• 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!

Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The starting point is that Mark is the only earthly bio of Jesus of any substance ─ Paul's Jesus is a demiurge with an earthly bio that fits in a couple of lines, and Matthew, Luke and John are Mark re-written to another's taste.
Not quite. Matthew and Luke use Mark as a starting point and add their own unique material to it. But they also make use of another source (the Q text) not found in Mark. Interestingly, Q also shares some common material with Thomas. John shares no common material with Mark.

The Jesus of the author of Johnis born of a Jewish woman and is descended from David, but no details are given; he, like Paul's Jesus, is the demiurge, created in heaven by God and creating the material universe.
I think your not reading either Paul or John correctly if you think that the Pauline and Johanine Jesus is a "demiurge."
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not quite. Matthew and Luke use Mark as a starting point and add their own unique material to it. But they also make use of another source (the Q text) not found in Mark. Interestingly, Q also shares some common material with Thomas. John shares no common material with Mark.
No argument that Matthew and Luke bring in their own stories, those about Jesus' birth not least, and fulfill other purported prophecies, and (although the Q hypothesis is disputed) some or other source of other materials. (My excuse for not being so specific before is brevity.)
I think your not reading either Paul or John correctly if you think that the Pauline and Johanine Jesus is a "demiurge."
The Jesuses of Paul and of the author of John have in common that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God (eg Philippians 2:5-8, John 6:38, John 8:58 &c), and that Jesus created the material world (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:2). They then mediate between God and the material world, most expressly in John. That looks like the demiurge role, no? (The authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke make no parallel claim about pre-existence or creating the material world.)
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
If you had any evidence to refute my points then you would have done so already, but you don't, that's why you're avoiding them right now.

I have tons of evidence, but giving it to people like you who automatically kick it to the curb is a waste of my time. Go find someone else to spin your folly on.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have tons of evidence, but giving it to people like you who automatically kick it to the curb is a waste of my time. Go find someone else to spin your folly on.
You didn't answer my question about the evidence Habermas deals with in his book.

Am I to assume he doesn't address those questions?

If he doesn't, if he ducks the real issues, why on earth would anyone take him seriously?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I'm not really a believer but one question that's really intriguing and could potentially be evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is the fact that doubting Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but upon touching Jesus' wounds he became a believer in the resurrection. Now assuming the story is true, unless someone can provide reason to doubt that Thomas existed or reason to doubt that he was skeptical of the resurrection even if he did exist, wouldn't the fact that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection but then became a believer in the resurrection be potential evidence for the resurrection?
Sooo... your argument is "assuming the stories in the Bible are true, that's evidence of the Resurrection"? Um, I think that's kind of a failure at point 1...
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I have tons of evidence, but giving it to people like you who automatically kick it to the curb is a waste of my time. Go find someone else to spin your folly on.
Ah yes, the old "I have heaps of evidence, but I only show it to people who already completely believe what I'm saying before being shown evidence" claim.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
1/3 of the earth may regard Jesus as their savior (or they may never have thought much about it). As for prophets, they're meeting after work for a glass or two in the Dumbledore Room down the corridor.
Do they look incorrect? Or do you only mean that you're not comfortable reading words that don't accord with what you want to believe? If the former, then set out your objections and the evidence you rely on, and we can discuss them. If the latter, well, that's a matter for you, though perhaps not the best way to enlarge your understanding.

My choice, my time, what you wrote was mainly "textual criticism" which has nothing to do with the Bible in archaeology, the sciences, fulfilled prophecy, the love of Christ...
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Ah yes, the old "I have heaps of evidence, but I only show it to people who already completely believe what I'm saying before being shown evidence" claim.
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
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Does it examine the evidence that there was an historical Jesus to be resurrected?

Given an historical Jesus, does it examine the problems with the resurrection reports? Does it underline the point that the story is essentially incredible and demands an extraordinarily high quality of evidence to demonstrate it as a fact of history? That on the contrary the evidence is of very poor quality, with no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, no independent account, and with all six biblical accounts contradicting the other five on major points? That none of the reports goes even close to establishing that Jesus' life systems had irreversibly ceased to function? That if there was an empty tomb, many much more credible explanations for that are available?

If it doesn't, it's just a sermon, not a history lesson, no?

It blows your unbiblical claims right out of the water. So read it and find out why you're wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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
LOL! You claim that others did not use due diligence and then give us a list of hacks.. Nice shooting. I do believe that was your middle toe you just took out.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My choice, my time, what you wrote was mainly "textual criticism" which has nothing to do with the Bible in archaeology, the sciences, fulfilled prophecy, the love of Christ...
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.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It blows your unbiblical claims right out of the water. So read it and find out why you're wrong.
Well, give me a teaser. How does he address the problem that as an historical event, the resurrection is extremely improbable and lacks the support of any eyewitness account, contemporary account (nothing at all within twenty years, nothing substantial within forty-five years) or independent account?

Or haven't you read it?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
I have tons of evidence, but giving it to people like you who automatically kick it to the curb is a waste of my time. Go find someone else to spin your folly on.
Hahaha.

I never kicked it to the curb, I addressed and refuted it. So address my points then.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Well, give me a teaser. How does he address the problem that as an historical event, the resurrection is extremely improbable and lacks the support of any eyewitness account, contemporary account (nothing at all within twenty years, nothing substantial within forty-five years) or independent account?

Or haven't you read it?

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
 
Top