Running from the Resurrection [W: 646]

[ecofarm]

The resurrection was the revival of the Church of Jesus.

Pretty simple. Pretty obvious.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well if someone lied or created a false narrative, then document it. Like I said in the OP, "...please endeavor to come up with some evidence to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!"

No corroboration for early writing (by anonymous authors)

"There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71). ..."

 

[clownboy]

Not so. See post # 819



They weren't written by the people whose names they bear, and they weren't first century.

With the exception of Matthew and John, the other authors were not apostles of Christ, but of Paul.

I don't know where you might have come across your info on the Gospels of Mary and Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas:

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition

If the early campers are correct, it would have been written within Thomas' lifetime.

As to the Gospel of Mary, no complete copies are known to exist outside of conspiracy theories and though most consider it to be written in 2cd century, some still insist it was authored early in the first.

 

[Logicman]

I have no obligation to prove someone lied, I simply don't have to believe them. You are free to believe whatever you like, but don't expect others to believe them just because you think they are true, despite no actual evidence to support them and in fact plenty to support that they likely didn't happen the way described.

You have no more evidence to support your argument than the Grimms have to support their many monsters and other mythical creatures described in their tales. You have a story written by people dead thousands of years. It could be true, but could be is not the same as it is.

Prove I didn't see Elvis Presley driving a car in 1997 in Myrtle Beach.

There you go, running from the resurrection. Straight to Elvis too!

 

[Logicman]

I don't know where you might have come across your info on the Gospels of Mary and Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition

If the early campers are correct, it would have been written within Thomas' lifetime.

From your link: "Most interpreters place its writing in the second century..."

As to the Gospel of Mary, no complete copies are known to exist outside of conspiracy theories and though most consider it to be written in 2cd century, some still insist it was authored early in the first.

Wikipedia notes: "Most scholars agree that the original gospel (of Mary) was written in Greek sometime during the 2nd century."

So they're both pseudepigraphia and most likely 2nd century.

It's puzzling how some skeptics love to endorse 2nd century pseudepigraphia works while denying first century Gospels and epistles for which there are decent attributions.

 

[RAMOSS]

We would currently not accept as absolute proof of an event the recollections of someone days later, let alone years. Human memory is very flawed, especially when it comes to recalling details that could seem supernatural.

Not only that, but the thesis in the blog he used is incorrect. First of all, although the 'resurrection' was mentioned by Paul earlier than the Gospels, Paul admitted he wasn't an 'eye witness', that makes it hearsay all together. The next big one is that .. well, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars have the author of the Gospel of Mark and allegedly being a disciple of Peter, and writing from Rome, about 65 to 75 ce. He was from a different country, and even a different generation of anybody who could potentially be an eye witness. It sort of reminds me of all those Elvis sightings that happened after Elivis Presley died.

on edit : oh, you mentioned that too. !! Never mind.

 

[roguenuke]

There you go, running from the resurrection. Straight to Elvis too!

You are running from your own argument, refusing to answer for others what you demand of them.

 

[roguenuke]

Not only that, but the thesis in the blog he used is incorrect. First of all, although the 'resurrection' was mentioned by Paul earlier than the Gospels, Paul admitted he wasn't an 'eye witness', that makes it hearsay all together. The next big one is that .. well, the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars have the author of the Gospel of Mark and allegedly being a disciple of Peter, and writing from Rome, about 65 to 75 ce. He was from a different country, and even a different generation of anybody who could potentially be an eye witness. It sort of reminds me of all those Elvis sightings that happened after Elivis Presley died.

on edit : oh, you mentioned that too. !! Never mind.

I swear I saw a guy pass us in a junk car when I was in high school who looked like a middle aged Elvis, or at least how I'd imagine he would look after that time. I'm not old enough to have ever actually have seen Elvis in person, but I've seen plenty of pictures and videos.

 

[RAMOSS]

I swear I saw a guy pass us in a junk car when I was in high school who looked like a middle aged Elvis, or at least how I'd imagine he would look after that time. I'm not old enough to have ever actually have seen Elvis in person, but I've seen plenty of pictures and videos.

There are whole conspiracy groups dedicated to saying his death was faked. Wishful thinking can do lots of things. And that's modern times. Just think how rumors can spread when you have less information... and such stories can be made.

 

[Logicman]

You are running from your own argument, refusing to answer for others what you demand of them.

That's bs. And you still don't have a viable argument to bust the resurrection.

 

[Ancient Herald]

That's bs. And you still don't have a viable argument to bust the resurrection.

You haven't come up with any viable proof to prove Jesus existed or that he was resurrected.

 

[Logicman]

You haven't come up with any viable proof to prove Jesus existed or that he was resurrected.

Tsk tsk... See the evidences provided in post #'s 16, 43, 45, 84, 163, 301, 562, 589, 611, 669, and 819, just to reference a few.

 

[Manc Skipper]

All spurious sources of myth. Next!

 

[William Rea]

That's bs. And you still don't have a viable argument to bust the resurrection.

All you have is special pleading.

 

[roguenuke]

That's bs. And you still don't have a viable argument to bust the resurrection.

You don't have any actual proof it happened to begin with.

 

[Quag]

That's bs. And you still don't have a viable argument to bust the resurrection.

You have never provided any actual evidence of the resurrection. The burden of proof remains with those who make the claim Jesus was resurrected not with those who dont accept the claim.

 

[roughdraft274]

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!

While were at it why don't you disprove Thor's magic hammer.

How long have you been studying this stuff? And still your only argument is "It can't be disproven!"

It's disheartening really.

 

[Logicman]

All you have is special pleading.

When you get a serious argument let me know.

 

[Logicman]

While were at it why don't you disprove Thor's magic hammer.

How long have you been studying this stuff? And still your only argument is "It can't be disproven!"

It's disheartening really.

First-century Christianity / New Testament has real people and their testimonies associated with it. When you get some of that with your mythical 'Thor's magic hammer," let me know.

 

[Logicman]

You don't have any actual proof it happened to begin with.

You talking scientific proof here, roguenuke? How about laying out exactly what kind of "proofs" you think can actually be obtained, and the specific criteria for obtaining it?

 

[Amadeus]

You talking scientific proof here, roguenuke? How about laying out exactly what kind of "proofs" you think can actually be obtained, and the specific criteria for obtaining it?

There is no proof that Jesus was God or that he was resurrected. It doesn't have to be scientific proof, but there needs to be something more than faith for non-Christians to believe it. You don't have to provide this evidence, unless you're trying to prove it. You can be happy with your faith, and we can be happy with our lack of proof.

 

[roughdraft274]

First-century Christianity / New Testament has real people and their testimonies associated with it. When you get some of that with your mythical 'Thor's magic hammer," let me know.

Oh ok. Well then we have thousand of people who have claimed to be a part of or witness alien abductions. Disprove alien abductions. Prove 100% that they could not have happened.

You're foolishly backing yourself in corner here.

 

[Logicman]

There is no proof that Jesus was God or that he was resurrected. It doesn't have to be scientific proof, but there needs to be something more than faith for non-Christians to believe it. You don't have to provide this evidence, unless you're trying to prove it. You can be happy with your faith, and we can be happy with our lack of proof.

This thread isn't about proving Jesus is God. It's about the historical accounts of the resurrection and inviting skeptics to provide viable and credible arguments against it, if that's what they believe.

Yours is just one more post by a skeptic with nothing of substance to argue against the resurrection.

 

[Amadeus]

This thread isn't about proving Jesus is God. It's about the historical accounts of the resurrection and inviting skeptics to provide viable and credible arguments against it, if that's what they believe.

Yours is just one more post by a skeptic with nothing of substance to argue against the resurrection.

I'm not trying to disprove the resurrection. The burden isn't on me.

 

[Logicman]

Oh ok. Well then we have thousand of people who have claimed to be a part of or witness alien abductions. Disprove alien abductions. Prove 100% that they could not have happened.

You're foolishly backing yourself in corner here.

Start your own thread on that. This one is about Jesus Christ, who unlike your aliens, serious historians confirm existed.