The Resurrection, Something Borrowed, Something New, But Certainly not True

[Mircea]

More importantly, why did oh Heavenly Father wait 50,000 years before deciding we need saved? So, in other words, according to their faith, at least 2,000 generations suffered in eternity for no other damn reason than god's procrastination.


It's stupid. Right?

It's even more stupid when you consider this:

Leviticus 16:29 “This is to be a perpetual statute for you. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you must humble yourselves and do no work of any kind, both the native citizen and the foreigner who resides in your midst, 16:30 for on this day atonement is to be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins; you must be clean before the Lord.

So, no real reason for Jesus to die, but then Yahweh was not a truly benevolent god.

 

[Logicman]

No, they are not First Century. Learn some history. Jesus does not need to be a real person for one to accept the basic truths in what has been taught over the centuries.

Don't bother posting your list of 'scholars' who support early dating of the texts. Half of them are 19th or early 20th Century people or theologians who are not scholars.

As opposed to your "non-existent list" of 19th and 20th century non-scholars and rationalists who support your contentions?

Jesus is Risen indeed, and those are first century Gospels and Epistles. Learn it. Embrace it. Live it.

 

[Logicman]

Plenty of reliable eyewitnesses say that they saw and were captured by UFOs, do you believe in UFOs?

Maybe you ought to give your soul to UFO's then, and see how you make out in the afterlife! LOL.

 

[Logicman]

So many individuals? There are only 6 people in the New Testament that make the claim, while James and Jude make no mention of it.

People lie for many reasons, and the ability to wield power and control over people is a prime motivator.

Why does your Jesus-God-thing refuse to heal amputees?

Many people experience visual or auditory hallucinations.

The fact that Jesus only appears before his allies suggests he wasn't really dead.

Jesus never appears before his enemies, or before anyone who could potentially harm him, like Pilate, or the Pharisees, or the Sadducees.

The initial growth of christianity was due to the fact that early church leaders actively attempted to convert people. Neither the Pagans nor the Jews engaged in missionary work to convert people.

As Eusebius reports in The Life of Constantine, once Emperor Constantine converted, who villages converted.

Then in 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius outlawed all religions, except christianity.

From that point forward, belief in christianity was coerced by the State under penalty of torture or death for the next 1,300 years or so.

Had Emperor Justinian not granted John the Bishop of Rome the authority to prosecute heretics in 533 CE, or if the imperial Roman Catholic Church had been destroyed early on, then christianity would have died out.

Yawn...

I've been studying Christianity and the New Testament for some 40 years, and it's solid as a rock. If you want to believe different then go for it.

By the way, most of us born-again types have the Holy Spirit living in us as a testimony, and that's something you cannot being to fathom.

 

[Logicman]

So, no real reason for Jesus to die, but then Yahweh was not a truly benevolent god.

Recommend you read the Book of Hebrews.

And Jesus is a benevolent God. He saved me and hundreds of millions of others.

I have eternal life in Christ. You have Revelation 21:8 to ponder.

 

[zyzygy]

Solid as a rock! Flush.

 

[code1211]

And folks would be justified in calling it a tall tale.

Being justified by currently accepted norms and being right are not always the same thing.



[FONT=&quot][h=3]

[/h][/FONT]

 

[zyzygy]

Being justified by currently accepted norms and being right are not always the same thing.



[FONT="][h=3]

[/h][/FONT]

Does that apply to imaginary beings?

 

[code1211]

Yes, IF in this modern world, the actions you describe were to happen, one just might believe in some supernatural power. The problem for those who believe the Biblical stories is the total lack of evidence outside of the one book promoting the faith.

For those people, this is not a problem.

I walked through Gen Con here in Indianapolis and it was very entertaining.

We live in a society where belief in or devotion to not accepted, not proven oddities seems to very common.

I am not a scholar in this or any other area. I have heard of various other sources that were not included in the Bible that do include similar reports.

 

[code1211]

So what?? The point stands, when it comes to the accuracy and credibility of the claims.

Accuracy could only be verified by a person with first hand knowledge of the event.

Credibility is a thing that originates in the audience, not the performer.

A thing believed by the audience is credible. That is, in truth, the definition. If a person believes it, it's credible.

For instance, if Obama says that premiums will drop by $2500/year, that's credible to the reporters at NBC.

If Trump says that the Premiums have risen significantly since Obamacare was passed, that is not credible to the reporters at NBC.

Accuracy is not credibility.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Being justified by currently accepted norms and being right are not always the same thing.



[FONT="][h=3]

[/h][/FONT]

But -- they can be.

 

[RAMOSS]

Accuracy could only be verified by a person with first hand knowledge of the event.

Credibility is a thing that originates in the audience, not the performer.

A thing believed by the audience is credible. That is, in truth, the definition. If a person believes it, it's credible.

For instance, if Obama says that premiums will drop by $2500/year, that's credible to the reporters at NBC.

If Trump says that the Premiums have risen significantly since Obamacare was passed, that is not credible to the reporters at NBC.

Accuracy is not credibility.

Why would accuracy be only verified by a person with first hand knowledge of the event. Please, show that is true. You are making unsupported claims to support an unsupported claim.

 

[RAMOSS]

Accuracy could only be verified by a person with first hand knowledge of the event.

Credibility is a thing that originates in the audience, not the performer.

A thing believed by the audience is credible. That is, in truth, the definition. If a person believes it, it's credible.

For instance, if Obama says that premiums will drop by $2500/year, that's credible to the reporters at NBC.

If Trump says that the Premiums have risen significantly since Obamacare was passed, that is not credible to the reporters at NBC.

Accuracy is not credibility.

Why would accuracy be only verified by a person with first hand knowledge of the event. Please, show that is true. You are making unsupported claims to support an unsupported claim.

 

[calamity]

It's even more stupid when you consider this:

Leviticus 16:29 “This is to be a perpetual statute for you. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you must humble yourselves and do no work of any kind, both the native citizen and the foreigner who resides in your midst, 16:30 for on this day atonement is to be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins; you must be clean before the Lord.

So, no real reason for Jesus to die, but then Yahweh was not a truly benevolent god.

Nor was he a very consistent one. Lol

 

[calamity]

Recommend you read the Book of Hebrews.

And Jesus is a benevolent God. He saved me and hundreds of millions of others.

I have eternal life in Christ. You have Revelation 21:8 to ponder.

Your other god said not to worship other gods, that edict would include the man child you call Jesus. First commandment.

 

[code1211]

How does a person know what offends whatever god a religion believes in without specifying what those things are and why they offend said god? Everything that we may regret doing does not necessarily require someone's forgiveness. And without an authoritative god, why should anyone care? Religions are about rules and rituals that are required by a higher power, not something that has to comfort us.

I don't know how old you are.

I am pretty old. My generation is the one that fought in Viet Nam.

I have known many people who are tortured by their own perceptions of what they have done or not done in their lives.

Forgiveness may be the wrong word for you understanding, but by whatever name it is called, comfort is a good thing.

The power of faith is used in many 12 Step programs and helps many by giving them a fixed point to guide their lives.

If that fixed point is not helpful to you or another at the point they have reached, then it's not.

 

[calamity]

I don't know how old you are.

I am pretty old. My generation is the one that fought in Viet Nam.

I have known many people who are tortured by their own perceptions of what they have done or not done in their lives.

Forgiveness may be the wrong word for you understanding, but by whatever name it is called, comfort is a good thing.

The power of faith is used in many 12 Step programs and helps many by giving them a fixed point to guide their lives.

If that fixed point is not helpful to you or another at the point they have reached, then it's not.

I think you just described the only true benefit of faith in the concept of foregiveness. The Christian religion is there to help people achieve forgiveness, of themselves and others, just in case they cannot do so on their own.

Forgiveness is a very powerful psychological tool. It gives one peace of mind and it also helps with social cohesion. Holding a grudge is unhealthy, and vendettas are detrimental to society.

 

[code1211]

Only one in three of the sources alleged on quora.com claim he was crucified.



No, only Luke and Paul claim there were 500 eyewitnesses.

Note that Mark 16:14 directly contradicts those claims by stating that Jesus ascended immediately after appearing before the 11 disciples.




Which women?

Matthew says Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary. Mark says it was 3 women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome). Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James. John says it was only Mary Magdalene.

You also ignore the fact that Peter went to the tomb according to Luke, while John says that Peter and another disciple went into the tomb.

Your claim that women provided the testimony fails.



Or Jesus was drugged with opium or an opiate-derivative (naturally growing in the region) causing decreased respiratory and heart rates, making Jesus appear to be dead, when in fact he wasn't. John states Jesus was given bitter water.

The fact that Jesus refuses to appear before any of his critics, detractors or accusers is telling, indeed.

Jesus never appears before Pilate, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or any others critics or accusers.

He only appears before people whom he trusts.

With good reason....if Jesus appears before the Pharisees, they would have run him through with a sword or spear for any number of reasons, including proving to themselves that Jesus really was dead.

But, then, the whole idea of a resurrection is moot, since there's no place one can resurrect to.

With respect, he had already been "run through" with a spear.

The fact that the accounts don't agree is interesting to me.

If the idea was to sell a good lie, you'd think that the hucksters would have "cleaned up" the Gospels to present a lock step agreement between the stories.

If the idea was to present the events from various views and allow the reader to decide, the way it has been presented would seem to be a good approach.

If the good folks who did the work did it as best they could and you don't believe it, that's okay. Nobody has a gun to your head- at least I don't think so... I can't see you from where I sit.

The writers are in truth affording you that choice.

Subsequent readers of the words have been known to be less accommodating.

 

[code1211]

You seem to disagree with the reply made to your question. I agreed with it. From what I remember he was telling you something you didn't want to hear.

To the contrary, I don't remember what he was saying.

Nothing notable there... I don't remember more than I do.

 

[code1211]

Does that apply to imaginary beings?

I think it would probably apply to anything under consideration by more than one person.

 

[code1211]

But -- they can be.

True!

 

[code1211]

Why would accuracy be only verified by a person with first hand knowledge of the event. Please, show that is true. You are making unsupported claims to support an unsupported claim.

I thought that you had just said that reports of anything was not proof of that thing being accurately reported.

Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

If I may be so bold, you seemed to have been presenting yourself as a "Doubting Thomas".

 

[code1211]

I think you just described the only true benefit of faith in the concept of foregiveness. The Christian religion is there to help people achieve forgiveness, of themselves and others, just in case they cannot do so on their own.

Forgiveness is a very powerful psychological tool. It gives one peace of mind and it also helps with social cohesion. Holding a grudge is unhealthy, and vendettas are detrimental to society.

Yes. Whatever allows a person to let go of that thing that is bothersome is a benefit for that person.

If what is bothering them is hurtful to others and they are able to find comfort but continue to be hurtful, that's a whole different thing.

Assuming the bothersome thing is internal only, escaping the pain and finding peace is generally a good thing.

Religion is like any other tool. It can help a person find peace and also help them find greater pain. The personally held, internalized belief in a positive force is generally a good thing.

 

[jet57]

Maybe you ought to give your soul to UFO's then, and see how you make out in the afterlife! LOL.

So you believe in UFOs then. At least you're consistent.

 

[RAMOSS]

I thought that you had just said that reports of anything was not proof of that thing being accurately reported.

Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

If I may be so bold, you seemed to have been presenting yourself as a "Doubting Thomas".

There is a difference in claims. When a claim is unreasonable, there is a higher bar for evidence. I could say "I went to breakfast in a diner to meet a friend this morning'" That is an everyday occurrence, since people meet other people to have meals all the time in places. If I said "An alien abducted me, and took me to mars", you would rightfully think I was totally nuts.