Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Katzpur]

I get that but now we've run into the problem of varying theologies where Christians and members of other faiths will have different and even contrary views to yours on what angels are and are not, so I guess I'll never be able to know which one of the faiths is right or has the correct view.

I've got agree with you there. And I guess that's the main reason why I'm content to just live and let live. I figure that most of us are doing the best we can to understand God and our relationship to Him, and personally, I'm pretty confident that in the end, what's going to matter most to HIm is how we treated one another, not whether we scored 100% on the Christian doctrine final exam.

 

[Riders]

The proof is that there was no dead body remaining in the tomb. If there were the Jewish religious leaders who were against Jesus would have displayed the body for all to see and stopped the disciples from saying He had risen.

So sayeth the bible! The bible cant be used for proof of itself.

 

[Riders]

I've got agree with you there. And I guess that's the main reason why I'm content to just live and let live. I figure that most of us are doing the best we can to understand God and our relationship to Him, and personally, I'm pretty confident that in the end, what's going to matter most to HIm is how we treated one another, not whether we scored 100% on the Christian doctrine test.

Yes and some churches believe in the original saturday sabbath and some say Sunday is the Sabbath. Some believe in the Trinity and some churches are oneness Godhead churches. Some believe you need to be baptized some are sprinkled some use dunking and some don't believe Baptism is necessary,

 

[Katzpur]

Everything humanity needs for salvation is in the NT, nothing more is needed.

And where in the New Testament does it say this?

Do you seriously have no idea of how the biblical canon came into existence and how many times over the ages the books which were included in the canon were changed? You seem to think that the Bible as we know it today came to us signed, sealed and delivered directly from God, without the possibility of human error. I'm afraid the evidence just doesn't support that premise.

You asked the question about freemasons and your religion, and I answered it.

It wasn't me who brought up the subject of freemasonry. As a matter of fact I asked what in the world it had to do with the OP in the first place. I simply addressed your and whirlingmerc's inaccurate assumptions.

 

[Riders]

So and there are also churches like Unity and some Unitarian Universalists, some of them, and some at the Unity church who choose to follow Jesus but not as God but as the chosen Messiah, but he was not God. But they choose to live by the bible and read the bible,live by it.

Truthfully I'm not sure if Jesus was the one and only Messiah or if he was a representative of the whole group of Messiahs in the Messiah movement. But I do believe a guy named Jesus a member of the Messiah movement lived and was crucified.So I think its worth my time to get into the bible this year, weather I go to Unity or maybe possibly the Quakers who are similar to Unity, they have Christian tradition but a belief Jesus is God is not a requirement.

 

[Riders]

So and there are also churches like Unity and some Unitarian Universalists, some of them, and some at the Unity church who choose to follow Jesus but not as God but as the chosen Messiah, but he was not God. But they choose to live by the bible and read the bible,live by it.

Truthfully I'm not sure if Jesus was the one and only Messiah or if he was a representative of the whole group of Messiahs in the Messiah movement. But I do believe a guy named Jesus a member of the Messiah movement lived and was crucified.So I think its worth my time to get into the bible this year, weather I go to Unity or maybe possibly the Quakers who are similar to Unity, they have Christian tradition but a belief Jesus is God is not a requirement.

But Im definitly interested in Jewish ideas the old testament and maybe even the Koran eventually.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Actually there is proof to the exact opposite of what you said. My video I have up under Pagan Christ says the people who wrote the first Greek versions were written in a form of greek that only royalty knew and this is why they know Greek leaders, royalty wrote the bible not Paul or anyone else.

BZZZZZZ ! no!
thanks for playing!!!

see Wiki
Language of the New Testament. The New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600).

common language.
street Greek

 

[Spartan]

No, there are no "historical accounts" that say that. The Gospels are not history.

You couldn't prove that by me.

And it is easy to back up the standard for Roman crucifixion are well documented:

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

"Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals."

"Typically" is not always. Also in your link was this: "Victims were sometimes left on display after death as a warning to any other potential criminals." SOMETIMES.

You on the other hand only have a book of myths that support your beliefs.

"myths"? ANOTHER UNFOUNDED CLAIM, with ZERO EVIDENCE to back it up.

You are making extraordinary claims in regard to the crucifixion. You need extraordinary evidence. All you have is a failed book.

Failed book my butt. You have yet to assail the credibility of the historical Gospels.

So, you have fared very poorly in this series of attempted rebuttals.

 

[Left Coast]

You can disregard or try to discredit apologetic websites if you like, but if their points are valid and make sense, I don't and won't.

But their points aren't valid and don't make sense. That's what I'm pointing out to you.

The procedure of scholars who are skeptical critics is usually to approach the scriptures presuming they are guilty until proven innocent, or rather unreliable until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact.

Incorrect. Objective scholars don't assume anything about a text until they evaluate the claims of the text and do research to determine if there is evidence for what the text claims. Which is the way any objective person would approach any text. You wouldn't just assume any text you come across is trustworthy, would you? No, of course not. And when a text claims on nearly every page that something completely fantastical/magical/impossible/implausible happened, which are things we know simply don't happen and don't make sense, then objective scholars rightly treat that text skeptically and as a work of mythology. Just as I'm betting you do for every such text that isn't the Bible.

But the reality is time and time again these kind of critics have come out citing certain events or people in the Bible as fictitious...only to later be proven wrong as archeological or other evidence substantiates the scriptures writers were correct.

Again, inserting historical figures or even events into a story does not make the story true or even plausible.

Luke does not simply say the "stories were handed down". It says ... just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, This means that Luke interviewed any living eyewitnesses

No, it most definitely does not have to mean that at all. That is simply not what the words say. We know that these stories circulated orally in various forms for decades before Luke wrote them down. The author of Luke "received" them as part of the oral Christian tradition that had been passed down. We also know he was aware of Mark and Matthew, because he plagiarizes them repeatedly (and neither of which claim to be eyewitness accounts either). So again, this passage is not a claim to the author having been an eyewitness.

Paul's letters and the other epistles also validate the main points of the gospels with regard to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Actually no, Paul's epistles in particular contain almost zero information about Jesus' life that is claimed in the Gospels: no virgin birth, no baptism by John, no wandering from town to town miraculously healing everyone in sight.

Yes, there is controversy about the verses after verse 8 of Mark 16, but even if you omit any verses past verse 8 the text still says ...“You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here"
So it is in perfect harmony with the other gospels that Christ rose from the dead.

The claim of the website that I was responding to was that all 4 Gospels "clearly teach" that Jesus rose from the dead AND appeared afterwards to his disciples. Which I was pointing out is simply false.

I disagree. The largest and only reason Christianity had such a huge rise was due to the resurrection of Christ, which was preached right there in Jerusalem way before Rome created a state religion. By the time emperor Constantine established Christianity as the state religion, historians say there were around thirty million Christians throughout the Roman Empire.

Well, the guy who calculated the 30 million number, sociologist Rodney Stark, doesn't agree with you: Why Did Christianity Succeed? - The Rise Of Christianity | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

It's also worth noting that that other scholars of early Christianity now dispute Stark's calculations, which are a little dated.

The disciples of Jesus did not take off to some distant city to preach that Christ rose from the dead, where the facts could not be verified. Jesus' disciples preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ right in the city of Jerusalem, where they would have been quickly exposed and disproved if what they were saying was false and where the dead body of Jesus could be exposed by the religious leaders, government authorities or critics. That would have ended the claim right there and Christianity would never have spread any further. But that never happened, not only did Christianity originate in Jerusalem, it thrived there and spread from there throughout the Roman Empire.

Again, we have no reason to assume any pagan would bother to "disprove" that a random Jewish guy rose from the dead. It would have been written off like any other fanatical religious preaching then or today. And certainly you can't think people converting to Christianity in Corinth did it because they were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. So obviously they were convinced by other things, like Paul who was convinced by having a vision.

If you prefer to discontinue the conversation, that's fine . You are certainly free to express your negative thoughts about the Bible, but I am not going to stop considering it to be reliable truth just because you don't agree.

I would never want you to change your beliefs simply on my say-so, certainly not. I think you would benefit from doing some secular, objective research of the Bible that doesn't come from apologetics websites. That would be a good place to go from here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You couldn't prove that by me.

A lack of education is not the issue here. But I guess you do not understand what history is either.

"Typically" is not always. Also in your link was this: "Victims were sometimes left on display after death as a warning to any other potential criminals." SOMETIMES.

I did not say always. That is why I did not say he was definitely not entombed, I said probably.

"myths"? ANOTHER UNFOUNDED CLAIM, with ZERO EVIDENCE to back it up.

The Bible backs me up. It starts with a creation myth, it has a flood myth, it has a language myth, and we have barely started.

Failed book my butt. You have yet to assail the credibility of the historical Gospels.

So, you have fared very poorly in this series of attempted rebuttals.

Oh my!! You are projecting your flaws upon others. First off may I suggest that you calm down. If you get all excited you will lose by default. Plus you keep carping about a lack of evidence and yet I have supplied far more than you have. You have no reliable evidence for your beliefs. Jesus is barely mentioned outside of the Bible and there are no contemporaneous records of him at all.

Also, excessive breaking up of posts is often an act of desperation and always rude. There is no need to get angry. If you are correct you should be able to calmly support your claims. Ranting and raving only indicates insecurity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Spartan if you want more evidence, first you must acknowledge when I present it. I did support my claims about crucifixion, how the bodies were left up and not taken down, and how they usually ended up in a mass grave. If you don't acknowledge evidence when given then you lose the right to demand it. My claim was that Jesus probably did not end up in a tomb.

Second on the term "buried" I proved to you that you were wrong about Christians using that word. It is in the Apostles Creed. Most Christians recite that at some time when they go to church, not necessarily every service, but it is fairly common.

Last you ducked the fact that Luke's Nativity falls apart when investigated.

 

[Spartan]

A lack of education is not the issue here. But I guess you do not understand what history is either.

Sure I understand it. I have a college education as well as degrees in Biblical Theology. But you haven't done your homework.

The Bible backs me up. It starts with a creation myth, it has a flood myth, it has a language myth, and we have barely started.

There's scientists who would disagree with you. But if you really want a myth, you can trot out the miracle of abiogenesis, which requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

You have no reliable evidence for your beliefs. Jesus is barely mentioned outside of the Bible and there are no contemporaneous records of him at all.

Like I said, you haven't done your homework. There are over FORTY references to Jesus, including non-biblical references, dating from several decades after his resurrection up to a 150 years after his life. That's right, over FORTY. And you say Jesus is barely mentioned??

For Jesus there were 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. Plus 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. Plus 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And also 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonous, Thallus.

Is there a reason you're not aware of all these?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I understand it. I have a college education as well as degrees in Biblical Theology. But you haven't done your homework.

What makes you think that? So far you have not done any. Once again, projection.

There's scientists who would disagree with you. But if you really want a myth, you can trot out the miracle of abiogenesis, which requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

There are incompetent and dishonest scientists that would disagree with me, so what? Most creationist sites actually require their "scientist" to promise not to use the scientific method. Making them no longer scientists. And just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is magical. Many people can help you with the concept of abiogenesis here.

Like I said, you haven't done your homework. There are over FORTY references to Jesus, including non-biblical references, dating from several decades after his resurrection up to a 150 years after his life. That's right, over FORTY. And you say Jesus is barely mentioned??

No, there are passing mentions of him. You have to include the Bible to have "Forty" which technically is only one.

For Jesus there were 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. Plus 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. Plus 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And also 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonous, Thallus.

Is there a reason you're not aware of all these?

I am aware of a good number of those. None of them are contemporaneous. Do you not understand the meaning of that word?

 

[osgart]

Sure I understand it. I have a college education as well as degrees in Biblical Theology. But you haven't done your homework.



There's scientists who would disagree with you. But if you really want a myth, you can trot out the miracle of abiogenesis, which requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.



Like I said, you haven't done your homework. There are over FORTY references to Jesus, including non-biblical references, dating from several decades after his resurrection up to a 150 years after his life. That's right, over FORTY. And you say Jesus is barely mentioned??

For Jesus there were 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. Plus 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. Plus 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And also 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonous, Thallus.

Is there a reason you're not aware of all these?

So i have to be a history scholar to get salvation?

Salvation means accepting the Bible as literal proof, and evidence for every event account it expresses?

Only scholars get salvation?

Everybody that ever lived, or will live will have an fair opportunity to get saved at some point?

 

[Skwim]

That's your opinion. I seriously doubt you have looked at or researched the supporting information for those 12 facts.

No I have not. Principally because I've never heard of any. What extra Biblical evidence are you relying on?*


*And I stand alongside Subduction Zone in requiring that it be contemporaneous with the event.


.

 

[Spartan]

So i have to be a history scholar to get salvation?

Why do you ask? Did I make that claim?

Salvation means accepting the Bible as literal proof, and evidence for every event account it expresses?

Only scholars get salvation?

Everybody that ever lived, or will live will have an fair opportunity to get saved at some point?

How about you read the Bible and find out?

 

[Spartan]

No I have not. Principally because I've never heard of any. What extra Biblical evidence are you relying on?

.

Here's a link for that:

Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Historical Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a link for that:

Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Historical Jesus.

Pretty weak sauce. You do not seem to understand the position of others. They are not saying that Jesus never existed, though there are those that argue for that as well. They argue that he was just a man with a following. So far what you have presented supports that claim.

Yes, there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, he was probably crucified by Pilate. And yes he had a following and was a teacher. But that is about as far as the evidence goes.

 

[Spartan]

There are incompetent and dishonest scientists that would disagree with me, so what?

As if you even know them or the evidences they've presented.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Former NASA Scientist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

Are you aware of the number of individuals from Jesus' time on who ALL have to be liars and charlatans and fools in order for you to be right? Reminds me of Slick Willie Clinton trying to diss all the women accusers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As if you even know them or the evidences they've presented.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Former NASA Scientist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

Are you aware of the number of individuals from Jesus' time on who ALL have to be liars and charlatans and fools in order for you to be right? Reminds me of Slick Willie Clinton trying to diss all the women accusers.

I do know of many of them and most do not present any evidence. But then you probably do not have a scientific education so you are unable to understand what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. And do you think that Jastrow was a creationist? You have to be kidding. He was not even a Christian. Just because someone believes in God does not mean that he believes in the Christian God, And also there are countless Christian scientists. Many of them accept the theory of evolution. Many of them accept abiogenesis. Their faith is stronger than that of many Christians. They do not need to believe the myths of the Bible to be Christian.

You keep making such basic basic errors. Your example harms your cause it does not help it. We were not taking about scientists that believe in God, we were talking about scientists that believe the creation myth. Also you do not seem to realize that there were no "creationists" until after Darwin formed his theory. Creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution.