Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[sojourner]

It may be, but that’s how I feel about it. I wouldn’t trust a Southern Baptist theologian or exegete as far as I could throw them. I’m sure there are some decent ones, but the utter crap I hear on Christian radio turns my stomach. It’s judgmental, overly sentimental, faux pietistic, and biased.

 

[samtonga43]

Oh, I agree with you about Christian radio. But I think you would find (if you read what he writes) that Habermas is not of that genre.

What do you think of William Lane Craig?

 

[JJ50]

I don't think anything good about WLC and his beliefs.

 

[samtonga43]

No? But I'm interested in what Sojourner thinks.

 

[paarsurrey]

"The overall purpose is to provide a historical context for the original gospel proclamation as provided by Jesus’ disciples at a very early date after the crucifixion itself* ".
#1162 What is that early date after the (event of) crucifixion, please?

What? You're going to genuflect to Jesus if you get a date? LOL!

According to various studies on Daniel chapter 9, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah on April 6, 32 AD - Palm Sunday - to fulfill Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah. The resurrection was the following Sunday, so the crucifixion would have been three days earlier, on April 10th. The calculations are in the following link:

The Unexpected King: Palm Sunday Surprise: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House

The date, the earliest one, when the proclamation was made by the disciples with consensus on Jesus resurrection that did not and could never happen as Jesus never died on the Cross to start with.

Regards

 

[Spartan]

"The overall purpose is to provide a historical context for the original gospel proclamation as provided by Jesus’ disciples at a very early date after the crucifixion itself* ".
#1162 What is that early date after the (event of) crucifixion, please?


The date, the earliest one, when the proclamation was made by the disciples with consensus on Jesus resurrection that did not and could never happen as Jesus never died on the Cross to start with.

Regards

Nuts.

 

[paarsurrey]

The names of the four gospels don't indicate that they were written by the disciples in whose names they have been named. It were anonymous documents, so they are not eye-witness accounts of the even of Crucifixion and for the same reason they are not inspired even.

Jesus did not and could not die on the Cross so there is no case of Jesus' resurrection and or ascension. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Spartan]

The names of the four gospels don't indicate that they were written by the disciples in whose names they have been named. It were anonymous documents, so they are not eye-witness accounts of the even of Crucifixion and for the same reason they are not inspired even.

Jesus did not and could not die on the Cross so there is no case of Jesus' resurrection and or ascension. Right, please?

Regards

You need to do your homework. You've got nothing right there.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

Recommended reading:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, by Dr. Craig Keener

"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.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe Paul did not have a fake vision and there is no evidence that he did.For a person to make the change from being an enemy of Jesus to an adherent there had to have been a monumental event.

I believe Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and certainly God is a witness so that makes Paul one also, just not a witness present at the event.

I believe there is no evidence that ever happened. Jesus was raised from the dead.

"I believe Paul did not have a fake vision"

I understand it was Paul's fake vision, as Jesus was alive at that time, and he went out of Judea toward East where 10 tribes of the Israel lived and Jesus mission was towards the Jews only not towards the Gentiles. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe Paul did not have a fake vision and there is no evidence that he did.For a person to make the change from being an enemy of Jesus to an adherent there had to have been a monumental event.

I believe Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and certainly God is a witness so that makes Paul one also, just not a witness present at the event.

I believe there is no evidence that ever happened. Jesus was raised from the dead.

"vision"

Did Jesus see a vision himself?
Did Moses see a vision himself?
Did any truthful prophet/messenger of G-d (before Jesus) see any vision?
If yes, then kindly quote from them. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

"I believe Paul did not have a fake vision"

I understand it was Paul's fake vision, as Jesus was alive at that time, and he went out of Judea toward East where 10 tribes of the Israel lived and Jesus mission was towards the Jews only not towards the Gentiles. Right, please?

If Paul was an admitted liar, his witnessing seeing a vision is also false. Right, please?

Regards

 

[JJ50]

If Paul was an admitted liar, his witnessing seeing a vision is also false. Right, please?

Regards

People might see a 'vision', it doesn't mean it has any validity.

 

[Spartan]

People might see a 'vision', it doesn't mean it has any validity.

You're all in on bashing anybody in the Bible who has ever written that homosexual acts are sinful, aren't you? You also have no evidence Paul's vision was invalid - just the usual knee-jerk denial to suit your usual bias. You might have more credibility explaining why Paul - who persecuted Christians - suddenly became a believer and why his "Road to Damascus" blindness that accompanied the vision was suddenly healed by Ananias - an act you will also have to deny, right? That would be a good trifecta for your sophomoric, anti-biblical agenda.

 

[sojourner]

No? But I'm interested in what Sojourner thinks.

I'm not much for apologetics when looking for historical accuracy. "Defending the Faith" usually means "defending my version of faith." It's inherently biased toward the preconceived notions of the apologists. There just isn't any place for bias in the exegetical process, because the apologetic process works backward from exegesis, pulling in "data" that is necessarily geared toward supporting one's original claims. That's what apologetics is. If I want to find out what the bible says (which is where we need to start when looking for historical claims), I'm not going to start with what I believe and then read into the texts what I believe to be there.