Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

[Riders]

Why don't you explain to us why it is that we can submit a prayer to a jug of milk and get the same results?

Ok so I am sort of changing topic here, but i cant resist but to answer. I agree with you that there is no proof for God and it doesn't matter who you pray too.

However what i will say is this, spiritual Atheists and agnostics know this, if you pray or meditate your brain changes and it calms downs , releases relaxation and sometimes feelings of euphoria in your brain.

But its a good thing, it has a positive effect on our well being.So even you can not prove God with prayer I agree with you on that. However spiritual Atheists and Agnostics and religious folks agree with me that prayer or meditation can bring you peace make you more healthy has good effects on you.

I only meditate at this time every now and then I pray but mostly use zen meditation, its good though, gets me out of depression too.

 

[Spartan]

Why don't you explain to us why it is that we can submit a prayer to a jug of milk and get the same results?

You give up too soon on God. And your attitude towards God isn't one that he probably appreciates.

 

[Spartan]

But you have no faith.

Sure I do. You're the one with the bankrupt faith.

You have said it yourself this whole thread and what its about. Your thread says you can scientifically and historically prove Jesus was real and he rose from the dead from science. You know what if it were true all historians and scholars would believe and the whole world would become Christian. Then there would be no faith because we would not need it.

Nuts. I never made the claim using the word "prove". That's your spin. I provided a great deal of evidence that you characteristically kicked to the curb.

But the bible rebukes such attitudes as yours.

Flush. Even Satan believes (James 2:19), so he's light years ahead of you.

He (Thomas) had to have physical scientific proof just like you!

Nuts. Jesus showed himself to Thomas. And it wasn't science that led me to believe in Jesus. God reached down to me first (John 6:44).

Every time you do these bizarre posts your sophomoric arguments get demolished.

 

[McBell]

You give up too soon on God. And your attitude towards God isn't one that he probably appreciates.

Perhaps you can try answering the question?

 

[McBell]

Even Satan believes (James 2:19), so he's light years ahead of you.

Never did understand why theists think this some sort of ace in the hole slam dunk.

 

[Spartan]

Never did understand why theists think this some sort of ace in the hole slam dunk.

You can find out why if you do your homework. Recommended reading for you:

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

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

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell

 

[McBell]

You can find out why if you do your homework. Recommended reading for you:

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

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

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell

The fact of the matter is that it completely worthless outside the choir.

That being said, what makes you think that those who do not believe your beliefs gives a crickets fart what another made up being believes?
Unless of course you are merely trying to score points with your choir members?
And even if that is the case, why would a nonbeliever give a crickets fart what your choir thinks?

So to the nonbeliever it reeks of desperation.

But if such a hollow victory is good enough for you, by all means, slaughter your credibility in a vain attempt to score points with the choir.

 

[Spartan]

The fact of the matter is that it completely worthless outside the choir.

That's an amazing statement, considering you're completely ignorant of the content of those books.

That being said, what makes you think that those who do not believe your beliefs gives a crickets fart what another made up being believes?
Unless of course you are merely trying to score points with your choir members?
And even if that is the case, why would a nonbeliever give a crickets fart what your choir thinks?

So to the nonbeliever it reeks of desperation.

But if such a hollow victory is good enough for you, by all means, slaughter your credibility in a vain attempt to score points with the choir.

Why are you in this thread? It always amazes me that people like you spend so much time in a thread about Jesus that (1) they haven't adequately researched, and (2) they don't believe in.

What do you think you've going to accomplish here, since you don't have the goods and facts to discredit traditional Christianity? All you're doing is demonstrating how little you know about the subject.

 

[McBell]

That's an amazing statement, considering you're completely ignorant of the content of those books.

Why are you in this thread? It always amazes me that people like you spend so much time in a thread about Jesus that (1) they haven't adequately researched, and (2) they don't believe in.

What do you think you've going to accomplish here, since you don't have the goods and facts to discredit traditional Christianity? All you're doing is demonstrating how little you know about the subject.

I understand your being upset your diversion tactic did not work.

Perhaps you would prefer a new thread to discuss the fact your "ace in the hole" is completely worthless outside your choir?

 

[Spartan]

I understand your being upset your diversion tactic did not work.

Perhaps you would prefer a new thread to discuss the fact your "ace in the hole" is completely worthless outside your choir?

What's worthless outside the choir are your theologically-stunted posts.

 

[Riders]

What's worthless outside the choir are your theologically-stunted posts.

Oh yea whats working out history the right way and having to give us a thread to help us work it out the right way? I have never heard any scholar say anything like that. if you have to work your way around the truth it means you are using mental gymnastics to explain all the inconsistancies in the bible.

 

[McBell]

What's worthless outside the choir are your theologically-stunted posts.

I see you have no interest in honest discussion of the matter.
All you had to do was say so.
No need for all the drama.

 

[Spartan]

Oh yea whats working out history the right way and having to give us a thread to help us work it out the right way? I have never heard any scholar say anything like that. if you have to work your way around the truth it means you are using mental gymnastics to explain all the inconsistancies in the bible.

Tell it to your fan club. They might believe your anti-Christianity follies.

 

[lukethethird]

Ok so I am sort of changing topic here, but i cant resist but to answer. I agree with you that there is no proof for God and it doesn't matter who you pray too.

However what i will say is this, spiritual Atheists and agnostics know this, if you pray or meditate your brain changes and it calms downs , releases relaxation and sometimes feelings of euphoria in your brain.

But its a good thing, it has a positive effect on our well being.So even you can not prove God with prayer I agree with you on that. However spiritual Atheists and Agnostics and religious folks agree with me that prayer or meditation can bring you peace make you more healthy has good effects on you.

I only meditate at this time every now and then I pray but mostly use zen meditation, its good though, gets me out of depression too.

It might be good for some people, frustrating for others, and totally meaningless to some, etc, etc.

 

[Riders]

It might be good for some people, frustrating for others, and totally meaningless to some, etc, etc.

Ok thanks for the honesty.

 

[night912]

I don't buy it that Mary was alone when the angel appeared. That's your claim.

I wasn't expecting you to believe it, just presenting the facts.

But you want to know something? Even when all four Gospels confirm the resurrection you're still going to deny and question it. Real Christians believe Jesus is resurrected.

So apparently you have nothing to support your argument anymore after the previous ones have been refuted. And making the claim that I deny eventhough the gospel is confirmed it, does nothing to support your original claim. I already showed why the gospels failed.

According to that twisted logic since Mark didn't mention the sacking of Jerusalem years later that didn't happen either.

No, logic is that, if there's nothing to show for the claim then it cannot be used as evidence. It means that Mark can't be use as evidence for the sacking of Jerusalem because there's nothing mentioned in it. Simple logic.

Baloney. You have nothing but one lame denial and specious claim after another. Jesus was raised from the dead and, as the Bible says, anyone who denies it is dead in their sins (1 Corinthians 15).

I've shown plenty. And quoting scripture does nothing to support your claim.

 

[night912]

Baloney. You have nothing but one lame denial and specious claim after another. Jesus was raised from the dead and, as the Bible says, anyone who denies it is dead in their sins (1 Corinthians 15).

I wouldn't call showing you that there were no authors assigned to the four gospels as being baloney or lame. First of all, it's neither a sausage nor is it nonsense to say, we don't know who wrote the gospels because there were no authors assigned to the manuscripts found. It's called being honest and with good reasoning.

The same goes for saying, they weren't documentations of first hand eyewitness because they weren't written by Mary or the other supposed eyewitnesses.

 

[Spartan]

I wouldn't call showing you that there were no authors assigned to the four gospels as being baloney or lame. .

It's baloney and lame. The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

 

[Audie]

Never did understand why theists think this some sort of ace in the hole slam dunk.

Coz it works!! Just like "how come there are still monkeys"
is a killer knock down argument against ToE.

 

[Audie]

It's baloney and lame. The early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.

Matthew

1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel

Mark Authorship

2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel

Luke Authorship

3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel

John Authorship

4. Church Fathers and John’s Gospel

That is nothing. Look at this!!!

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES


Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith