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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh, really?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 .
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 .
The are no secular recorded incidences of ANYONE ever being resurrected and yes, that includes Jesus.
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."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.
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.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.
When you use the scriptures as your bases for comparison...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.
You appear to be using scripture as your basis for comparison.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.
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 .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
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
did you not read "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."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: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?
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?
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 .