The case for the resurrection

[WIP]

I have removed a few derrogatory comments. Please refrain from insulting comments going forward.

Thank you.

 

[Free]

The reason we believe in Ceaser, Is because we not only have secular historians, but we have things written by him, commentaires.

You are making the assumption that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.

And you are making the same assumptions about the writings of Caesar.

Again, relying on the book that makes the claim, is does not put forth a compelling argument.

A collection of books.

The funny thing that made me lol was, I could tell it was from a case for the ressurection as soon as I saw the "Empty Tomb." Again,this is just blatently relying on the Bible.

And yet:

I never said the crucifixtion didn't happen, I believe there was a historical Jesus which Christianity is based off of. Can you show me the empty tomb? No you can't you are relying heavlily that the bible said there was an open tomb, so whatever it says must be true.

I'm curious, just what source(s) are you relying on to base your affirmation of the existence of "a historical Jesus which Christianity is based off of"? And, no, you can't rely on the Bible.

 

[Atothetheist]

And you are making the same assumptions about the writings of Caesar.


A collection of books.



And yet:


I'm curious, just what source(s) are you relying on to base your affirmation of the existence of "a historical Jesus which Christianity is based off of"? And, no, you can't rely on the Bible.

The same "Secular" sources he presented above.

I am all fine and dandy not relying on the bible.

When I say I believe it s different from I know. I am liable to be wrong. Since you say. I can't rely on the Bible, I am not going to argue another point. Have you heard of Bart Ehrman? I am a great fan of his. You should read some of his books on this exact issue.

He is a Biblical historian, so he may rely on the Bible texts, but what he infers from it does seem to make a lot of sense. Esstiantly, I have a gut feeling that there could have been a normal guy preaching great words, and then he died for his beliefs. I mean this is what I believe, and essentially why I am in this site, to find out the truth and validity of the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc on other religious forum sites.

 

[Atothetheist]

Matthew 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

The Elders were the Sanhedrin.

Can you tell me where you get such an assumption?

Atothetheist,

BTW, you made mention earlier about Constantine. As an FYI, Christianity was first to the Jews, then to the gentiles. Constantine didn't come around until about 300 years after Christianity and what he inherited was mostly the greek gentile side of the fence, not the Jewish side of the fence. It is said that Mark established the church in Egypt and they are known as the Coptics. They were doing just fine without Constantine as were other Christian groups, including many Jewish Christians.

Luke, a Jew wrote in Acts 2 that over 3,000 Jews converted to Christianity in one day and were baptized. Clearly, the thrust came from within Jewish culture as noted by Paul's writings who later took the good news to the bulk of the Gentiles.

I know about the general history of Christianity. As for the rapid rapid rise? It preached that the messiah came, and went, and will return again. No doubt at least some of the jews would want to read what the Biblical Texts have got to say.

Notice that in the Gospel of Mathew, a lot of what Jesus does, concerning the prophecies are specifically done to fufill them. If the Jews read the book, Read that Jesus has done those prophecies, could they might not be convinced?

We are talking about ignorant people ladies and gentlemen. Ignorant people, who have founded many many religions. All of whom, by your own creed, is wrong except for yours. If they were smart, and at least literate, they would get the message. We now know how sex works, and it isn't seed planted in the fertile ground as the analogy was in the Bible. It is the exact opposite, the seed should have been the egg in the women, and the fertilizer is the sperm.

It teached a saving message, and admittedly, it is a great saving message to teach to people without anyhope. This might be one of the reasons why people adopted it. Back then, and even now, people are terribly afraid of death, and to preach something with an afterlife is very apealing if it is true.

Naturally people would want to adopt that creed in order to get paradise forever.

 

[Grazer]

None of which explains the conversion of James or Paul or explains what convinced the disciples that Jesus rose from the dead to such an extent that they were willing to die for that belief. And we still have the small matter of the tomb....

 

[Atothetheist]

None of which explains the conversion of James or Paul or explains what convinced the disciples that Jesus rose from the dead to such an extent that they were willing to die for that belief. And we still have the small matter of the tomb....

The tomb is a poor argument. It assumes the tomb is real, and assumes the tomb is empty. If you trying to provide a case for ressurection, you're doing a poor job of it by assuming that the bible is reliable for these conditions.

I thought we were going to skype on this issue. I have been waiting.

 

[Grazer]

The tomb is a poor argument. It assumes the tomb is real, and assumes the tomb is empty. If you trying to provide a case for ressurection, you're doing a poor job of it by assuming that the bible is reliable for these conditions.

I thought we were going to skype on this issue. I have been waiting.

I'm waiting for you to tell me when you're free. Assuming there was a tomb? What was Jesus buried in when he died or you disputing that he died?

 

[Atothetheist]

I'm waiting for you to tell me when you're free.

I am online twentyfour seven. So mostly all of the time. You said you were online after seven.

I sent you a contact request.

Now. The "die for a lie" argument is, what seems to be, a compelling argument, but it is a cheap argument that only is ment to sound compelling.

First, as I have already explained to you, Many people die for a lie. This Not new. Since I can't link you to a debunking of this argument, we are going to have to discuss this on Skype.

 

[Atothetheist]

I'm waiting for you to tell me when you're free. Assuming there was a tomb? What was Jesus buried in when he died or you disputing that he died?

Did you know that most criminals did not have a tomb? They were buried in a hole.

The whole tomb story banks on the bible being reliable in this instance, and since I don't think the Bible is reliable, the argument isn't minutely convincing to a person that can see the assumption.
How much do you know about history?( that was a honest question pertaining to the time period)

 

[reba]

Folks dont fight what is not real.

 

[Atothetheist]

Folks dont fight what is not real.

People fought against the teaching that the world was flat.

 

[Grazer]

I didn't get the request, I'll have another look.

Yes, many people have died for a lie but that's not the point. The disciples sincerely believed they saw the risen Christ. They didn't die because they believed what someone else told them. They had an experience which they concluded was the risen Christ and it transformed them. What was the cause of that experience? What happened that so convinced them that even when faced by persecution and death, they still proclaimed that they had seen Jesus after he had died? The fact they were willing to die shows that they didn't make it up, they saw something. It doesn't make it true I completely agree and I'm not saying it is true purely because they said it. But what did they see that got them so convinced? Same for James and for Paul. If it wasn't a resurrected Jesus, what was it?

Now for the empty tomb. Just to clarify, do you dispute that Jesus was buried at all? On what grounds do you dispute this? What evidence is there that he wasn't buried in a tomb or even buried at all? Anthony Flew makes the same point re: relying on the gospel accounts. Habermas points to Pauls letter to the Corinthians (which Flew has no problem with) Phillipians and Acts 13. Justin Martyr and Tertullian document that the Jews admitted the tomb was empty and you don't go preaching in Jerusalem about this if you're lying since that's where Jesus died. I would strongly recommend watching the debate between Habermas and Flew. I like it because it shows that this discussion can be done in a civil manner whilst engaging with the evidence. I'm going to quote from this debate, this was the exchange after Habermas presented the case for the empty tomb (57m 12s onwards);

Flew: I don't think we should be apologetic about this at all, these facts are facts. I rather wish in these topics more people would be more prepared to face facts rather than run away This is a very impressive piece of argument I think

Habermas: So you accept the empty tomb?

Flew: This is an impressive testimony because its very difficult to get round

Flew goes on to suggest that with no independent witness there are all sorts of ways of removing bodies. He doesn't offer his own explanation as we don't have the same sort of evidence as we would do today (his words) but admits he can't offer a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb and doesn't believe anyone can. But he admits the tomb was empty.

 

[Atothetheist]

I didn't get the request, I'll have another look.

Yes, many people have died for a lie but that's not the point. The disciples sincerely believed they saw the risen Christ. They didn't die because they believed what someone else told them. They had an experience which they concluded was the risen Christ and it transformed them. What was the cause of that experience? What happened that so convinced them that even when faced by persecution and death, they still proclaimed that they had seen Jesus after he had died? The fact they were willing to die shows that they didn't make it up, they saw something. It doesn't make it true I completely agree and I'm not saying it is true purely because they said it. But what did they see that got them so convinced? Same for James and for Paul. If it wasn't a resurrected Jesus, what was it?

Now for the empty tomb. Just to clarify, do you dispute that Jesus was buried at all? On what grounds do you dispute this? What evidence is there that he wasn't buried in a tomb or even buried at all? Anthony Flew makes the same point re: relying on the gospel accounts. Habermas points to Pauls letter to the Corinthians (which Flew has no problem with) Phillipians and Acts 13. Justin Martyr and Tertullian document that the Jews admitted the tomb was empty and you don't go preaching in Jerusalem about this if you're lying since that's where Jesus died. I would strongly recommend watching the debate between Habermas and Flew. I like it because it shows that this discussion can be done in a civil manner whilst engaging with the evidence. I'm going to quote from this debate, this was the exchange after Habermas presented the case for the empty tomb (57m 12s onwards);

Flew: I don't think we should be apologetic about this at all, these facts are facts. I rather wish in these topics more people would be more prepared to face facts rather than run away This is a very impressive piece of argument I think

Habermas: So you accept the empty tomb?

Flew: This is an impressive testimony because its very difficult to get round

Flew goes on to suggest that with no independent witness there are all sorts of ways of removing bodies. He doesn't offer his own explanation as we don't have the same sort of evidence as we would do today (his words) but admits he can't offer a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb and doesn't believe anyone can. But he admits the tomb was empty.

I would like to talk to you, but I can't give a rebuttal, or even evidence to support my conclusion on here. The point is, we need a neutral playing field, some place where neither you or me can get censored.

Of course I can understand why I would get censored, but I can't effectively discuss without trying to link you to stuff that is forbidden on this site.

I really don't want to get banned so... It's best we take it somewhere else.

 

[farouk]

The starting point is the fact of the Resurrection, attested by Scripture.

See 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Atothetheist]

The starting point is the fact of the Resurrection, attested by Scripture.

See 1 Corinthians 15.

Scripture is not valid evidence for those who don't believe. Which is what the book was set out to prove was the case for ressurection, by using the scriptures.

Sorta like using harry potter books to prove there are wizards

Empty tomb analogy: because Harry's cupboard under the stairs is empty, we must therefore assume that he went off to hogwarts to become a wizard.

( that was for jokes. Do not take it as an offense.)

Although, I suppose you can see it as a valid point of evidence if you do believe.

I was under the assumption that people read stuff like "The Case for the ressurection" because they need to see the evidence, not wanting to confirm the evidence using assumptions they already made of the collections of books in which the claim is made.

 

[farouk]

Scripture is not valid evidence for those who don't believe. Which is what the book was set out to prove was the case for ressurection, by using the scriptures.

Sorta like using harry potter books to prove there are wizards

Empty tomb analogy: because Harry's cupboard under the stairs is empty, we must therefore assume that he went off to hogwarts to become a wizard.

( that was for jokes. Do not take it as an offense.)

A:

It takes a lot to offend me personally.

From a methodological point of view, though, it's apples and oranges.

I have absolutely nothing to say, beyond the clear and historically attested presence of the fact of Resurrection in Scripture, which humbles us and demonstrates our need for the Risen Savior, Whom death could not hold.

If you won't go God's Word, I cannot help you.

 

[Mike]

Wow, right? No attempting to persuade against our faith?