Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Ok they where wrong, does that mean
that:
1 They where willfully lying,

2 they where missinformed

You should not limit your choices in such a manner. That is a false dichotomy. You left out that it could be a myth that grew as it was good and retold. Or that some of the originators may have not been all there.

 

[leroy]

You should not limit your choices in such a manner. That is a false dichotomy. You left out that it could be a myth that grew as it was good and retold. Or that some of the originators may have not been all there.

Ok so which one is it ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so which one is it ?

We cannot say for sure. Paul looks to be the crazy man that believes he is a prophet. His incorrect beliefs tell us that is not so.

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus was placed in a tomb. As far as I know "Bury" is an appropriate word.
.......
From
:the definition of bury
:

OK, I was just wondering if you were making a distinction between Paul's theology and that of the gospel writers.

 

[paarsurrey]

Wow you described your position in a clear and unambiguous way in just 1 comment. Subduction Zone has much to learn from you.

As for your hypothesis I comment.

1 Romans where experts in crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would fail in killing Jesus

2 But just to make sure, a soldier stacked a spear in Jesus´s chest, to ensure that he was dead

3 multiple independent sources confirm that Jesus was buried, and zero evidence for the medical treatment that you described, your view requires a big conspiracy theory.

4 at least James the brother of Jesus would have been a witness of the “non burial of Jesus” so why was he proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, if he would have known that Jesus never died.

5 Jesus if he would haved survived, he would have been injured, he would have not fooled anybody, and he would have been unable to travel to Galilee

6 Why would Jesus lie and fake his resurrection?

7 Are we to believe that not a single enemy of Christianity Jew or Roman noticed the fraud?

"3 multiple independent sources confirm that Jesus was buried, and zero evidence for the medical treatment that you described, your view requires a big conspiracy theory." Unquote

Jesus was never buried, he was just placed in the tomb. Jesus' friend Nicodemus looked after Jesus in the tomb for his treatment of the injuries inflicted on him on the Cross. Right, please?

Regards
______________
32

 

[Jollybear]

Then it is worthless as evidence and you just admitted to using a Red Herring.

You appear to be rather emotional and are not reasoning rationally. Why site a piece that is not evidence for your claims?

I site the anti christian sources for many reasons.

1, because you WANTED sources that wer outside the bible and outside church fathers.

2, these sources are anti resurrection, like you are, yet STILL astablish that the apostles at a minimum CLAIMED to see the risen Jesus and then wer persecuted. Its crazy that some of the anti christians of today will go to such levels to say the apostles wer NOT witnesses when the anti christians of that era did not deny that they claimed to be.

3, these affirm other things about jesus that confirm what the gospels say, like crucifixion, tomb, and persecutions.

All this is important because you as a modern anti christian dont hold more authority then anti christians of that era.

Again, like i said before, if these anti christians wanted christianity to die, they would have been smarter to say "the apostles NEVER claimed to be witnesses and they NEVER wer persecuted. "

But, theres NO anti christian sources from that era saying the apostles never claimed to be a witness nor wer they persecuted. None. Zilch, zero.....

So, based on all this.

Do you ADMIT at a MINIMUM that the apostles atleast CLAIMED to see the risen Jesus and empty tomb?

You see, its not a red herring. It all builds the case.

 

[Jollybear]

-
How many times do you have to be told that we can't know that? He was loopier than a bowl of Fruit Loops, he was a few fries short of a Happy Meal. He may have known that he was wrong and still died for his beliefs. You keep applying the standards of sane people to people that were clearly not sane. That is your error.

Ok, if you CANT KNOW THAT, then why do you ACT like you KNOW these people exist? How do you know jim knew he was wrong, yet still died for his beliefs? If you dont know that, then why do you say he is an example that compares to paul?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I site the anti christian sources for many reasons.

1, because you WANTED sources that wer outside the bible and outside church fathers.

The problem is that those sources do not support your claims. That makes your use of them worthless. A red herring.

2, these sources are anti resurrection, like you are, yet STILL astablish that the apostles at a minimum CLAIMED to see the risen Jesus and then wer persecuted. Its crazy that some of the anti christians of today will go to such levels to say the apostles wer NOT witnesses when the anti christians of that era did not deny that they claimed to be.

Please, let's say realistic. And no, they do not establish that. Where do you get that from?

3, these affirm other things about jesus that cobfirm what the gospels say, like crucifixion, tomb, and persecutions.

Again you must be smoking something. They do not support that either. The only one that you quoted was clearly a forged works and worthless to this discussion at all.

All this is important because you as a modern anti christian dont hold more authority then anti christians of that era.

Again, like i said before, if these anti christians wanted christianity to die, they would have been smarter to say "the apostles NEVER claimed to be witnesses and they NEVER wer persecuted. "

But, theres NO anti christian sources from that era saying the apostles never claimed to be a witness nor wer they persecuted. None. Zilch, zero.....

So, based on all this.

Do you ADMIT at a MINIMUM that the apostles atleast CLAIMED to see the risen Jesus and empty tomb?

You see, its not a red herring. It all builds the case.

Okay, first you need to drop the "anti-Christian" nonsense. Let's not use prejudicial terms. Second, none of your sources appear to support your claims about the apostles being witnesses.

Do you know how to use sources properly? Here is a short primer, you quote short pertinent sections and include a link to your source.

If your claims are correct I am sure that you can properly support them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, if you CANT KNOW THAT, then why do you ACT like you KNOW these people exist? How do you know jim knew he was wrong, yet still died for his beliefs? If you dont know that, then why do you say he is an example that compares to paul?

I gave you specific examples of those sort of people that existed. And you are not paying attention. Once again, if Jim Jones was sane he would have to know that he was wrong. If David Koresh was sane he would have to know that he was wrong. They clearly weren't.

Why do you keep repeating the same errors?

 

[leroy]

We cannot say for sure. Paul looks to be the crazy man that believes he is a prophet. His incorrect beliefs tell us that is not so.

Well given all the research that you have done, which naturalistic hypothesis you conciser to be the best ?

 

[leroy]

I gave you specific examples of those sort of people that existed. And you are not paying attention. Once again, if Jim Jones was sane he would have to know that he was wrong. If David Koresh was sane he would have to know that he was wrong. They clearly weren't.

Why do you keep repeating the same errors?

Did Paul know that he was wrong about the risen .Jesus?
This is a simple yes/no question

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well given all the research that you have done, which naturalistic hypothesis you conciser to be the best ?

Do you mean regarding Paul? Since he was clearly wrong in his estimate of the "end is near" he fails at being a prophet. Though you probably do not realized how he failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did Paul know that he was wrong about the risen .Jesus?
This is a simple yes/no question

No, it is not.
Have you quit beating your wife yet? This is a simple yes/no question.

 

[Jollybear]

The problem is that those sources do not support your claims. That makes your use of them worthless. A red herring.

What do you mean they dont support my claims? If you mean the resurrection, well duh, i knew that, but thats not why i gave them to you. I gave them to you to support my claim that they support the fact the apostles claimed he rose. They dont support that he actually rose, they support the fact that the apostles claim it.

Please, let's say realistic. And no, they do not establish that. Where do you get that from?

Did you read all the quotes or what? Ignoring them does not help the discussion.

Again you must be smoking something. They do not support that either. The only one that you quoted was clearly a forged works and worthless to this discussion at all.

Eh, yes, all the quotes together that the article quoted support the facts that jesus was crucified under pilate, put in a tomb, and his followers wer persecuted for there claims of him arisen. Read the quotes.

Okay, first you need to drop the "anti-Christian" nonsense. Let's not use prejudicial terms.

Its not used with intent to be prejudice, but merely to communicate.

Second, none of your sources appear to support your claims about the apostles being witnesses.

They support that they CLAIMED to be witnesses, but that it was not true.

Do you know how to use sources properly? Here is a short primer, you quote short pertinent sections and include a link to your source.

If your claims are correct I am sure that you can properly support them.

Read them.

 

[Jollybear]

I gave you specific examples of those sort of people that existed. And you are not paying attention. Once again, if Jim Jones was sane he would have to know that he was wrong. If David Koresh was sane he would have to know that he was wrong. They clearly weren't.

Why do you keep repeating the same errors?

Ok, so jim did NOT know he was wrong then is what your saying? So, he died for a lie that he did NOT know was a lie. Great, you just MADE MY CASE FOR ME. You flip flop back and forth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so jim did NOT know he was wrong then is what your saying? So, he died for a lie that he did NOT know was a lie. Great, you just MADE MY CASE FOR ME. You flip flop back and forth.

No, I don't. You are the one that demands that he knew or did not know. We simply do not know that. You keep forgetting that the man was insane. There is no way to judge an insane person using the standards that one uses for a sane man.

This is probably about the tenth time you have made the same error. You keep wanting to treat an insane person as if they were sane. You simply cannot do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean they dont support my claims? If you mean the resurrection, well duh, i knew that, but thats not why i gave them to you. I gave them to you to support my claim that they support the fact the apostles claimed he rose. They dont support that he actually rose, they support the fact that the apostles claim it.



Did you read all the quotes or what? Ignoring them does not help the discussion.



Eh, yes, all the quotes together that the article quoted support the facts that jesus was crucified under pilate, put in a tomb, and his followers wer persecuted for there claims of him arisen. Read the quotes.



Its not used with intent to be prejudice, but merely to communicate.



They support that they CLAIMED to be witnesses, but that it was not true.



Read them.

Too much to bother with. The burden of proof is upon you. You have failed to support your claim properly. Try again.

 

[Jollybear]

No, I don't. You are the one that demands that he knew or did not know. We simply do not know that. You keep forgetting that the man was insane. There is no way to judge an insane person using the standards that one uses for a sane man.

This is probably about the tenth time you have made the same error. You keep wanting to treat an insane person as if they were sane. You simply cannot do that.

If you dont know if jim knew he was wrong or not, how can you know whether he was insane?

 

[Jollybear]

Too much to bother with. The burden of proof is upon you. You have failed to support your claim properly. Try again.

Too much to bother with. Well....that says it all then. Your stuck on the doctrine of naturalism.

Ill make it simple for you.

Did the apostles claim to be witnesses?

 

[leroy]

Did the apostles claim to be witnesses?

You won't get a clear and direct answer. SZ doesn't like clear and direct questions.