1. 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!

Featured Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by adrian009, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    17,100
    Ratings:
    +5,341
    Religion:
    deist
    So how come that some G-John anecdotes have NOT been taken from other gospels?
    There are several examples, but just one is that Judas's father's name was 'Simon', which makes Judas 'Judah BarSimon' or quite possibly 'Judah BenSimon'.

     
  2. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    But this was not “encased” in amber, was it? This t-rex, when it died 65 million years ago, was exposed to harsh elements before it was layered with rocks. It was not near any permafrost like a wooly mammoth when it was found. So, the argument remains the same, i.e., if it’s datable with 14C then why not test this mammoth and see the true age.


    You are so naïve, man. Who do you think are funding these paleontologists? Who do you think funded Don Johanson? Billionaires, and not just ordinary millionaires, but multi-billionaires. These billionaires give paleontologists pocket change, in the millions of dollars, just to dig bones, dinosaur bones, as a hobby.
     
    #882 Neb, Feb 15, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
  3. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    From Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to King David to Mary and to the Lord Jesus, this is the RIGHT genealogy according to the Bible.

    "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad/Ishmael, and because of thy handmaid/Hagar. In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice. For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." -Genesis 21:12

    Very clear, right? "For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Meaning NOT from ISHMAEL, right?

    From Abraham to Ishmael to this Persian Shi'ite Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí who himself claimed
    Baha’u’llah, who did not come from the 12 tribes of Israel but through Ishmael, by Hagar and Abraham, and not through Isaac.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    31,131
    Ratings:
    +13,973
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    I don't know which method they used, but it is at least possible they could have used C-14 on the mammoth.

    You simply do not have any clue how actual science works, so maybe what I'm reading above is simply a manifestation of your "projection", as the psychologists call it.

    I'm a scientist, in this case a retired anthropologist, so I've been in this field long enough to know that you simply do not know what you're talking about. And I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church hearing the frequent sermons against evolution. But I knew even in high school that this could not be right as my parents were "museum freaks", thus I had seen enough by that time to realize that there was a problem with what my church was teaching me.

    One day while still in high school I ran across a Catholic priest, and I asked him if one could believe in the Bible and evolution, and he said that in his church one could as long as it's understood that God was behind it all. But that only left me more confused.

    During my undergrad studies, I started out in biology, so what the priest told me was rather easily confirmed in regards to realizing that we all are a product of evolution. I left my church, whereas, not only had I been very active in, but also that I had thoughts about going into the ministry.

    In my sophomore year, I got into anthropology but also took a couple of Christian theology classes that helped to put things into a better perspective, and then I went on to graduate school with most of my classwork in anthropology, eventually landing a job teaching it which I did for over 30 years. Besides teaching that subject, I also went on and began teaching a religion's course to adults on weekends, including a comparative religions class where I taught.

    Is this a representation of your "Christianity"? Is name-calling others supposedly "moral" in your church? If so, maybe seek out a church that actually teaches Christian morality and that insulting others is basically immoral. If the above is representative of your demeanor, I'd much rather just discuss things with those who don't resort to such crude tactics.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    22,189
    Ratings:
    +16,749
    Religion:
    None
    Reading the exchange, it seems you pulled the trigger first. You have no grounds for complaint.
     
  6. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    Wait a minute, are we still debating about C14 dating method? So, why is it that I need to know your educational background and your personal life, when all you have to do is simply prove that my statements were wrong and I believed you could do that easily, with no problem at all, because you are a scientist, a retired anthropologist.
    With your extensive educational background, you don’t need to persuade readers with rhetoric just to debate someone like me who “do not have any clue how actual science works” or “simply do not know what” I’m “talking about”. Name-calling? Really? Grow up, man.
     
  7. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    602
    Ratings:
    +62
    Religion:
    Christian
    Genesis 1:1 bere'shiyt bara' 'elohiym 'et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets
    You can read from verse 1 and 2 God, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God.
     
  8. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    The argument with the Pharisees in Mark 7:1-13 shows Jesus upholding the Written Torah as opposed to the Oral Torah, rules over and above what was written. The Shammai Pharisees who were predominant at that time were sticklers for slavish obedience to the letter of the law.

    In Mark 2:23-28 Jesus excuses his followers gathering grain on the Sabbath by referring to David and the consecrated showbread in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. (Not really a good argument, but let that be.) The point Jesus was making was that there are circumstances when the rules should be set aside. His followers were hungry, they ate some grain despite it being the Sabbath. This is also the case with Mark 3:1-5 when Jesus heals on the Sabbath.

    This is reminiscent of the attitude of Hillel, Shammai’s predecessor as head of the Sanhedrin. In the famous story contrasting them, Shammai said that it was a sin to say a bride was beautiful if she was not. Hillel replied that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day. To indulge in some speculation: If we take Matthew 2:1 and Luke 3;1,23 as reasonable estimates of when Jesus was born, he would have received his religious education when Hillel was the dominant voice of the Pharisees.

    The priests would have been entirely concerned with their complex Temple obligations. Despite your repeated, still unsupported and repeatedly debunked claims, it was not the priests that either John or Jesus opposed. If we take Mark as closest to accurate, it was the Pharisees that baited Jesus while he mostly just responded reasonably without much rancor. Only in Mark 7:1-13 does Jesus come on really strong and that about the Oral Torah, although Mark does call them hypocrites in Mark 12:15

    In Mark, John the Baptist never says a word about Pharisees or Sadducees and certainly not priests. One needs to go to Matthew’s elaborations on Mark to see John berate them.

    Matthew 3:7-10
    7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

    What reasons might Matthew have for enhancing the story this way? Matthew’s intended audience consisted of Jewish Christians, who held Jesus to be the Messiah while continuing to observe Jewish Law. The Temple was gone and the Pharisees who escaped Jerusalem before the end were now rebuilding Judaism on a rabbinic basis. To Matthew, the Pharisees were not just the ones from Mark who opposed the living Jesus. They were also the contemporary Pharisees who denied the Messiah had come. They were competitors for the hearts and minds of Matthew’s community. Matthew has Jesus really do a number on Pharisees with the standout example being Matthew 23.

    In the decades following the War, the Sadducees were a vanishing breed. With the destruction of Jerusalem and the entire region for that matter, there was no longer a place in society for these once-wealthy upper-class collaborators with the Romans. They represented the old Temple-centric order. So why mention them? Mark mentions them only briefly when they question Jesus about marriage in the afterlife. (Mark 12:18-27)

    The Sadducees rejected the portion of the Jewish scriptures known as the Prophets. This amounted to rejecting the idea of a messiah and an afterlife. Without these, the message that Mark and Matthew have John deliver is that the Messiah is coming and there will be a judgment so repent your sins. This would have been nonsense to the Sadducees. Matthew uses this opportunity to emphasize his point, the Messiah has come and the judgment is coming by invoking the image of the unbelieving Sadducees. Since Matthew uses quotes from the Prophets very often, putting down the Sadducees would be only natural.

    Bottom line: Since the above quoted portion of Matthew does not appear in Mark and since Matthew has good reason for making it up, reasons related to his contemporary situation, it can be excluded as non-historical.

    The quote from Hosea 6:6 about God desiring mercy and not sacrifice appears in Matthew 9:10-13. It is Matthew’s adaptation of Mark 2:15-17. Matthew’s version is mostly unchanged except for the insertion of the Hosea quote. The idea of desiring mercy not sacrifice more or less fits with the idea introduced by Mark that over-obsession with the law can defeat the law. But in the end, it seems out of place here. What does it really mean in this context?

    Matthew 9:10-13
    10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
    11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
    12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
    13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

    The absence of the phrase from Mark and the rather poor fit here points to this being just another example of Matthew finding an opportunity for quoting the Prophets.
     
  9. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    The monograms are in fact the date of minting.

    [​IMG]

    You said the Kappa Alpha Rho or Kappa Rho were the initials of Caesar. They are not. A reference to the Power of Rome is not the initials of Caesar. As I have noted before, your incorrect presentation of details is a source of confusion.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    That the meaning this is 'Kratos Romaion' (The Power of the Romans) is a suggestion made in 1982. That it was labeled as ‘revolutionary’ shows that there is no prior source for this idea.

    "The minting place of the Tyre sheqels has been a subject of discussion since Meshorer's revolutionary concept, published in 1982, that Herod the Great and the authorities at the Jerusalem Temple feared a cessation of minting in Tyre, and transferred this issue to a mint in Jerusalem in around 19/18 BCE. At this time, Meshorer observed, the letters KAP, shortened to KP after the first few years, appeared on virtually all of the Tyre sheqels, where various initials or monograms had appeared on earlier coins. He suggested the letters KP abbreviated Kratos Romaion (power of the Romans). One of Meshorer's principal arguments was based on the decline in style of Tyre sheqels of the later type. He believed this degradation was due to the lack of skill of Jewish mintmasters, not to mention their disinterest in the pagan designs that they treated with disdain. He referred to them as barbaric and clunky, and suggested their smaller, thicker shape hinted they were direct predecessors to the thick sheqels struck by the Jews during the Jewish War." (Guide to Biblical coins, David Hendin, p479, 2010 AD)
    Coins of the Bible: Shekel of Tyre. official temple sanctuary tax coins


    Saying it meant Kratos Romaion could account for Kappa Rho but not the original Kappa Alpha Rho. What was the Alpha supposed to mean?

    Even if it did mean Kratos Romaion, this would not be at all obvious to even those literate in Greek. Most of the residents of the area spoke Aramaic and may not have been very literate even in that. That is, it would be quite rare for anyone using the coin to realize that it had anything to do with Rome. (If in fact it did.) Your idea that the Jews in the region would be very upset about this does not hold water.
     
  10. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    As I previously noted, the description of the event does not appear until hundreds of years after the fact and makes no mention of your claims about it. It Your claim that this was all done at the request of Caesar (which one?) implies that Caesar knew a whole lot about Temple sacrifice practices.

    In addition to my earlier criticisms there is the problem that knowing the attendance would require not just a kidney count but analysis of the registration records. Of course if one had those records, the kidney counts would be superfluous. The Talmud story sounds even more like a colorful invention.

    There is also the issue that it is King Agrippa who had the kidneys counted. Presumably that is Herod Agrippa who reigned from 41-44 AD. Seems rather late for the Romans to be catching on to the potential of skimming off the Temple take. If it is Agrippa II the date of the alleged event is even later.

    The way the event is depicted in the Talmud sounds rather suspicious, being hyperbolic and implying a crowd of over 6 million people being in Jerusalem for Passover. In his Wars of the Jews, Josephus estimated Passover attendance at about 1 million.

    The famous Quirinius census of 6/7 AD that Luke uses in his story is what you are referring to?
     
  11. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    I already provided a link concerning Roman taxation and a discussion in Post # 859 of the ramifications of this. Census results would not be needed since I compared the several rates, not total amounts.

    Back in Post # 841 I discussed the use of Temple funds by Pilate to build aqueducts and the outcry that resulted. I also provided a link to Josephus concerning that.
     
  12. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +478
    Religion:
    None of the above
    John made things up just like Matthew and Luke did.
     
  13. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    5,791
    Ratings:
    +2,511
    Religion:
    undecided
    I don't know if you were reading the other Baha'i thread on the "Great Beings", but in it they said that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed. One of the Baha'is said that Isaac got switched and was probably a scribal error.
     
  14. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    5,791
    Ratings:
    +2,511
    Religion:
    undecided
    I've missed a few pages. How old do the Old Earthers say the soft tissue was? A few million?
     
  15. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    5,791
    Ratings:
    +2,511
    Religion:
    undecided
    "Your evidence for Christ being literally resurrected is based on literal interpretation of NT books that are nearly two thousand years old. Some of the authors are unknown, particularly the gospels. The early church ascribed names to the gospels but modern bible scholarship provides compelling evidence that none of the authors of the synoptic were eye witnesses to the events they rose, and that the author of John, probably wasn't the apostle John. You believe differently and that is fine, but there is strong evidence in my favour. Regardless, my views on the resurrection advocate for their profound spiritual (not literal) significance and do not depend on who the authors really were."​

    What is the New Testament? Baha'is post quotes from the Baha'i Writings saying how great the Christian Bible is, but so many times you say that they were the writings of people that weren't eye witnesses and not even the people that have their names attached to the writings. So were they ordinary men that were taught about Jesus by others? Others that may or may not have been Apostles? Writers that had an agenda to convince people that Jesus was a great spiritual person and was the Jewish Messiah? Writers that said Mary and others saw the tomb empty? Said that Jesus had risen from the dead? Said that Jesus spoke, ate and was touched by people? Then, in front of people ascended into the clouds? So was their agenda to make such a convincing story about how supernatural Jesus was, that people would give their lives to follow the teachings of Jesus? But those same writers had an agenda on writing down the supposed things Jesus said?

    But, the Baha'is believe Jesus died and was buried? That those writers, all four of them, reported a story that the tomb was empty, that Jesus had come back to life. But, Baha's believe that story was only symbolic? Why would those non-eye witness writers do that? Why would these non-eye witness, therefore not being any of the Apostles or their immediate disciples, be truly "inspired" by God? Why didn't the real Apostles write anything? Why make up a symbolic story of the resurrection? How would nobody, especially the Jews and the Romans, not know that Jesus was dead and buried? How could the early Church come to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead?

    So a person that comes to believe in Jesus, and is taught about the things in the New Testament and Jewish Bible, comes to believe that everything in Genesis is real, creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Flood etc. Because of Adam's rebellion, all humanity is born with a sin nature. In the spirit world an Adversary roams around trying to deceive people. This Adversary rebelled against God, but in the end times will be cast into a lake of fire. To get right with God, people must accept Jesus and obey his teachings. Those that reject Jesus will be judged by God and cast into hell. All this is supposedly taken from the New Testament and the Jewish Scripture. Baha'is say none of this is true. So the resurrection is only one thing about Christian beliefs that Baha'is say isn't true. Most all of the major Christian beliefs are rejected by Baha'is. Yet, Baha'is say how great and wonderful the New Testament and Jesus are? Why? What's left?
     
  16. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    The RIGHT genealogy for what?
    Genesis 21:12 New King James Version (NKJV)

    12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.

    Genesis 21:12 New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

    12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be so upset about the boy and your slave Hagar. Listen to what Sarah tells you, because your family line will continue through Isaac.

    Genesis 21:12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    12 But God said to Abraham, “a]">[a]Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac b]">[b]your descendants shall be named.

    But what is your point? Baha’is do not deny that Jesus was descended from Abraham through Isaac: Genealogy of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh
    No, Baha’u’llah did not come through Ishmael:

    “Aside from this, certain families and lineages have been singled out for a special blessing. Thus the descendants of Abraham received the special blessing that all the Prophets of the House of Israel were raised up from among their ranks. This is a blessing that God bestowed upon that lineage. Moses, through both His father and His mother; Christ, through His mother; Muhammad; the Báb; and all the Prophets and Holy Ones of Israel belong to that lineage. Bahá’u’lláh too is a lineal descendant of Abraham, for Abraham had other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac who in those days emigrated to the regions of Persia and Afghanistan, and the Blessed Beauty is one of their descendants.”
    Some Answered Questions

    This passage clearly states that Baha’u’llah descended from Abraham via another son than Ishmael or Isaac. Since Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham’s only children by Hagar and Sarah, this leaves Keturah, the third wife of Abraham, as the mother of his other sons, as can be seen on this genealogy chart: Genealogy of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh

    “As you may know, Abraham had three wives: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.
    It's my understanding that Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah, and that the line from Sarah included David as well (though I don't know at what point before Jesus it then split off).
    So anyway, the short answer is that yes, Baha'u'llah was a descendant of David.”

    Is Baha'u'llah related to King David? | Interfaith forums
     
  17. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
    1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    I see nothing about the Son of God in these verses.
    The Spirit of God is not only in Jesus. It is in all the Manifestations of God.
     
  18. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    17,100
    Ratings:
    +5,341
    Religion:
    deist
    Now, after your long post, much of which is shown to be a an account of theological fable by, say, Matthew, I need to explain to you yet again that I have absolutely no interest in any writings which are metaphorical, fable, myth, theological ideas etc.

    I am only interested in who and what Yeshua BarYosef was, how he got involved in the Baptist's mission and how he carried it forward, probably over nearly one year.

    What happened after that is beyond my remit. And so the foundations of my studies are based upon early first century Galilee, what the Galilean people were like, how did they react with other Jews and provinces, how honest were they, what they believed in, how they survived, where they built houses and where they lived in tents, how did they make their clothes, what did their children do and how did they grow up etc. And the available history about all this show a much different picture to the Christian ideas.
    And so I rip out the theological slants and agendas from the gospels, seeking out real people with real characters (if possible). These people were like folks anywhere, some were canny survivors, many, if they needed to were fibbers, just as we can find today. Many would have done anything to avoid paying taxes or whatever, some would steal if given the opportunity, they were just folks............. they were human.

    And in the situation of these people trekking along the Jordan (avoiding Samaria) to spend their hard earned money at Jerusalem, getting ripped off by the locals and then losing the rest at the Temple, the presence of a Holy man with a great reputation offering redemption, cleansing and feel-good-factor for very little would have been a great temptation. The Baptists disciples would have been working all day long, and since they probably received small gratuities for their services I can imagine why they were attracted to the operation.

    It's all about the human factor, added to what is written, and although it's a guesstimate it produces a quite different scenario to crowds of holy, moral, honest, well behaved folks doing exactly what they are told to do. They were human.

    Inject humanity into the Gospels and you get a much different, but very interesting balance of possibility. Theological myths don't help me with historical Jesus.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12,969
    Ratings:
    +3,132
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    What's left when you strip out the resurrection and all the stories surrounding it? ... The teachings of Jesus.... :D

    The following quote explains how it was the Word of God as well as the cross sacrifice that freed us from the chains of bondage. Christ gave us His teachings (profusion of His bounties) and then later died on the cross (suffered the greatest martyrdom) so we could be free of sin and attain everlasting life.

    “…those who turned toward the Word of God and received the profusion of His bounties—were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, were delivered from the chains of bondage, and attained to the world of liberty. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom. This is the meaning of the words of Christ, “I gave My blood for the life of the world” 6 —that is to say, I have chosen all these troubles, these sufferings, calamities, and even the greatest martyrdom, to attain this object, the remission of sins” Some Answered Questions, p. 125
     
  20. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    17,100
    Ratings:
    +5,341
    Religion:
    deist
    No, I did not.
    You must stop divining up stuff that I said.
    The KP and KAP that I referred to are centre-right (of the raptor) in coins which I referred to and not on the circumference.

    And if you can show where I wrote kappa alpha or rho I will chew on my laptop.
     
Loading...