Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

[Valery]

why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?




What a silly come-back!

He asked: why would paul convert to christianity after being against it?

Casius Clay? Your response is illogical. They are not comparable.

Paul was not only anti-Christian - he pursued, and persecuted them!

There have been and are plenty of former Islam haters (even those who persecuted them and went to war against them) who became Muslims.

 

[Valery]

Yes it is. You both have beliefs in the supernatural, traditions, holy books, religious identity, etc.

The fact of the matter is, there is no universal agreement over whether Buddhism is a religion or not..

 

[Valery]

thats not the point, the messiah was for Jews to create a new religion, muslims accept his resurrection story

No, they don't.

 

[ASHES]

The fact of the matter is, there is no universal agreement over whether Buddhism is a religion or not..

There is no universal agreement on anything. It's still a religion.

 

[devildavid]

thats not the point, the messiah was for Jews to create a new religion, muslims accept his resurrection story

No, that is not what the messiah was for Jews at all. They were not looking for a messiah to give them a new religion,

 

[devildavid]

https://grandoldbook.com/convofsaullytt.pdf

"

it’s hard to imagine that Paul was in it for his own personal reputation. Consider why he persecuted the church in the first place. A band of fishermen was saying that the Jewish Messiah was executed on a cross and that this Jesus was the Lord of all. He went from being schooled under Gamaliel and considered a reputable Pharisee to joining a band of illiterate preachers. (Acts 4:13) He said that the preaching of the cross was foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. (1 Cor. 1:23)

He was persecuted in public and treated like a criminal, being repeatedly imprisoned. Paul obviously wasn’t in it for praises of men."

Paul: Liar, lunatic, dupe or apostle?

Here’s a very simple proof for Christianity. I’m warning you though, you’re going to be tempted to dismiss it because it’s sneakily…

eriknmanning.medium.com

"

Premise 1: Paul converted.

Premise 2: Therefore Christianity is true.

"

Premise 3: Paul was mentally ill.

Premise 4: Therefore everything Paul said is wrong.

 

[NotreDame]

Plato's account of Atlantis? He was just making up a fictional story. Even he knew that.

First, your Pythia in the temple act of reading the mind of a dead man isn’t persuasive. It isn’t known Plato “knew” he was “making up a fictional story.”

Second, the textual evidence itself doesn’t support the idea of a Plato writing a fictional story.

 

[tosca1]

Islam teaches that Jesus (alaihi as-salam) was a prophet, but it teaches nothing about him having been resurrected, killed and raisen from the dead. Nor does Islam accept the trinity, Jesus (alaihi as-salam) as God's son or God.

So what story are you referring to?

How can Islam teach that Jesus was a prophet............................... and yet at the same time, believe He was a liar?

Either Jesus was a FALSE prophet.....

...............................or, His teachings (along with ALL HIS claims) - and, ALL GOSPELS - are true!



Islam can't have it both ways!

 

[tosca1]

The ten ossuaries of the Talpiyot Rock-cut tomb and the ossuary of James, son of Joseph tell a very different story. But hey, what's archeological evidence and statistical analysis in the face of faith and belief.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

What story do they tell? Kindly explain.

 

[Evilroddy]

What story do they tell? Kindly explain.

Tosca1:

See post #174 for details.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

@Mulefoot

My apologies for misidentifying you in post #175.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[devildavid]

First, your Pythia in the temple act of reading the mind of a dead man isn’t persuasive. It isn’t known Plato “knew” he was “making up a fictional story.”

Second, the textual evidence itself doesn’t support the idea of a Plato writing a fictional story.

No more than you are reading his mind as if he was reporting an objective fact. We do know that Plato wrote fiction. The textual evidence does support the idea of Plato writing a fictional story.

 

[tosca1]

Tosca1:

See post #174 for details.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

It seems to be the producers had good intentions when they filmed that docu - to prove that Jesus was a real historical figure.
However, there are major problems with their messaging.

I can only quote this much. Read the whole article for a very long, in-depth explanation:



Responses from Experts

While critics of the Christian faith make fun of believers scurrying to do damage control in the wake of the documentary’s premiere,
it is not Christians who are leading the charge against the film, but atheists and agnostics.

The majority of the archaeologists who have denounced the program are unbelievers.

Their ire is not because the program controverts the gospel message, but because it violates standards of scientific and academic professionalism (Thompson, 2007).

Some of the harshest language about the documentary came immediately after its airing. In a scholarly program that discussed the validity of the documentary’s radical claims, The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look, Ted Koppel interviewed two archaeologists.
The first was William Dever, arguably the most recognized American archaeologist. The other was Jonathan Reed, a well-respected archaeologist who currently excavates at the site of ancient Sepphoris. Dever, who noted that he was not a believer and did not “have a dog in this fight,” labeled the program a “docu-drama.” Reed was even more hostile in his evaluation, denouncing the documentary as “archaeo-porn.”
Reed’s evaluation of the evidence was that the theory is much like a chain made up of links, but one in which each link has a tremendous
number of “ifs” that makes the final product difficult to accept.

CONCLUSION​

When one steps back from the documentary and looks to see if filmmakers handled the evidence properly, the result can be described only as pure disappointment. Rather than converging, the scientific, archaeological, and historical evidence are thrown into chaotic disarray. Evidence from one area is pitted against evidence from another. The best sources are dismissed, while disreputable sources are given an undeserved prominence in the conclusion of the program. Jacobovici has been unable to find any expert who will agree with him.
The evidence is cherry-picked to create the appearance of the strongest possible case, but the end result is that the chain of evidence is weak at every link.


These artifacts have been known for 27 years, yet no one of scholarly repute has thought much of them until now. As vocal as critics of Christianity are, it is strange that this sleeping giant has lain undisturbed for nearly three decades.
This is the kind of ammunition that the Bible’s detractors drool over, yet it never made a blip on the radar despite being published in 1996 and being featured on a BBC special the same year. Apparently, it takes a filmmaker to connect the dots on 2,000 year-old “evidence” that contradicts Christianity.

Do Christians have anything about which to worry? Not at all.

The documentary’s conclusion is based on poor use of evidence and faulty statistics.
The evidence in the documentary has been skewed, even manipulated—a charge brought by scholars who have no spiritual stake in the program. While the documentary makes for sensational television, it has no scholarly basis.
Rather than the evidence achieving convergence, the documentary pits different aspects of the evidence against other aspects.

The difficulties in reconciling the scientific, archaeological, and historical data in a meaningful way can be solved
by one simple solution: this is not the tomb of Christ.

R&R Volume 27 #5 - Apologetics Press

www.apologeticspress.org

 

[tosca1]

Tosca1:

See post #174 for details.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

It is interesting to note that, of the scholars interviewed for the documentary, all but James Tabor
(who believes it is the family tomb of Jesus) have since objected to the way their statements were
used and misrepresented.6
This, in and of itself, should give people pause in accepting the conclusions of the filmmakers.

Three Tombs of Jesus: Which is the Real One?

The tomb in which they buried Jesus of Nazareth was empty that first Easter morning. On this point the ancient eyewitnesses agree.1 The vast majority of modern scholars – critical or otherwise &#8…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

 

[Valery]

How can Islam teach that Jesus was a prophet............................... and yet at the same time, believe He was a liar?

Islam doesn't teach that, of course. Rather, we don't regard the Bible as holy. You also don't find Jesus (alaihi as-salam) ever claiming to be God or a special son of God in the Bible.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Premise 3: Paul was mentally ill.

Premise 4: Therefore everything Paul said is wrong.

wrong

 

[TypicalRussian]

No, that is not what the messiah was for Jews at all. They were not looking for a messiah to give them a new religion,

no, they wanted a militant messiah

 

[TypicalRussian]

No, they don't.

yes they do

 

[TypicalRussian]

Islam teaches that Jesus (alaihi as-salam) was a prophet, but it teaches nothing about him having been resurrected, killed and raisen from the dead. Nor does Islam accept the trinity, Jesus (alaihi as-salam) as God's son or God.

So what story are you referring to?

If Jesus is a prophet than is story is taken as fact

 

[TypicalRussian]

I think that if Jesus really reanimated after death then he most likely had eternal life. It also means that he is the only one to receive it. No Christian has ever reanimated after death since. It seems you were fed a bill of goods.

God is real

 

[TypicalRussian]

there is no evidence any of the events happened.


The same thing that led to the rise of every other religion on earth. Christianity is no more factual than the belief in Zeus or Jupiter.

there's tons of evidence

 

[TypicalRussian]

Then prove it. You would instantly become the most famous person in human history if you could prove it.

i already did

 

[TypicalRussian]

It’s a real religion, just not real events that actually happened.

already proved

 

[TypicalRussian]

A wonderful example of being pedantic as an excuse for not having an answer.

Just because cannibalism happens in the way you describe does not mean that it is the only way.

Nor does any of this change the theory that jesus was eaten. The eucharist is now nothing more than a symbolic gesture of the very first cannibalism of christ. With many christians still believing in Transubstantiation.

he was not eaten

 

[TypicalRussian]

It's "a" point. Part of Christ's story is he is the Son of a God. Do Muslims believe that to be truth?

no.