Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

I mentioned to you the extra sensory knowledge surounding pauls experience and you said this

"You do realize that you are relying on Paul's account for the Ananias claimclaim, don't you? You are using circular logic. To claim that Paul had such knowledge You would need an outside source."

Yes, im relying on his account because hes not lying to me, which means his claim about ananias is true.

You even said hes not lying, RIGHT?

This is incorrect. A person can be wrong and still not be lying. Why do you equate being wrong with lying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And thats better then all other historical writings. Again, remember the chart? If the New Testament is unreliable in regards to its message changing, then all historical documents are too.

You know, i could tell you pieces of my life from 30 years ago and do so accurately.

Another Black and White Fallacy. There is a saying that you need to learn:
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The miraculous claims of Jesus are extraordinary and need much more evidence than the evidence for the works of Augustus Caesar which were much more mundane. You should look at the claims of other religions and why you reject them. For the same reasons that you reject other religions you should be rejecting your own.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's the literal truth that the Godless would have everyone believe is no more than a legend.

Or theists who understand what narrative genres are and the differences between them.

What about the 500 reported by Paul? Did he lied? Did someone lied to Paul ? Where the 500 hallucinating ? Was Paul quoting from a legend ?

What were their names? Or is Paul like our president, talking about big crowds at the inauguration when we could all see lots of empty spots in the "crowd"? Was there a sign-in sheet? Any Romans complaining of a group of 500 Jews or whatever seeing Jesus? As irritable as the Romans were about rioting in the area, I would think they'd be all over that event.

Paul claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

Did he ever meet him? Does he even know what Jesus looked like? People didn't recognize Jesus right after the crucifixion, people who had spent a LOT of man-hours hanging out with him. And yet you're telling me that Paul positively identified someone he never met? With what? Facial recognition software?

That's like the apostles claiming to see Elijah and Moses -- how the hell would they know what those two guys look like? Jews weren't allowed to have pics of anyone.

Why not give Paul the benefit of the doubt for what he claims to have believed? Paul was no dummy, a religious fanatic, yes, but he knew what side his bread was buttered on.

Exactly. He's a lot like a politician. He sincerely, profoundly, and truly believes in whatever we're talking about right now.

The four gospels were each by a different eyewitness who was willing to die for what he believed in.

Except none of them were. Maybe John did, but everyone else ran off, so they weren't there to witness squat. And none of them, not even Jesus were willing to die, or they wouldn't run off to escape death so often. That they were finally caught and supposedly executed is a tip of the hat to Romans, not anything to do with "martyrs".

In a court of law the testimony of multiple witnesses is accepted as proof.

And we have a lot of people being freed from prisons put there by "witnesses". There were witnesses in Jesus' trial. So, he's guilty then, right? Because we have witness testimony?

And while people will lie to gain something I don't know of anyone willing to suffer and die for their own lies.

Depends on how much you invested in hubris.

Crazy people have all sorts of false beliefs at times.

My mother sees the ads on pages like this and thinks family members are spying on her because the "computer knows things about me". I've tried explaining "cookies", but she continues to insist there is some massive effort by the government and regular citizens, many of whom can't even spell their own names, to ruin her life.

One of the many alleged witnesses was Paul, and you claim that he is crazy and had hallucinations.

Was he standing at the side of Jesus' corpse when it was reanimated? No? Then he's lying about witnessing "the resurrection".

2 Was peter a lier

Well, Satan is the "Father of Lies" (which itself is a lie, because Satan never lies in any of his actual scenes) and Jesus called Peter "Satan", so ....

 

[The Anointed]

Fine, i made a small mistake typing late at night.

Now can you be honest? Do you not know that the Bible is loaded with myths? That is has bad science and worse morals? If Christianity has a positive message it has one in spite of the downfalls of the Bible.

Subduction Zone wrote……. Fine, i made a small mistake typing late at night.

The Anointed……. If that were your only mistake, I would have let it slide right on by, But mate, you are notorious for your biblical ignorance.

You even believed that the genealogy recorded in Matthew was the genealogy of Jesus, when even a blind person can see that it was the genetic record of Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and had no sexual relation with her until after she had given birth to Jesus, the son of Joseph ben Heli. Apparently, you don’t even read the scriptures.

Subduction Zone wrote……. Now can you be honest? Do you not know that the Bible is loaded with myths?

The Anointed……. I think that you are referring to the myths within the doctrines of the Roman Church, and not the bible

In those days, Nazareth was a small hamlet about 2 kilometres from the small town called Bethlehem of Galilee, today that town is known as Beitlahm and is a stones throw from the glorious Hellenised city of Sepphoris.

According to Josephus the historian, Sepphoris, which is only about 4 miles from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town is now called Beitlahm, and a few kilometres from Nazareth, had a population of around thirty thousand and he called it, "The Ornament of Galilee."

Around the time of Herod’s death in the spring of 4BC, shortly after the wise men had been warned in a dream to leave Nazareth and return to their own country, after which, Herod had ordered the slaughter of the innocents around the district of Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below, which age was chosen according to the time that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. there were riots among the peasants of the area in Galilee of which Sepphoris was the centre. Judas, the son of Hezekias attacked the arsenal of Herod in the city of Sepphoris in order to arm the peasants.

The Romans under Quintillius Varus of Syria, attacked and burnt the city, putting down the uprising in which many families died and others were taken prisoner and transported to Rome, where they were sold as slaves. But Joseph ben Jacob, with his wife and his stepson Jesus, had escaped the slaughter by fleeing into Egypt.

After a failed suicide attempt, which I believe may have been an option given to him by Caesar Augustus, in the spring of 4 BC, Herod the Great died, then in the spring of 3 B.C., after the death of Herod his father, when Antipas returned from Rome where his father’s will had been ratified by Augustus, he chose and rebuilt the magnificent city of Sepphoris as his capital city for ruling over Galilee.

The heavenly sign that heralded the birth of the Messiah was the triple conjunction in 6 BC of the "King Planet" Jupiter, with Mars, the god of war, and "Saturn the god of time, who brings the golden age of peace to the earth. Two years later in 4 BC, Herod the Great died after ordering that all the male children two years and below in the district to where the family of Jesus had returned after his mother had performed the ceremony of purification in the temple of Jerusalem, were to be slaughtered. The star that led the Magi to the child in Nazareth many months after the birth of the child Jesus, was the hairy star/comet of early 5 BC.

I wont be back until the coming Friday, when I will answer any questions you will undoubtedly have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone wrote……. Fine, i made a small mistake typing late at night.

The Anointed……. If that were your only mistake, I would have let it slide right on by, But mate, you are notorious for your biblical ignorance.

You even believed that the genealogy recorded in Matthew was the genealogy of Jesus, when even a blind person can see that it was the genetic record of Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and had no sexual relation with her until after she had given birth to Jesus, the son of Joseph ben Heli. Apparently, you don’t even read the scriptures.

If you can't be honest why even post here? And no, you are the terribly ignorant one here. There is no reason to think that the line in Matthew is Joseph's and the line in Luke is that of Mary's. That is a desperate belief of those that cannot face reality.

Subduction Zone wrote……. Now can you be honest? Do you not know that the Bible is loaded with myths?

The Anointed……. I think that you are referring to the myths within the doctrines of the Roman Church, and not the bible

Nope, the Bible. You failed the first test.

In those days, Nazareth was a small hamlet about 2 kilometres from the small town called Bethlehem of Galilee, today that town is known as Beitlahm and is a stones throw from the glorious Hellenised city of Sepphoris.

According to Josephus the historian, Sepphoris, which is only about 4 miles from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town is now called Beitlahm, and a few kilometres from Nazareth, had a population of around thirty thousand and he called it, "The Ornament of Galilee."

Around the time of Herod’s death in the spring of 4BC, shortly after the wise men had been warned in a dream to leave Nazareth and return to their own country, after which, Herod had ordered the slaughter of the innocents around the district of Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below, which age was chosen according to the time that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. there were riots among the peasants of the area in Galilee of which Sepphoris was the centre. Judas, the son of Hezekias attacked the arsenal of Herod in the city of Sepphoris in order to arm the peasants.

The Romans under Quintillius Varus of Syria, attacked and burnt the city, putting down the uprising in which many families died and others were taken prisoner and transported to Rome, where they were sold as slaves. But Joseph ben Jacob, with his wife and his stepson Jesus, had escaped the slaughter by fleeing into Egypt.

After a failed suicide attempt, which I believe may have been an option given to him by Caesar Augustus, in the spring of 4 BC, Herod the Great died, then in the spring of 3 B.C., after the death of Herod his father, when Antipas returned from Rome where his father’s will had been ratified by Augustus, he chose and rebuilt the magnificent city of Sepphoris as his capital city for ruling over Galilee.

The heavenly sign that heralded the birth of the Messiah was the triple conjunction in 6 BC of the "King Planet" Jupiter, with Mars, the god of war, and "Saturn the god of time, who brings the golden age of peace to the earth. Two years later in 4 BC, Herod the Great died after ordering that all the male children two years and below in the district to where the family of Jesus had returned after his mother had performed the ceremony of purification in the temple of Jerusalem, were to be slaughtered. The star that led the Magi to the child in Nazareth many months after the birth of the child Jesus, was the hairy star/comet of early 5 BC.

I wont be back until the coming Friday, when I will answer any questions you will undoubtedly have.

More failures. If you want to debate please find valid sources for your claims. And didn't I ask you about Luke's error? How he had Jesus born both at roughly 4 BC and 6 AD? How do you deal with that failure of the Bible? Not to mention the "prophecy" based upon a mistranslation of the Septuagint.

 

[sealchan]

And thats better then all other historical writings. Again, remember the chart? If the New Testament is unreliable in regards to its message changing, then all historical documents are too.

You know, i could tell you pieces of my life from 30 years ago and do so accurately.

You are assuming that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts and that they are not inspired stories constructed from other myths of miracle men. That does not hold up to the evidence that we have.

How can you put your trust in contradictory accounts of so called eyewitness accounts when they both differ uniquely and have very similar content. Why is accuracy in recall so selective?

The answer is common source material, not eyewitness accounts, with individual creative differences.

What has actually happened in God's creation? In that lies God's truth.

 

[lukethethird]

Yep, the resurrection in Mark was thought to have been added much later. In fact almost every Bible notes this in the footnotes.

Mark does have a resurrection, it doesn't have a post resurrection. BTW, this is the last time I correct you guys, from now on you can spread your lies at will, see if I care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mark does have a resurrection, it doesn't have a post resurrection. BTW, this is the last time I correct you guys, from now on you can spread your lies at will, see if I care.

actually it only has an empty tomb and an angel that says "He is arisen". Then Jesus 's gal pals beat feet and that is it. Not much of a resurrection. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean that they are lying.

 

[Jollybear]

This is incorrect. A person can be wrong and still not be lying. Why do you equate being wrong with lying?

Lord have mercy, im gonna shoot myself.

Because he was speaking what he experienced about ananias. Thats why.

 

[leroy]

This video says most of Paul's writings are not authentic only seven letters and the most earliest was written in 50 AD 20 years or more after Christianity started. That's too long. He also says Christians do not know the history of their own religion.

The good news is that even with the few "uncontroversially authentic" letters one can stablish the existence of Jesus. + His death in the cross + his burrial + post mortem apierences

 

[leroy]

Yes most, but not all, of the epistles of Paul were written by Paul.

All the epistles that have bet quoted in this thread are uncontroversially authentic

 

[leroy]

Another Black and White Fallacy. There is a saying that you need to learn:
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The miraculous claims of Jesus are extraordinary and need much more evidence than the evidence for the works of Augustus Caesar which were much more mundane. You should look at the claims of other religions and why you reject them. For the same reasons that you reject other religions you should be rejecting your own.

But at this point you don't have to grant any miracles. All you have to grant is:

1 Jesus died in the cross

2 he was burried

3 his tomb was found empty

4 the apostoles, Paul, James, and the women claimed to have seen the risen Jesus

5 at least some of the alleged witnesses of the resurrection (paul, james, peter etc) where willing to die for that belive. (Implying that they honestly and sincerly belived in the resurrection)

None of these claims seems extraordinary, and each of them is corroborated by multiple independent sources. ...

Do you accept these 5 claims? If not why not? Please let me know which of these do you find controversial so that I can provide evidence

 

[leroy]

too long at leaste 30 to 50 years some say the new testament wasn't written until 100 years later.

What if I tell you that my grandmother was born in Poland? Would you accept my testimony?

These event occured 90 years ago and obviously I was not an eyewitness. But yet most people would agree that my testimony is reliable, and most people would grant that I am in a position to know about my grandmother'' birth.

The point that I am making is that 30 years, 50 years or even 100 years is not as much time as you seem to believe

 

[leroy]

This video says most of Paul's writings are not authentic only seven letters and the most earliest was written in 50 AD 20 years or more after Christianity started. That's too long. He also says Christians do not know the history of their own religion.

Havent seen your video, but i am familiar with what Richard career (the author of the video) has to say .



Richard Career doest believe in the stuff that you are promoting, he doest believe that Christianity is a myth started by Roman emperoros (Nero Constantine, Tertulians etc)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lord have mercy, im gonna shoot myself.

Because he was speaking what he experienced about ananias. Thats why.

you probably should. Once again why do you continually make the error of conflating being wrong with lying? By your standards the Bible is full of lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the epistles that have bet quoted in this thread are uncontroversially authentic

Are you sure? Do you even have a clue as to which ones are thought to be pseudonymous?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What if I tell you that my grandmother was born in Poland? Would you accept my testimony?

These event occured 90 years ago and obviously I was not an eyewitness. But yet most people would agree that my testimony is reliable, and most people would grant that I am in a position to know about my grandmother'' birth.

The point that I am making is that 30 years, 50 years or even 100 years is not as much time as you seem to believe

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is your grandmother's birth in Poland extraordinary? Have only a handful of people been born there? On the other hand how many people claim to have come back from the dead?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But at this point you don't have to grant any miracles. All you have to grant is:

1 Jesus died in the cross

2 he was burried

3 his tomb was found empty

4 the apostoles, Paul, James, and the women claimed to have seen the risen Jesus

5 at least some of the alleged witnesses of the resurrection (paul, james, peter etc) where willing to die for that belive. (Implying that they honestly and sincerly belived in the resurrection)

None of these claims seems extraordinary, and each of them is corroborated by multiple independent sources. ...

Do you accept these 5 claims? If not why not? Please let me know which of these do you find controversial so that I can provide evidence

There probably was no tomb. The most common thing done with crucified people was to leave them up as a warning.

and we have no idea what the apostles claim. There are meetings by them on this part of Jesus's life.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What if I tell you that my grandmother was born in Poland? Would you accept my testimony?

Ancestral DNA testing companies have frequently been in the undesirable spot of proving people were less than honest about their pasts.

 

[Jollybear]

This video says most of Paul's writings are not authentic only seven letters and the most earliest was written in 50 AD 20 years or more after Christianity started. That's too long. He also says Christians do not know the history of their own religion.

Ok i watched the video.

There is alot he went over and he obviously added his spin on things and SOME of those things he said are true and some ARE NOT.

Im not gonna address everything because of time and i just wont write a book on here, plus that loses peoples attention anyway. So im gonna do this in bits.

He mentioned pliny the younger, a govenor in rome. He says the christians wer punished not for there claims but for not getting a licence from the government to meet.

Ok, not only did he remind me of my hatrid for government robbing our freedoms, but he is incorrect about pliny. Heres plinys letter. Primary Sources - Letters Of Pliny The Younger And The Emperor Trajan | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

If christians DID NOT RECANT there faith and worship the emperor, they wer punished.

Nothing about lisences to meet like that scholar in the video said.