Was Yeshua the only resurected?

[cataway]

and yet there is a record of it happening to Jesus . many did see him living again after his death and a few different ones did wright about it.

the mere fact that you dont like it .....does not bother me .

 

[McBell]

and yet there is a record of it happening to Jesus . many did see him living again after his death and a few different ones did wright about it.

the mere fact that you dont like it .....does not bother me .

Oh, really?
What is this secular record of which you speak?

 

[Brian2]

don't ya think that if maybe , several bodies ,had life put back into them that there would be some substantial record of accomplishments by those people ?? in reality you have been duped into believing something that really did not happen in the way it should of been described . its given you a false understanding .

Who would write the record of accomplishments? Those raised would not have been around long. Those who saw them may have been only a few and probably would not have been believed.
There was a record kept about it in Matthew's Gospel and the NWT differs from most translations considerably.
I did not even know there was any problem with translating the Greek in that passage.

 

[Brian2]

The are no secular recorded incidences of ANYONE ever being resurrected and yes, that includes Jesus.

That is what makes Jesus resurrection special.
Why would anyone who had been a witness of Jesus having risen, remain in unbelief? Any secular record of there being Christians and Jesus may not include the resurrection story but that would be just understood, as it is a part of the beliefs of Christians.
Why would anyone believe some people saying they saw the dead walking about after the raising of the OT saints near the end of Matthew's Gospel?
Why would Jews who had seen Jesus resurrect people, not believe in Him?
Those who did not must have been sceptical and come up with their answers. (those that were thought to be dead were not, it was a trick, Jesus was using the power of Satan etc)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That is what makes Jesus resurrection special.
Why would anyone who had been a witness of Jesus having risen, remain in unbelief? Any secular record of there being Christians and Jesus may not include the resurrection story but that would be just understood, as it is a part of the beliefs of Christians.
Why would anyone believe some people saying they saw the dead walking about after the raising of the OT saints near the end of Matthew's Gospel?
Why would Jews who had seen Jesus resurrect people, not believe in Him?
Those who did not must have been sceptical and come up with their answers. (those that were thought to be dead were not, it was a trick, Jesus was using the power of Satan etc)

How do we know there were witnesses to Jesus rising? I can accept that Christianity could have spread very easily without Jesus rising. All it took was stories spreading around the Mediterranean--"Hey, did you hear? Some guy in Israel rose from the dead." "Really? Is he a god or something?" "I think so. He started a new faith called Christianity." "I'm going to join that faith. I'm sick of mine anyway."

And so on and so forth. No resurrection needed. No witnesses needed. Just rumors. Like the Elvis sightings.

 

[Brian2]

How do we know there were witnesses to Jesus rising? I can accept that Christianity could have spread very easily without Jesus rising. All it took was stories spreading around the Mediterranean--"Hey, did you hear? Some guy in Israel rose from the dead." "Really? Is he a god or something?" "I think so. He started a new faith called Christianity." "I'm going to join that faith. I'm sick of mine anyway."

And so on and so forth. No resurrection needed. No witnesses needed. Just rumors. Like the Elvis sightings.

There were witnesses who wrote about it and those who wrote about it who spoke to witnesses.
There is no need for a rumour theory or a Jesus swooned theory or a Rome conspired to set up Christianity for political reasons theory or Paul made it all up theory or any other theory.
How do I know? How do you know all the things that you come up with? You believe them. Why, because you do not believe the Bible any longer and so you look for something else that can explain the Gospels.
It's all biased speculation attacking witness reports.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There were witnesses who wrote about it and those who wrote about it who spoke to witnesses.
There is no need for a rumour theory or a Jesus swooned theory or a Rome conspired to set up Christianity for political reasons theory or Paul made it all up theory or any other theory.
How do I know? How do you know all the things that you come up with? You believe them. Why, because you do not believe the Bible any longer and so you look for something else that can explain the Gospels.
It's all biased speculation attacking witness reports.

But Brian, the same can be said about your view. There's no widely-held support for the gospel's veracity outside the Christian community. You believe the Bible and so you look for other explanations to demonstrate their veracity when secular scholars says there weren't any eyewitnesses. A large number of secular scholars say it was Paul who started the Christian faith. Stories did spread around the Mediterranean about a Jesus of nazareth and were picked up in various communities. How do I know? because it's what the evidence tells me: no eyewitnesses who wrote anything down--hence no eyewitnesses, no historical documents mentioning Jesus or Paul or the apostles until the 2nd century, gospels written half a century to century after the facts by highly educated Greek scholars living thousands of miles away from where it ll happened.

 

[Brian2]

But Brian, the same can be said about your view. There's no widely-held support for the gospel's veracity outside the Christian community. You believe the Bible and so you look for other explanations to demonstrate their veracity when secular scholars says there weren't any eyewitnesses. A large number of secular scholars say it was Paul who started the Christian faith. Stories did spread around the Mediterranean about a Jesus of nazareth and were picked up in various communities. How do I know? because it's what the evidence tells me: no eyewitnesses who wrote anything down--hence no eyewitnesses, no historical documents mentioning Jesus or Paul or the apostles until the 2nd century, gospels written half a century to century after the facts by highly educated Greek scholars living thousands of miles away from where it ll happened.

I would say the rumours spread about Jesus resurrection because that was the story that the Christians were spreading from the very beginning of the preaching because that is what happened and that is what motivated Jesus disciples to believe in Jesus. That and the other miracles which followed their preaching by the Holy Spirit which they received in such a miraculous way at Pentecost.
I think the secular historians also say that the resurrection was preached from the beginning of the preaching.
At least they say that.
How good are some of these secular historians if they cannot figure out if Jesus existed or not?
How good are they if they need secular historians to tell them that Jesus existed and even when secular historians tell them that and even when the enemies of Christianity (the Jews) tell them that and even when they have witness reports to the life of Jesus, some of them still cannot even figure out if Jesus existed or not.
The prejudice in some of these secular historians beggars belief.
To me, all this opposition to the gospel from the world just confirms the scriptures as being true, strangely enough. That is what the scriptures say would happen.

 

[McBell]

I would say the rumours spread about Jesus resurrection because that was the story that the Christians were spreading from the very beginning of the preaching because that is what happened and that is what motivated Jesus disciples to believe in Jesus. That and the other miracles which followed their preaching by the Holy Spirit which they received in such a miraculous way at Pentecost.
I think the secular historians also say that the resurrection was preached from the beginning of the preaching.
At least they say that.
How good are some of these secular historians if they cannot figure out if Jesus existed or not?
How good are they if they need secular historians to tell them that Jesus existed and even when secular historians tell them that and even when the enemies of Christianity (the Jews) tell them that and even when they have witness reports to the life of Jesus, some of them still cannot even figure out if Jesus existed or not.
The prejudice in some of these secular historians beggars belief.
To me, all this opposition to the gospel from the world just confirms the scriptures as being true, strangely enough. That is what the scriptures say would happen.

When you use the scriptures as your bases for comparison...

I know a fella who believes that God himself physically took over the KJV translators and through them wrote the KJV 1611 bible.
Because of this belief, he goes so far as to say that anything and everything before the KJV 1611 is to be tossed in the garbage for they are old and outdated.
Now he compares every other version of the bible to the KJV 1611 and nit picks every little difference as being blasphemous.
Yet he has not one scrap of evidence outside his wishful thinking to support his belief that the KJV 1611 is Gods latest and greatest words to all mankind.

 

[Brian2]

When you use the scriptures as your bases for comparison...

I know a fella who believes that God himself physically took over the KJV translators and through them wrote the KJV 1611 bible.
Because of this belief, he goes so far as to say that anything and everything before the KJV 1611 is to be tossed in the garbage for they are old and outdated.
Now he compares every other version of the bible to the KJV 1611 and nit picks every little difference as being blasphemous.
Yet he has not one scrap of evidence outside his wishful thinking to support his belief that the KJV 1611 is Gods latest and greatest words to all mankind.

I am not that fella and I don't think that way about the KJV so what are you trying to say?

 

[McBell]

I am not that fella and I don't think that way about the KJV so what are you trying to say?

You appear to be using scripture as your basis for comparison.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Yeshua the only resurected?

Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of Jesus' resurrection from the literal dead, please. Right?
Many clues that Jesus could not die and did not die on the Cross and he needed not to resurrect from the physical dead therefor are very much in the 4 Gospels , please. Right?
This story of Jesus resurrection from the literal/physical dead is made by (sinful) Paul, his associates and the Pauline-Church, I understand, who together always worked against the truthful teachings of Jesus, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

You appear to be using scripture as your basis for comparison.

I do believe the Bible and Church tradition unless they are shown to be false.
Is there something wrong with that?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "basis for comparison" however.

 

[Brian2]

Was Yeshua the only resurected?

Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of Jesus' resurrection from the literal dead, please. Right?
Many clues that Jesus could not die and did not die on the Cross and he needed not to resurrect from the physical dead therefor are very much in the 4 Gospels , please. Right?
This story of Jesus resurrection from the literal/physical dead is made by (sinful) Paul, his associates and the Pauline-Church, I understand, who together always worked against the truthful teachings of Jesus, please. Right?

Regards

What do you say is the truthful message of Jesus?

 

[cataway]

Was Yeshua the only resurected?

Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of Jesus' resurrection from the literal dead, please. Right?
Many clues that Jesus could not die and did not die on the Cross and he needed not to resurrect from the physical dead therefor are very much in the 4 Gospels , please. Right?
This story of Jesus resurrection from the literal/physical dead is made by (sinful) Paul, his associates and the Pauline-Church, I understand, who together always worked against the truthful teachings of Jesus, please. Right?

Regards

ok, sure , it was not a cross . yet he was hung-up and left to die and was not taken down until he was dead .

 

[Brian2]

Was Yeshua the only resurected?

Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of Jesus' resurrection from the literal dead, please. Right?
Many clues that Jesus could not die and did not die on the Cross and he needed not to resurrect from the physical dead therefor are very much in the 4 Gospels , please. Right?
This story of Jesus resurrection from the literal/physical dead is made by (sinful) Paul, his associates and the Pauline-Church, I understand, who together always worked against the truthful teachings of Jesus, please. Right?

Regards

Where did you hear that Jesus did not die on the cross?
What clues are in the gospels about it?
Some people keep working against the truth. It's true. But where did you hear that Paul taught a different message to the one the apostles of Jesus taught?

 

[cataway]

Where did you hear that Jesus did not die on the cross?
What clues are in the gospels about it?
Some people keep working against the truth. It's true. But where did you hear that Paul taught a different message to the one the apostles of Jesus taught?

did you not read "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."

 

[paarsurrey]

Where did you hear that Jesus did not die on the cross?
What clues are in the gospels about it?
Some people keep working against the truth. It's true. But where did you hear that Paul taught a different message to the one the apostles of Jesus taught?

The mythical Pauline-Christianity is the breeding ground of Atheism, I understand. I give below 8 points mentioned in my post #2179 in another thread:
Pauline-Christianity is based on a fake vision of Paul (and the credulous Pauline-Christians, mislead by him believe it) with below mentioned false creeds, I understand:

1. Jesus s/o Mary died a cursed death on the Cross (with no reliable eyewitness to narrate it)
2. to lift the burden of the sins of the sinful Christians including (sinful) Paul and the (sinful) disciples and or the (sinful) Apostles
3. Jesus s/o Mary rose from the dead, (it is false concept), as he did not die on the Cross to start with, (it was crafted to make Jesus God, which is never true).
4. And then Jesus s/o Mary secretly traveled to Galilee (a false pretext, if Jesus s/o Mary was God then he needed not to move about secretly)
5. and from Galilee Jesus s/o Mary ascended to the skies (another false claim, if Jesus was God he would have ascended to skies right from Golgotha where he was put on the Cross)
6. (What facility is there in Galilee that made it easier for Jesus to ascend to sky from Galilee that was not available in Golgotha)
7. And Jesus sat on the right hand of God-the-Father and the (sinful) spectators saw him seated (none mentioned by names and other verifiable antecedents of them)
8. (And none of them mentioned as to how long did they see Jesus in the sky and then he disappeared from the sky, and why can't they see him now seated there.)

(Sinful) Paul in a way made confession (of his guilt) later:

"1 Corinthians 15:13-15
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. 15 In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God."

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.

Yes, Paul is exposed that he faked the vision and corrupted the Gospels to fit his Anti-Christ ideas (agenda). Right, please?
This is the basis of the Pauline-Christianity whatever their denomination, be they the (sinful) Catholics or Protestants or the later denominations like JWs or LDS or the Bahais who believe Jesus died on the Cross.
Right, please?
The above denominations/religions may refute the above argument, please .
The above is the status of Pauline-Mythical-Jesus who never existed, I understand. I however respect innocent Jesus s/o Mary the Messenger/Prophet of God sent to the Jews, let it to be very clear here.
I am an ordinary man in the street with no claim of any piety or any scholarship, correct/convince me if I am wrong, please.

Regards

 

[Brian2]

Where did you hear that Jesus did not die on the cross?
What clues are in the gospels about it?
Some people keep working against the truth. It's true. But where did you hear that Paul taught a different message to the one the apostles of Jesus taught?

I think a cross is more like a tree than a stake is like a tree. Anyway that would have been written to show the Jews that Jesus was cursed by them but shown to be honoured by God who raised Him from the dead. (Gal 3:13, Deut 21:23)
But maybe the Romans used trees to crucify people, but history shows us otherwise and even the Bible indicates otherwise and even the Watchtower taught initially that Jesus was crucified on a cross.

 

[eldritchsleep]

and yet there is a record of it happening to Jesus . many did see him living again after his death and a few different ones did wright about it.

the mere fact that you dont like it .....does not bother me .

There are literally no eye witness accounts to the resurrection of Jesus that is written. The authors of all 4 gospels are unknown and written maaaany years after the account. Also, none of them claim to be eye witnesses. In fact, Luke is writing about what the author has heard and admits to not being an eye witness. The 500 witnesses written about in Acts is unverified other than that one book claiming 500 people saw it. It is a claim, not even a testimony.

Paul is the only person who can be claimed to be claimed as the author of his letters and is the only author that scholars agree actually existed as who they claimed to be. Paul is the most reliable source as a New Testament author and he didn't even write any of the gospels and wasn't a witness to the crucifixion's and never claimed to be. Instead, he claimed to know people who were there and claimed to have a Damascus Road Experience 30 years afterwards where he had a vision of the resurrected Christ that no one else was able to verify. If anyone had a Damascus Road Experience today, we wouldn't believe them. So, why believe Paul? Christianity is based on hearsay and unverified documents written years after the events supposedly happened. Even Paul admits that Christianity has no leg to stand on if Jesus didn't resurrect from the dead and yet...no reliable sources or testimony. No first hand accounts. Nothing but claims and anecdotes.