google Translate or something. It didn't give them knowledge. You also have the very real problem that if we take the bible as true, then it is also true that people are liars because it says so, and people wrote the stories. Saying God inspired them is meaningless because they wrote themselves out of credibility. Jesus thought they were losers who didn't understand him. How can we trust their take on things, then? Why would the authors have different takes on how things went down if the Holy Spirit dictated the truth to them? It's not like one author focused on the economy, one focused on religion, one focused on politics, etc. They attempted to tell the same story 4 times, and they can't get it straight.
On the contrary. Each disciple supposedly had a following. Those followers didn't agree with one another. Thus, they come off as trolls:
Author A: I am a disciple of James. Peter sucks. I'm going to go to lengths to show just what kind of a failure he was.
Author B: I am a disciple of Peter. Peter ... Peter ... I mean, everyone pretty much agrees on Peter. However, I'm going write that he repented of his evil betrayals and personality flaws even though he dies having never really changed much.
Author C: I am a disciple of John. John couldn't bear the loss of his "special friend". I will write about how much Jesus loved John while trying not to make them sound gay.
It's like watching the news, where what is reported depends on who pays them to talk.
You keep saying that, but you also enjoy ignoring all the places where it gets things wrong, like anachronisms. The stories were told to give meaning to the current events happening in the authors' lives, which is why you see verses like "and so it is to this day". People who are witnessing it don't say that, because it IS that day for them.
Let's say you are watching the news. Several planes have caused deaths and structural damage. You get reports about terrorists, a government conspiracy, faked video, etc. What fascinates me is that people can say "yeah, but that is 'fake news'", but when the bible does the exact same thing, it's "it must all be true."
It's like politicians: we know politicians are lying when their mouths are open. However, biblical and essentially mythical versions of the founding fathers of our own country were totally never just spewing stuff to make the population quiet. No, they must be telling the truth, because I am gullible enough to swallow propaganda.
The Old Testament is a fight of propaganda between pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy people. Every book relates to that fight, because as the bible notes, King Josiah only "discovered" (coughcough) a law book, which means every other book up to that point must have been written at least during his reign if not later, which ALSO means it is a propaganda war between both sides in the monarchy debate. Moses is torn between being portrayed as a great religious (non-king) leader and a strong military leader (which is what the kings would've focused on).
The New Testament is a fight of propaganda between Jews and gentiles. What really happened is irrelevant, because it's about "We Jews are the Chosen Ones" and "Nuh-uh, we gentiles are the Chosen Ones" and "Uh-huh, nuh-uh, uh-huh, nuh-uh." The reality is that the books are written after gentiles start to be included after mostly Jewish rebuttal, so the plots reflect where the authors stand in relation to that debate.
Are you telling me that if I watch a play-through of Five Nights at Freddy's, a horror game about rogue animatronics possessed by victims of a serial child killer, the fact the plot has an insane amount of detailed backstory means the author of the game must have witnessed this?
You would be called out, because he lived in Galilee, not Jerusalem. YOU can't even get the details right.
1000 years from now, how will this be determined?
Jollybear
Hey
So luke lied about investigating it from the begining?
Break that down more. I dont understand the error.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes , like any good historian, Luke did his research, he read mark, Q, and other sources, then he completed his knowledge by asking the witnesses.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It depends which one of your standards that we use. You are not consistent in your use of that word. Let's say that he wanted to believe. That can end up with people passing on falsehoods.
The prophesy was the Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. To get him there he used several tools. First he began the "born of a virgin" myth. Well both he and the author of Matthew did that. They based that on a mistranslation in the Septuagint where "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin". Plus the verse where that occurred was not a prophecy but a historical statement. To get him there he declared that Augustus Caesar had an empire wide census, that never happened, ran by Quirinius. The problem is that he also said that Jesus was born in the time of Herod. Herod died roughly ten years before Quirinius did his local census of Judea. Then he had the bogus claim that the census required people to go to their ancestral homes. That never happened and would be counter productive. Lastly the census of Quirinius would not have affected Nazareth which was outside of Judea and in Galilee. It is an incredible mess of errors when one looks at it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A good historian gives credit to one's supposed witnesses. You are reading into that verse what it implies did not happen.
lukethethird
unknown member
Of course Luke, the good historian, did his research, that's why we refer to The Bible, for work well researched. That's why Luke doesn't read like fiction, that virgin birth really happened and the Son of God really did come to earth and was raised from the dead. Nothing fictional about that.
Jollybear
Hey
lukethethird
unknown member
You can't just make this stuff up:
The Death of Jesus
Matthew 27:51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised from their graves, went to the holy city and appeared unto many.
The Death of Jesus
Matthew 27:51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised from their graves, went to the holy city and appeared unto many.
Last edited:
Prometheus85
Active Member
How were they in the position know?
To witness a man’s resurrection from the dead, you must (1) see him alive, then (2) see him dead, then (3) see him alive again.
Let’s pick up the crucifixtion story in Matthew when Jesus is arrested. What happens next is, “Then all the disciples deserted him and fled" . The very next day when Jesus was crucified, "a lot of women were there, watching from a distance”
including Mary Mag and Mary the mother of James and Joseph. There were men present passersbyers who insulted Jesus and Roman guards but no disciples.
With no male disciples to observe the crucifixion, your argument about the apostles being in a position to know claim fails. Because you must see him dead if you want to later claim a resurrection. The gospel of Matthew doesn’t even claim any disciples at the empty tomb. Before you try to spin this and say Matthew was an eyewitness, Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness; that addition is made by Christian apologists.
leroy
Well-Known Member
If you start with the asumtion of naturalism, then any report on miracles would be dismissed as fiction...
But even the skeptick (if he is inforomed and honest) would grant that Jesus did stuff that others interpreted as miracles. Whether if these where actual miracles, lies, hallucinations etc. Is a matter of controversy
Jollybear
Hey
So, he lied, period, he did not investigate the beginings of this, thats what your saying?
Look at this
Isaiah 7:14 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk
click on "virgin" and this will come up
Old Testament Hebrew - StudyLight.org
So....i dont see the problem?
As for the census, thats contended. Heres a video i watched on it. Theres articles too, but sometimes i get sick of reading.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0Qo7QBCCQwAA&usg=AOvVaw0y77CwQduN-VSOaU3bTilo
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
By your standards I guess that he did.
That is an old out of date translation. It is well known that that he used the Hebrew word for young lady. More modern translations sometimes have it that way. The Hebrew word "almah" does not mean virgin. It means young woman or girl. Usually a maiden that has not had a child yet. "Betulah" specifically means virgin and was used by the author of Isaiah elsewhere. For ages the source of the Old Testament was largely the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew. They screwed up and people that faked the story about Jesus relied partially on this error. The original does not have that as prophesy but as history. This article goes into more detail:
Why Isaiah 7:14 Is Not A Prophecy of Jesus’ Virgin Birth.
And the video is just grasping at straws. There is no real scholarship to it at all. The one case where there is no real doubt that Luke's tale was false. At least try to find a source based on some sort of scholarship if you want to be taken seriouisly.
Last edited:
Jollybear
Hey
Jesus had been telling his disciples he was going to die. He predicted his death to them numerious times.
Plus, peter after he fled is mentioned to be following at a distence right up in the courtyard.
Plus the disciples met the woman and the woman let them know about where to go to meet him after he rose. So, they knew he was crucified. I mean, how could they not know that? Even enemy sources outside the bible say he was crucified. Also joseph of arimathia put him in a tomb. So, he saw.
Plus luke says that all who knew him wer present INCLUDING the woman.
Also peter after hearing the report from the woman that he rose, got up and went to the tomb to inspect.
Also in johns gospel, john and peter go to the tomb and john is at the cross where hes crucified.
So, i dont see the issue of them not being able to "KNOW" this stuff.
lukethethird
unknown member
Of course they knew, we just have to read our Bible to know that. Read and believe, that's the name of the game.
Jollybear
Hey
By that standard we should reject everything it says, plus reject all historical documents.
Either believe it or be forced to believe a giant conspiracy theory.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No,the amount of evidence demanded varies upon the claim. We went over this. There are independent sources that confirm Caesar's existence. There is a smidge of independent sources that confirm the existence of Jesus. There are no independent sources that tell us of his resurrection.