Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

James jesus brother would have also known about jesus buriel and ressurrection. Peter too.

And this dont mean paul invented the 500 witnesses. What did he halucinate 500 witnesses now? Because you yourself said hes honest, so he cant INVENT this.

But they did not seem to mention it. The "Epistle of James" does not mention that. The Epistles of Peter are thought to be pseudonymous.

The question is where did Paul get the claim of 500 witnesses from? No one else mentions it, even in the works that are of questionable authorship.

And I never said that he was honest. I said that he was probably delusional. Not lying is not the same as being honest. A person can be wrong and believe his error, a person can be delusional and not understand how he made up something. Neither of those are examples of lying.

Where does the story of 500 witnesses come from? An uncomfortable question that you cannot seem to answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, some parts of the bible are controversial, like the virgin birth. But the burial of Jesus is not controversial,

And yet only Christians believe the "empty tomb" story.

 

[Jollybear]

But they did not seem to mention it. The "Epistle of James" does not mention that. The Epistles of Peter are thought to be pseudonymous.

The question is where did Paul get the claim of 500 witnesses from? No one else mentions it, even in the works that are of questionable authorship.

They dont have to mention it. They dont talk about everything in there letters. That dont mean paul is inventing it.

And I never said that he was honest. I said that he was probably delusional. Not lying is not the same as being honest. A person can be wrong and believe his error, a person can be delusional and not understand how he made up something. Neither of those are examples of lying.

Wer really talking past eachother. If you made something up, like paul making up there was 500 witnesses, HOW could you possibly not know you made it up? Come on. If i invent or make something up, i know im doing it, i would know its not true.

Where does the story of 500 witnesses come from? An uncomfortable question that you cannot seem to answer.

Maybe it comes PARTLY from mathew 27:52

"51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and ewent into the holy city and appeared to many people."

But, even if it dont, paul could have gotten it from peter. But he dont say specifically. Again, they dont mention everything in there letters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They dont have to mention it. They dont talk about everything in there letters. That dont mean paul is inventing it.




Wer really talking past eachother. If you made something up, like paul making up there was 500 witnesses, HOW could you possibly not know you made it up? Come on. If i invent or make something up, i know im doing it, i would know its not true.



Maybe it comes PARTLY from mathew 27:52

"51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and ewent into the holy city and appeared to many people."

But, even if it dont, paul could have gotten it from peter. But he dont say specifically. Again, they dont mention everything in there letters.

Matthew is talking about the zombie apocalypse that was not noticed by anyone else. Another failure of the Bible. The question is where did Paul get this claim from? Why don't we see it anywhere else in the Bible? It is not proof that Paul was either delusional or dishonest but it is evidence for it.

 

[Jollybear]

Matthew is talking about the zombie apocalypse that was not noticed by anyone else. Another failure of the Bible. The question is where did Paul get this claim from? Why don't we see it anywhere else in the Bible? It is not proof that Paul was either delusional or dishonest but it is evidence for it.

How can someone, paul or anyone make something up thats false and that originates within themselves, not know its false and made up? How is that possible. That to me is more incredable then a resurection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can someone, paul or anyone make something up thats false and that originates within themselves, not know its false and made up? How is that possible. That to me is more incredable then a resurection.

I don't think that you will understand if I explain it again.

 

[leroy]

And yet only Christians believe the "empty tomb" story.

Wrong, but don’t move ahead, do you grant the burial of Jesus?

 

[leroy]

Where does the story of 500 witnesses come from? An uncomfortable question that you cannot seem to answer.

From an early creed.


He did what honest historians do, he traveled Jerusalem and other places, where he talked to the witnesses, and he reported what he investigated.

 

[lukethethird]

To whomever has this figured out, the resurrection really happened and the tombs opened up allowing corpses to walk the streets, and the story about the Son of God is based on a real historical figure, is that it so far?

 

[Jollybear]

I don't think that you will understand if I explain it again.

You havent explained this YET at all. Try to do so atleast ONCE.

How can someone make up a false claim that originates with themselves and then truly believe the thing they made up? How is that possible?

That is more crazy to believe then a resurection.

 

[Jollybear]

I have it here in this video. An actual record of the original KJ and actually hen your talking about KJ of the 15 and 1600's there are books and texts that have been removed int he 18 and 1900's as seen here. There's a bunch of stuff in the old bible not in our bible. You can't say oh those are the lost books there are not cannonized,

I am talking about stuff left out of the old KJ bible for some reason. It just to show how much has seen changed out of the bible. I may start a new thread for it.

There's another video there that says there's 75 books left out.Why is all this stuff left out?

Ok...i watched the video, he never went into actual examples of changes or mistakes.

But, thats ok, because i have in the past and it amounts to about 5% out of 100%. 5% is a generious number. 5% is the amount of mistakes. That accounts for misspells, writting a wrong word or number, omitting a word. Stuff like that.

Also his point about the other books taken out. Ok...yes, some books are taken out or left out of some bibles. The apocrapha is still in the catholic bible though. Its not taken out. The book of enoch is still in the etheopion bible. Its not removed. But all these books are not "lost". There readily available for all to read.

His point about the bible changing over time and illustrating it with telling a story and then have ten people tell it down the line. The story changes.

Thats a badly applied analogy and heres why: that dont happen if you WRITE the story down. It changes if its TOLD and retold. It dont change if its written down and then copied and recopied.

Now yes, in the recopying there was some (5%) mistakes because there was no printing press to copy bibles. So, we had scribes do it, humans. If you recopied a book using a pen, youd make a few mistakes. That is to be expected. However scribes took there job seriously.

And we have proof that they did a good job because when you compare all the manuscrips, earlyest and latest, along with the multitude of quotes from the church fathers, on down the line, only about 5% has changed.

After the dead sea scrolls wer discovered, and the bible was compared to it, again, very little was changed.

Also in alot of bibles now, theres footnotes showing where some mistakes wer in the manuscrips. Translaters and scholars put these notes in. So, there is no real dishonesty going on.

 

[lukethethird]

Ok...i watched the video, he never went into actual examples of changes or mistakes.

But, thats ok, because i have in the past and it amounts to about 5% out of 100%. 5% is a generious number. 5% is the amount of mistakes. That accounts for misspells, writting a wrong word or number, omitting a word. Stuff like that.

Also his point about the other books taken out. Ok...yes, some books are taken out or left out of some bibles. The apocrapha is still in the catholic bible though. Its not taken out. The book of enoch is still in the etheopion bible. Its not removed. But all these books are not "lost". There readily available for all to read.

His point about the bible changing over time and illustrating it with telling a story and then have ten people tell it down the line. The story changes.

Thats a badly applied analogy and heres why: that dont happen if you WRITE the story down. It changes if its TOLD and retold. It dont change if its written down and then copied and recopied.

Now yes, in the recopying there was some (5%) mistakes because there was no printing press to copy bibles. So, we had scribes do it, humans. If you recopied a book using a pen, youd make a few mistakes. That is to be expected. However scribes took there job seriously.

And we have proof that they did a good job because when you compare all the manuscrips, earlyest and latest, along with the multitude of quotes from the church fathers, on down the line, only about 5% has changed.

After the dead sea scrolls wer discovered, and the bible was compared to it, again, very little was changed.

So, we are to believe what The Bible says is true?

 

[Jollybear]

So, we are to believe what The Bible says is true?

Not based on its message not changing over time, no.

But, based on other things, yes.

 

[lukethethird]

Not based on its message not changing over time, no.

But, based on other things, yes.

What in the world would possess us to believe that any of it is true.

 

[Jollybear]

What in the world would possess us to believe that any of it is true.

Well, for one, why would the witnesses of the claim of the resurection die for it? Must have asked this now a thousand times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You havent explained this YET at all. Try to do so atleast ONCE.

How can someone make up a false claim that originates with themselves and then truly believe the thing they made up? How is that possible?

That is more crazy to believe then a resurection.

Sure I have. Just because you do not like or do not understand an explanation does not mean that there has not been one. Perhaps if you could avoid your favorite black and white fallacies you could begin to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, for one, why would the witnesses of the claim of the resurection die for it? Must have asked this now a thousand times.

That question has been answered for you too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From an early creed.


He did what honest historians do, he traveled Jerusalem and other places, where he talked to the witnesses, and he reported what he investigated.

Where does it say that he did this? You are making an unwarranted assumption.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, for one, why would the witnesses of the claim of the resurection die for it? Must have asked this now a thousand times.

It's a story, why believe that anyone died for it? The witnesses dying are part of the story, how is it not fiction? What can make us believe any of it?

 

[Riders]

Ok...i watched the video, he never went into actual examples of changes or mistakes.

But, thats ok, because i have in the past and it amounts to about 5% out of 100%. 5% is a generious number. 5% is the amount of mistakes. That accounts for misspells, writting a wrong word or number, omitting a word. Stuff like that.

Also his point about the other books taken out. Ok...yes, some books are taken out or left out of some bibles. The apocrapha is still in the catholic bible though. Its not taken out. The book of enoch is still in the etheopion bible. Its not removed. But all these books are not "lost". There readily available for all to read.

His point about the bible changing over time and illustrating it with telling a story and then have ten people tell it down the line. The story changes.

Thats a badly applied analogy and heres why: that dont happen if you WRITE the story down. It changes if its TOLD and retold. It dont change if its written down and then copied and recopied.

Now yes, in the recopying there was some (5%) mistakes because there was no printing press to copy bibles. So, we had scribes do it, humans. If you recopied a book using a pen, youd make a few mistakes. That is to be expected. However scribes took there job seriously.

And we have proof that they did a good job because when you compare all the manuscrips, earlyest and latest, along with the multitude of quotes from the church fathers, on down the line, only about 5% has changed.

After the dead sea scrolls wer discovered, and the bible was compared to it, again, very little was changed.

Also in alot of bibles now, theres footnotes showing where some mistakes wer in the manuscrips. Translaters and scholars put these notes in. So, there is no real dishonesty going on.

Theres actually quite a few differences besides just leaving the apocrypha out of todays bible and the 1600s. Theres a lot of scriptures written differently and a lot of scripture left out that;s not the apocrypha..

Its very different then our bible.