Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Audie]

Merely providing an example would be insufficient.

Jesus traded our sins for His righteousness and made a way so that we could get new desires and new strength. No matter what the example we can only love what we want to love and Jesus made a way to even change our desires to turn from loving gutter water of the world to loving God

We don't have it in us on our own

You think those are the choices, loving gutter water
or loving "god"?

 

[Thief]

I'm 19. I don't know what is the Borg of Star trek fame and once again, I still don't understand what you're telling me.

ooooooh.....a REAL newbie

ok....skip the previous notion

let's say......the next guy can read your mind
he knows the next gesture of your hand before your hand can do it

that guy would be difficult to deal with

if that same fellow could move your hand FOR you …...no will on your part
THAT would be very difficult to deal with

so if that fellow happens to call you from your grave...…
are you just going to lay there?

and wouldn't that same fellow hold the same ability for Himself?

 

[lukethethird]

Obviously the point here is wheter or not the bible is true / accurate.
And to that claim, the bible is not evidence. The bible is the claim that is in need of evidence.

A brick can be evidence, it depends entirely on what is trying to be proved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A brick can be evidence, it depends entirely on what is trying to be proved.

I just told you.

The claim here that is in need of evidence is the accuracy of the biblical claims.
The claims in the bible are not evidence of the accuracy of the claims of the bible.

I think your tap dancing here is rather hilarious.

 

[lukethethird]

You see, this is what I have been talking about. Skeptics lay claim to the "Jesus myth" argument, but they can never offer up any evidence to back up that claim. The real myth is that the Biblical Jesus is a myth. The historical Jesus is the one written about by multiple, independent authors and eyewitnesses who have died as martyrs rather than denounce him. And it does matter that many skeptics REFUSE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES and do their proper historical research. They just want to yap and take the easy way out, without doing their homework.

You have to read your Bible to learn about this miracle worker, he's not in the history books.

 

[lukethethird]

I just told you.

The claim here that is in need of evidence is the accuracy of the biblical claims.
The claims in the bible are not evidence of the accuracy of the claims of the bible.

I think your tap dancing here is rather hilarious.

Your focus is exceedingly narrow, must I spell it out for you that The Bible is evidence of a lot of things, such as mythology, theology, midrash, redactions, poetry, plagiarism, the list goes on and on and on, and as I stated it is not the kind of evidence that supports the believers argument, but it does contain a great deal of evidence non the less.

 

[shmogie]

You can't have it both ways, you can believe on faith that the New Testament stories can be read literally, the Son of God rising from the dead and all, or evidence has to be provided to corroborate these stories, and the latter has never happened, so continue to believe if that's what you want to do but don't try to convince a neutral bystander that those stories about witnesses dying for the cause can be corroborated. Those mythological stories were written for theological purposes, not historical, and that is why.

For you the eyewitness accounts require corroboration.

What would that corroboration look like ? Is there some kind of physical evidence you would accept ? What would that be ?

There is none.

You say you know why the eyewitness accounts were written. Of course, you do not. You weren´t there, nor were you inside the heads of the eyewitnesses.

By faith you accept your ideas of the issue. Your worldview tells you it can be no other way.

You are not a neutral observer, your very statements show that you are a biased observer, your mind is made up, it can be no other way.

I understand, I was where you are in my past life, so there is hope for you.

 

[Jos]

ooooooh.....a REAL newbie

ok....skip the previous notion

let's say......the next guy can read your mind
he knows the next gesture of your hand before your hand can do it

that guy would be difficult to deal with

if that same fellow could move your hand FOR you …...no will on your part
THAT would be very difficult to deal with

so if that fellow happens to call you from your grave...…
are you just going to lay there?

and wouldn't that same fellow hold the same ability for Himself?

Yeah I guess if the guy was divine, He would be able to do anything... so what are you getting at?

 

[Thief]

Yeah I guess if the guy was divine, He would be able to do anything... so what are you getting at?

well the op is a question

my answer is.....yes
He continued

I prefer to say He did so in Spirit

 

[Spartan]

Obviously, as it is a negative claim.
However, considering the actual objective evidence, I'ld say a mythical Jesus isn't really that much less likely then a historical one.

Personally, I'm very fine with the idea of a historical Jesus around which myths and legends grew.

No, sorry. The fact is that there is no independent contemporary evidence to support this dude's actual existance. That's just how it is.

We only have original mentions of the dude in biased religious scripture.
Or from people who are just repeating what biased believers have told them.

We have exactly zero actual contemporary and/or independent records. None at all.

Nonsense.

The disciples, etc. (Matthew, John, Jude, Peter) who wrote about the Jesus they lived with for some 3 years or so were contemporary companions of him. The are independent, historical confirmations of his life, death, and resurrection. What's more, there are over 40 different authors who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his life.

Recommended reading for you:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[Spartan]

Your focus is exceedingly narrow, must I spell it out for you that The Bible is evidence of a lot of things, such as mythology, theology, midrash, redactions, poetry, plagiarism, the list goes on and on and on, and as I stated it is not the kind of evidence that supports the believers argument, but it does contain a great deal of evidence non the less.

There's a great deal of historical accounts in the Bible - i.e. the sacking of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar, etc., etc. Plus extra-biblical confirmations of numerous historical individuals.

List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources - Wikipedia

However, there seems to be no evidence you will ever accept about Jesus, etc., due to your bias and lack of historical research.

 

[Jos]

To all the Christians in this thread, have any of you actually had an encounter with Jesus and I'm not talking about some vague spiritual experience but actually saw Him with His scars and stuff like how Thomas supposedly saw Him?

 

[Spartan]

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. I thought you claimed to be a scholar.

Never claimed to be a scholar. But, as usual, you haven't done your homework.

Recommended Reading for you:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd ed. - Richard Bauckham : Eerdmans

 

[Spartan]

Yes, but so what's? Sadly most bachelors of science do not understand the scientific method of the concept of evidence. I am pretty sure that Includes you.

I'm pretty sure you're bouncing nonsense off the wall again.

So, you don't have a science degree. Then you surely must not understand the scientific method.

 

[Thief]

To all the Christians in this thread, have any of you actually had an encounter with Jesus and I'm not talking about some vague spiritual experience but actually saw Him with His scars and stuff like how Thomas supposedly saw Him?

looks like fresh op material

go for the posting

but this posting......no
I have not dealt with a Face to face event

 

[Spartan]

looks like fresh op material

go for the posting

but this posting......no
I have not dealt with a Face to face event

No face-to-face but my nephew, a number of others I've encountered, and myself have heard his voice when he spoke to us. Sounded like a man who was about mid 30's or so. I'd go into more detail but the skeptics would never buy it so I'm not going to waste my time with that.

 

[lukethethird]

I'm pretty sure you're bouncing nonsense off the wall again.

So, you don't have a science degree. Then you surely must not understand the scientific method.

So in order to understand the scientific method one has to have a science degree. I see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your focus is exceedingly narrow

No. I just think scope is important.

The point being discussed is the accuracy of biblical claims.
And in that context, the bible isn't evidence as that would be circular, which is a fallacy.

, must I spell it out for you that The Bible is evidence of a lot of things, such as mythology, theology, midrash, redactions, poetry, plagiarism, the list goes on and on and on, and as I stated it is not the kind of evidence that supports the believers argument, but it does contain a great deal of evidence non the less.

No, it is not necessary to point out the obvious.

The fact remains that in the context of demonstrating / supporting biblical claims, the bible is NOT valid evidence.

 

[lukethethird]

To all the Christians in this thread, have any of you actually had an encounter with Jesus and I'm not talking about some vague spiritual experience but actually saw Him with His scars and stuff like how Thomas supposedly saw Him?

I became Christ and died on the cross, drug induced but quite the experience non the less.

 

[lukethethird]

No. I just think scope is important.

The point being discussed is the accuracy of biblical claims.
And in that context, the bible isn't evidence as that would be circular, which is a fallacy.



No, it is not necessary to point out the obvious.

The fact remains that in the context of demonstrating / supporting biblical claims, the bible is NOT valid evidence.

Sure, whatever you say.