Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

But the author of Spiderman does not intend to write historical events.

In the case of the gospels we have authors with access to proper sources and the intention of reporting real historical events.

I agree maybe John did not write the document with his own hands, but he and many other witnesses where alive when the gospels where written, and could have expose any lie or mistake.

Is there any relevant historical error? In any case the number of historical truths are larger in numbee than the historical errors, this proves that the authors had access to reliable sources.

The point of the embarasing details is that only someone with the honest intention of reporting truth would have had included those details. For example woman being the most important witnesses of the resurrection is something that nobody would have invented.

What makes you think that the authors of the Gospels had access to proper sources? They may have meant to be accurate, but there are cases where there was also clear attempts at telling false stories to support the narrative. And it is rather dubious that there were "many witnesses" alive when they were written. The earliest gospel was written in roughly 70 AD.

And yes, the nativity stories would seem to be relevant historical error.

 

[Craig Sedok]

The death and resurrection of Jesus in roughly 28 or 29 CE assertedby the Bible (many times) and by almost every living Christian. Yet there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occurred, but there is essentially no way to prove that somebody that died and came back to life over 2000 hrs ago.

The resurrected.. Never was deceased. The spirit sleeps within us all and comes out when the stars and time say so. Procreation is a subroutine, like a roulette wheel. That kid will be born again.

 

[Jollybear]

There is nothing to lie about, you believe on faith that the gospel stories are true just like so many others, miracles and all.

Actually yea, you are afraid that perhaps i just maybe an honest, objective, critical thinker. And that bothers you. Well, too bad.

Further, YOU have more FAITH then i do because i dont have enough faith to believe people would die for what they knew wer lies.

 

[Jollybear]

Luke specifically said in the verse that you quoted that they were handed down from eyewitnesses. Once they are handed down they are no longer eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay. Do you not know the definitions of those terms?

He got it from the witnesses, how is that hearsay? Its not like passed down from multiple generations. He investigated it from the beginnings .

And he clearly copied from Mark, any school teacher could spot the plagiarism. Why do you have such a problem with this fact? Biblical scholars are very clear on this. Why are you so desperate to hang onto the independent account claim?

I told you why already, they have additional stories and supplementary information that mark dont have, thus making those parts independent of mark.

You ignored that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He got it from the witnesses, how is that hearsay? Its not like passed down from multiple generations. He investigated it from the beginnings .



I told you why already, they have additional stories and supplementary information that mark dont have, thus making those parts independent of mark.

You ignored that.

No, he didn't. Read what the author of Luke said once again.

And additional sources does not make a work independent. If a student copied 75% of another student's work it would still be plagiarism if he put some more work in that he got part from that student.

 

[lukethethird]

Actually yea, you are afraid that perhaps i just maybe an honest, objective, critical thinker. And that bothers you. Well, too bad.

Further, YOU have more FAITH then i do because i dont have enough faith to believe people would die for what they knew wer lies.

Stories are not lies, they are stories, and it's what people do, they write stories, and that is because people like to read stories. You can believe them if you like, no one is suggesting that you can't. In fact, that is what religion is all about, believing the story.

 

[Jollybear]

No, he didn't. Read what the author of Luke said once again.

Lets go through it together and really break it down. Like digest it to smitherins.

Heres the new living translation as another flavor. To organize my thoughts from the passage, ill put my thoughts in brackets. > ( ) and ill blacken my words.

"1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. (So...there was multiple sources) 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. (So....the witnesses testified and made reports, there accounts) 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, (not the middle or end, but the beggining, paul even talked with peter as weve gone through)I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."

And additional sources does not make a work independent. If a student copied 75% of another student's work it would still be plagiarism if he put some more work in that he got part from that student.

The parts that are copied are not independent, the parts that supplement various details ARE INDEPENDENT. How are they not?

 

[Jollybear]

Stories are not lies, they are stories, and it's what people do, they write stories, and that is because people like to read stories. You can believe them if you like, no one is suggesting that you can't. In fact, that is what religion is all about, believing the story.

Well....some stories are lies, some are true.

Fictional novels is admitted so.

But these stories arent addmitted as fiction, nor read like fiction.

Also, you dont have to believe them either. But, still, i think that makes you have more faith then me.

I told subductionzone already that i dont think ANYWHERE in the human race does it exist that people would be so insane to the level of dying for a KNOWN lie. I dont believe anyone can make themselves believe to be true what they know is a lie either.

That takes too much faith. But, if you believe that, as crazy as i think it is, it dont make me hate you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets go through it together and really break it down. Like digest it to smitherins.

Heres the new living translation as another flavor. To organize my thoughts from the passage, ill put my thoughts in brackets. > ( ) and ill blacken my words.

"1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. (So...there was multiple sources) 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. (So....the witnesses testified and made reports, there accounts) 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, (not the middle or end, but the beggining, paul even talked with peter as weve gone through)I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."



The parts that are copied are not independent, the parts that supplement various details ARE INDEPENDENT. How are they not?

You are not reading that properly. The stories supposedly come from witnesses is all that he claims. None of them appear to come from witnesses. And if you are going to rely on Luke what about the parts that he got rather ridiculously wrong?

And most of the material that Luke did not get from Mark he appears to have copied from another source that scholars label "Q". Only a small percentage of the book is original.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well....some stories are lies, some are true.

Fictional novels is admitted so.

But these stories arent addmitted as fiction, nor read like fiction.

Also, you dont have to believe them either. But, still, i think that makes you have more faith then me.

I told subductionzone already that i dont think ANYWHERE in the human race does it exist that people would be so insane to the level of dying for a KNOWN lie. I dont believe anyone can make themselves believe to be true what they know is a lie either.

That takes too much faith. But, if you believe that, as crazy as i think it is, it dont make me hate you.

And you were shown to be wrong about the "known lie" claim.

 

[Quagmire]

If you have never seen the evidence that the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of

Jesus, then you have never read the bible and you are arguing out of sheer ignorance to the scriptures. ​

The bible only refers to the martyrdom of one of the apostles: James in Acts 12:2.

Anything else Christians have been taught about the deaths of the 12 is drawn from early church tradition.

 

[Jollybear]

You are not reading that properly. The stories supposedly come from witnesses is all that he claims. None of them appear to come from witnesses. And if you are going to rely on Luke what about the parts that he got rather ridiculously wrong?

Lets try this another way. I'll quote the passage again and blacken my questions near sections. Because for me i need this broken down in meticulous pieces.

Luke 1:1-4

"1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. (What does this line mean to you?) 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. (Whats this line mean?) 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, (whats this section of line mean?)I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."

And most of the material that Luke did not get from Mark he appears to have copied from another source that scholars label "Q". Only a small percentage of the book is original.

Theres no discovery of an actual Q manuscript. Its made up by SOME scholars. And luke said he was making his OWN account for theophilus. That would make it independent.

But hey, lets just assume he used a Q source. Ok, so, the Q source comes from the witnesses. How do you deal with that then?

Also you admit that at a minimum some of lukes account is original. Ok, so those parts that are original are thus independent, RIIIIGGHHHT?

 

[Jollybear]

The bible only refers to the martyrdom of one of the apostles: James in Acts 12:2.

Anything else Christians have been taught about the deaths of the 12 is drawn from early church tradition.

The bible refers to alot of persecution going on too. So, just because it dont mention everyones myrters dont mean a whole lot. To point it out is straining at straws.

The church fathers mention peter and pauls myrter, thats not just church tradition. The bible mentions stephens death and john the baptists death. Gospel of John predicts peters death. James son of zebadee death mentioned by church father and Josephus. Theres other sources too. Heres a article that cites them.

http://www.equip.org/article/apostles-really-die-martyrs-faith/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets try this another way. I'll quote the passage again and blacken my questions near sections. Because for me i need this broken down in meticulous pieces.

Luke 1:1-4

"1Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. (What does this line mean to you?) 2They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. (Whats this line mean?) 3Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, (whats this section of line mean?)I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."



Theres no discovery of an actual Q manuscript. Its made up by SOME scholars. And luke said he was making his OWN account for theophilus. That would make it independent.

But hey, lets just assume he used a Q source. Ok, so, the Q source comes from the witnesses. How do you deal with that then?

Also you admit that at a minimum some of lukes account is original. Ok, so those parts that are original are thus independent, RIIIIGGHHHT?

Are you really having a problem with reading comprehension? It is quite clear from the verses that the author of Luke want e that the stories started with eyewitnesses, but he does not claim to have talked with any. When one talks with an actual eyewitness one tends to say who you spoke wity. As you still won't let yourself under the concept of independence. This appears to be a massive case of cognitive dissonance on your part. Why does the truth scare you? Is your faith that weak?

Lastly you still have not explained how or why Luke lied, forgot it wrong if you prefer, but for once your favorite word may apply. This Is a case of where Luke was different from the other gospels, and what he claimed was clearly false.

 

[Jollybear]

Are you really having a problem with reading comprehension? It is quite clear from the verses that the author of Luke want e that the stories started with eyewitnesses, but he does not claim to have talked with any. When one talks with an actual eyewitness one tends to say who you spoke wity. As you still won't let yourself under the concept of independence. This appears to be a massive case of cognitive dissonance on your part. Why does the truth scare you? Is your faith that weak?

Lastly you still have not explained how or why Luke lied, forgot it wrong if you prefer, but for once your favorite word may apply. This Is a case of where Luke was different from the other gospels, and what he claimed was clearly false.

Ok, so, you admit the eyewitnesses had there own account and luke got it from them even if he did not talk with them?

And what did luke lie about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so, you admit the eyewitnesses had there own account and luke got it from them even if he did not talk with them?

No, the belief was that the stories came from eyewitnesses by the author of Luke. There are no eyewitness accounts. Do you understand the difference? One can believe all sorts of things based upon hearsay.

 

[Jollybear]

No, the belief was that the stories came from eyewitnesses by the author of Luke. There are no eyewitness accounts. Do you understand the difference? One can believe all sorts of things based upon hearsay.

Thats NOT what lukes claim is. His claim is that eyewitnesses handed down THERE account and many used the eyewitness acounts to write a narative, luke being one.

Luke even said he investigated it from its beginings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats NOT what lukes claim is. His claim is that eyewitnesses handed down THERE account and many used the eyewitness acounts to write a narative, luke being one.

Luke even said he investigated it from its beginings.

Those stories were handed down verbally. He sought to produce a written record. What both he and you do not seem to understand is that once stories are handed down they are no longer eyewitness testimony. They are only hearsay.

 

[Jollybear]

Those stories were handed down verbally. He sought to produce a written record. What both he and you do not seem to understand is that once stories are handed down they are no longer eyewitness testimony. They are only hearsay.

He did not say they wer handed down verbally.

He said the eye witness accounts wer already circulating and being used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He did not say they wer handed down verbally.

He said the eye witness accounts wer already circulating and being used.

That is rather clear when one reads the verses in context. At that time literacy was very low. And when one says that the "eyewitness accounts were circulating" that is an admission that they are no longer eyewitness accounts.

And you still have not dealt with the rather significant time that Luke was wrong.