Running from the Resurrection [W: 646]

[DDD]

Uh huh...

As if there could even remotely have been a 21st century medical clinic with blood technicians at Calvary to monitor the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Blood pressure, heart beats, blood sample analysis, breathing, can all be measured in 21st century.

Enjoy the Kool Aid, DDD.

I have not tried this soft drink beverage. I may do so if I find it somewhere. Thanks for wishing me joy while trying it out.

In return let me reciprocate by wishing you joy by tasting reality more often also. Perhaps it may be time to abandon fairy tale beliefs?

Cheers
DDD

 

[Logicman]

Blood pressure, heart beats, blood sample analysis, breathing, can all be measured in 21st century.

Cheers
DDD

Well, you missed one. Jesus is Risen.

By the way, miracles are now documented.

http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

 

[DDD]

Well, you missed one. Jesus is Risen.

By the way, miracles are now documented...

... By more anecdotal evidence :doh

 

[DDD]

It is written that Gandalf defeated the Balrog, is that true?

Well you cannot prove that he did not do that in Mars' core! Hence it is true!

 

[Kobie]

Well, you missed one. Jesus is Risen.

By the way, miracles are now documented.

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books

$51 on Amazon for a book? Wow, Wingnut Welfare PAYS.

 

[zyzygy]

$51 on Amazon for a book? Wow, Wingnut Welfare PAYS.

I should get out of the music business and start writing that kind of fiction. It sounds lucrative.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I should get out of the music business and start writing that kind of fiction. It sounds lucrative.

Hey! Get to the back of the queue. I have to unblock urinals.

 

[Rhiannon]

Sorry, I'm not throwing the multiple, historical accounts of Jesus into the waste bin just because you don't feel like they are relevant.

Biblical accounts are only historically relevant to people who believe they are true. They do not support Christianity as a Fact. One cannot use the Bible as proof the Bible is fact.

Evidence for that please.

Paul was born around 4 AC, and didn't become an apostle until more than 30 years after the death of Christ. All of his accounts were after the death of Christ. He witnessed nothing.

Saint Paul, the Apostle (Christian Apostle) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

"Three years after Paul’s conversion, he traveled to Jerusalem to interview the Apostles Peter and James. Habermas draws our attention to the fact that, when Paul described this trip in Galatians 1:18-19, he uses the Greek word historeo, which indicates a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection was being made. So, in all likelihood, this creed was delivered to Paul by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus, Peter and James."

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report

So you admit that Paul witnessed nothing, but got his information secondhand. That is exactly what I said. That would be like me arguing hearsay in the court of law, and the Judge rendering a verdict based on that. It couldn't hold up as evidence.

Big deal. Most of history is hearsay. And unless you want to throw your college history books in the trash for the same reason, then you'll have to accept that fact.

Not only that, but there's no reason to regard the 'hearsay' of Paul as being inaccurate. If you think it is then provide your evidence.

I'm glad that you are willing to admit that the so called evidence you have presented here to support your Faith is hearsay. That makes the conclusion so much easier. As far as historical accounts are concerned: I question the accuracy of many historical accounts. It is true that bias and falsehoods are presented as fact by those who have taken control by warfare and subjugation. I believe that those historical accounts should also be carefully examined.

The point I am trying to make is this: Your personal beliefs are not fact. They are opinion. It is Faith. That is all.

 

[Logicman]

Biblical accounts are only historically relevant to people who believe they are true. They do not support Christianity as a Fact. One cannot use the Bible as proof the Bible is fact.

I disagree. I haven't found the Gospels and Acts to be inaccurate.

Paul was born around 4 AC, and didn't become an apostle until more than 30 years after the death of Christ. All of his accounts were after the death of Christ. He witnessed nothing.

Saint Paul, the Apostle (Christian Apostle) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Well first, in post 234, you said: "Paul was born after the time of Christ..." Jesus died around 32 - 33 AD. Now you say Paul was born in 4 BC? Which is it?

Second, even your own link says that Paul died "AD 62–64," and according to Acts and his Epistles he had three "journeys" to various areas of the Mideast and the Mediterranean that covered many years. So your dating of when Paul's ministry was is way, way off.

So you admit that Paul witnessed nothing, but got his information secondhand. That is exactly what I said. That would be like me arguing hearsay in the court of law, and the Judge rendering a verdict based on that. It couldn't hold up as evidence.

Paul experienced Jesus on his "Road to Damascus" encounter. He also spoke with Peter and James, who knew Jesus as well as anyone.

I'm glad that you are willing to admit that the so called evidence you have presented here to support your Faith is hearsay. That makes the conclusion so much easier. As far as historical accounts are concerned: I question the accuracy of many historical accounts. It is true that bias and falsehoods are presented as fact by those who have taken control by warfare and subjugation. I believe that those historical accounts should also be carefully examined.

The point I am trying to make is this: Your personal beliefs are not fact. They are opinion. It is Faith. That is all.

That would be your opinion.

The historical evidence for Paul and the Resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming, once one puts down their biased sunglasses.

I also invite you to bust the resurrection. That's the point of this thread. Invalidate, if you can, the Gospels accounts of the resurrection. All four confirm it.

 

[Jiyuu]

Circular arguments, presuppositional apologetics and 'the Bible says so, and that's good enough for me' don't cut it.

Has there has never been an instance with actual evidence of something that is biologically dead coming back to life as it previously existed? It doesn't happen.

I take it I come on to answer the OP, and immediately attacked by an atheist? No problem. Unless a person be "Born again", he cannot know the things of God. It's simply faith based and yes, we can go around in circles. I have done is at least 25,000 posts on another board!!!

 

[Jiyuu]

This is not the religion section.

I stand corrected but the topic is considered "Religion".

 

[PoS]

Circular arguments, presuppositional apologetics and 'the Bible says so, and that's good enough for me' don't cut it.

You mean like this?

 

[Ceist]

I disagree. I haven't found the Gospels and Acts to be inaccurate.

What? Haven't you read them yet? Do you want some spoilers?

 

[Logicman]

What? Haven't you read them yet? Do you want some spoilers?

Ha ha.

Yeah, give me your best ONE (just 1 - your best 1) spoiler and cite the verse(s). Don't spam me with a big cut-and-paste. Just give me your best one from the Gospels, and we'll see if it flys.

 

[zyzygy]

Ha ha.

Yeah, give me your best ONE (just 1 - your best 1) spoiler and cite the verse(s). Don't spam me with a big cut-and-paste. Just give me your best one from the Gospels, and we'll see if it flys.

Jesus would return during the lifetime of his contemporaries? That's a real spoiler.

 

[Logicman]

Jesus would return during the lifetime of his contemporaries? That's a real spoiler.

Wrong.

And get somebody else to explain it to you.

 

[Rhiannon]

I disagree. I haven't found the Gospels and Acts to be inaccurate.

Of course you don't.

Well first, in post 234, you said: "Paul was born after the time of Christ..." Jesus died around 32 - 33 AD. Now you say Paul was born in 4 BC? Which is it?

No, I said 4 AC. Jesus was dead before Paul's conversion. He supposedly witnessed Jesus After his resurrection. He never actually met Jesus, but heard about him Through the other apostles.

Second, even your own link says that Paul died "AD 62–64," and according to Acts and his Epistles he had three "journeys" to various areas of the Mideast and the Mediterranean that covered many years. So your dating of when Paul's ministry was is way, way off.

Did Paul actually meet Jesus, or not?

Paul experienced Jesus on his "Road to Damascus" encounter. He also spoke with Peter and James, who knew Jesus as well as anyone.

So--- in other words, no. He didn't. Jesus had already died before Paul met him on the road to Damascus. Who is to say that other religious accounts and Their witnesses aren't also true?

That would be your opinion.

It's more than just my opinion that Your beliefs are not fact.

The historical evidence for Paul and the Resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming, once one puts down their biased sunglasses.

I also invite you to bust the resurrection. That's the point of this thread. Invalidate, if you can, the Gospels accounts of the resurrection. All four confirm it.

Logically, a negative cannot be proven. The onus is on you to prove the resurrection actually happened. The evidence you have presented thus far couldn't convict someone of jaywalking. It was not compelling.

 

[TheNextEra]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in this forum have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have occurred. They LOVE their theories. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some evidence to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!

If you are talking atheism, I agree, you can't prove a negative. However, your stance of the resurrection being true isn't proven as fact either. Why should someone reconsider their stance of the resurrection not being true simply because they can't prove it isn't true since you cannot prove it is fact?

 

[Fletch]

Ha ha.

Yeah, give me your best ONE (just 1 - your best 1) spoiler and cite the verse(s). Don't spam me with a big cut-and-paste. Just give me your best one from the Gospels, and we'll see if it flys.

How long after the events described in the Gospels took place were the Gospels actually written?

 

[zyzygy]

How long after the events described in the Gospels took place were the Gospels actually written?

I provided one huge spoiler but it was ignored. Predictable.

 

[Logicman]

No, I said 4 AC. Jesus was dead before Paul's conversion. He supposedly witnessed Jesus After his resurrection. He never actually met Jesus, but heard about him Through the other apostles.

Did Paul actually meet Jesus, or not?


So--- in other words, no. He didn't. Jesus had already died before Paul met him on the road to Damascus. Who is to say that other religious accounts and Their witnesses aren't also true?

Everybody knows Paul's ministry didn't start until after Jesus was crucified / resurrected. Or at least they should know that. But for you to claim it didn't start until 30-40 years after Jesus' death just isn't supported by the facts of the New Testament.

It's more than just my opinion that Your beliefs are not fact.

Sorry, I don't agree with you.

Christ is Risen, and that's a fact!

Logically, a negative cannot be proven. The onus is on you to prove the resurrection actually happened. The evidence you have presented thus far couldn't convict someone of jaywalking. It was not compelling.

Simon Greenleaf of Harvard - the man who wrote the Rules of Evidence in a courtroom - would disagree with you.

Is Simon Greenleaf Still Relevant? - CSI

 

[Logicman]

If you are talking atheism, I agree, you can't prove a negative. However, your stance of the resurrection being true isn't proven as fact either. Why should someone reconsider their stance of the resurrection not being true simply because they can't prove it isn't true since you cannot prove it is fact?

I have the multiple, independent, historical Gospels, etc. I'm not willing to throw those under the bus because someone doesn't like them. Skeptics don't have that quality of argument from that time period.

 

[zyzygy]

Wrong.

And get somebody else to explain it to you.

Right. Get somebody to explain this to you. It seems clear enough

Matt 16:28 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matt 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 21:32 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.


Not much room for misunderstanding there. Why was I wrong?

 

[zyzygy]

In these passages Jesus is explicit about his return. He said that he would return riding the clouds with angels to judge the world and that with the sound of a trumpet he would send his angels to gather his chosen ones from the Earth. This would be no secret, invisible or “spiritual” event. Instead, the whole world would see him in the sky just the whole world sees the light of the sun. This was to happen some time during the generation of those to whom he was speaking. To make it clear to his listeners that this event would not be in the distant future, he told them that some of them who were there listening to him would still be alive to see it.

“But Jesus kept silent and the high priest said to Him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.“” (Matthew 26: 63, 64)

Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return |

 

[TheNextEra]

I have the multiple, independent, historical Gospels, etc. I'm not willing to throw those under the bus because someone doesn't like them. Skeptics don't have that quality of argument from that time period.

You have multiple historical gospels written by MAN. That doesn't make it fact. There are also texts written by man on OTHER religions as well. That doesn't make theirs false just because you think yours is true. Again, nothing you said refutes ANYTHING that I said. There is a reason your belief is called FAITH and not fact.