Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that you have to proclaim wild and unproven conspiracy theories proves that naturalism lacks any valid explanation.

People usually died on the cross, there is only 1 known case of someone who survived. The spear in the chest would confirm his death. The description of water and blood flowing out of his body indicates hypovolemic shock.

Why wouldn’t James witness the burial of his brother? Most brothers witness the burial of his brother. Or in any case why wouldn’t Mary the mother of Jesus tell James that Jesus didn’t die?

And as I said before, an injured nearly dead Christ would have not impressed anybody.

Really? Who survived being nailed to a tree?

And once again, James in his one epistle said nothing about the crucifixion. You have nothing that can be attributed to him on that story. All you have is Paul's claim that he saw him. But Paul has lost credibility. You are making the mythical Jesus look to be more and more likely the case.

 

[Desert Snake]

It happened, why not.
Better than worshipping demons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It happened, why not.
Better than worshipping demons.

What happened? And I don't think anyone is worshiping demons.

 

[Desert Snake]

What happened? And I don't think anyone is worshiping demons.

The Resurrection happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Resurrection happened.

No, that probably did not happen. That is what this thread is about. There do not appear to be any credible witnesses for it.

 

[Desert Snake]

And I don't think anyone is worshiping demons.

Not even demon worshippers? You clearly aren't familiar with Hell religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not even demon worshippers? You clearly aren't familiar with Hell religion.

There may be a handful of such people, but in reality no. For example most "Satanists" are merely atheists tweaking the noses of Christians.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, that probably did not happen. That is what this thread is about. There do not appear to be any credible witnesses for it.

The Christians are the witnesses, I guess it's subjective? I don't find you credible, note how that works?

 

[Desert Snake]

There may be a handful of such people, but in reality no. For example most "Satanists" are merely atheists tweaking the noses of Christians.

Oh, theres enough. And they are real. It's a real religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Christians are the witnesses, I guess it's subjective? I don't find you credible, note how that works?

They are very poor quality witnesses. By that standard almost any religion is "true".

 

[Desert Snake]

They are very poor quality witnesses. By that standard almost any religion is "true".

Sort of. But there is a reason, they said, either Jesus is using the power from Satan, or such. So, it was actually recognized, that this isn't a complete myth.



Power of satan, is wrong, too? There wasn't any time, from Resurrection, to belief, use your own reasoning.

 

[Jollybear]

It is pretty obvious that at least part of his story was false. I have seen countless Christians lie for their cause. People that think they have a cause go to extremes sometimes.

Countless? Name a example of a christian lying for a cause that you saw?

Of course he could have hallucinated the whole thing too. After watching the video do you find his story at least a bit on the dubious side?

Dubious side? Not yet sold on that. I dont believe paul is lying. It does make me curious how he was to capture them. Mayby the letters and the men with paul would be reinforcements.

And one thing that I just found. The translations of the Bible have changed a bit over the years. Sometimes the publishers do not like the obvious contradictions in the Bible. The reason that we disagreed about the contradictions between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 is that most newer translations "correct" the error. That is not the case with the Catholic Bible nor the King James version both of which preserve the contradiction.

Now wer touching on riders points. However, i dont believe the translators wer trying to correct or change anything. I think they wer trying to translate it honestly.

Im not a expert on languages, but, im aware that some languages are more simple then others. Some have lors of words with the same meaning.

And sometimes peoples vocabulary is low. So they could use the same word with a different INTENT.

In anycase, ill elaborate more below.

Conversion of Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

— Acts 9:7, King James Version (KJV)"

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

— Acts 22:9, King James Version (KJV)"

There, we have killed at least two birds with this post.

So, you contend that the contradiction, hence a fady memory from senile paul, was his companions heard a voice, and yet did not hear a voice. Ok....

You can hear a voice and yet not hear what the voice says.

To illustrate, ill go back to my murder witness.

When i saw the man and woman arguing, i heard there voices, faintly. Why faintly? Because 2 reasons, i was seeing it through a closed window in the house and second, they wer not yelling load enough. However, when the other guy butt in, i heard the words "stay out of it" very clear because he shouted it.

But, everything else, i heard the voices, but yet i did not hear the words of the voices.

To accuse paul of memory laps, youd have to know his INTENT.

You can use the same word with a different intended meaning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sort of. But there is a reason, they said, either Jesus is using the power from Satan, or such. So, it was actually recognized, that this isn't a complete myth.



Power of satan, is wrong, too? There wasn't any time, from Resurrection, to belief, use your own reasoning.

No, that is only what is written in the Bible. Not too much is said of him outside of that book.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, that is only what is written in the Bible. Not too much is said of him outside of that book.

Yep. Called a religion of faith...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Countless? Name a example of a christian lying for a cause that you saw?

Name a Christian apologist. I have not seen one pass some very basic honesty tests.

Dubious side? Not yet sold on that. I dont believe paul is lying. It does make me curious how he was to capture them. Mayby the letters and the men with paul would be reinforcements.

It appears that you may be overly gullible when it comes to your religion.

Now wer touching on riders points. However, i dont believe the translators wer trying to correct or change anything. I think they wer trying to translate it honestly.

Honest translation is to translate as it is written. Not as one wishes it to be written. Translating to eliminate contradictions is not honest. This is also an example of how believers can "lie" without knowing it. Technically a lie involves an intent to deceive. These self deluded people probably did not have such an intent, but it looks that way to everyone else.

Im not a expert on languages, but, im aware that some languages are more simple then others. Some have lors of words with the same meaning.

And sometimes peoples vocabulary is low. So they could use the same word with a different INTENT.

In anycase, ill elaborate more below.

And that may be the lame excuse that they use to excuse themselves, but that does not seem to be the case here. That is in the Wiki article that I linked.

So, you contend that the contradiction, hence a fady memory from senile paul, was his companions heard a voice, and yet did not hear a voice. Ok....

You can hear a voice and yet not hear what the voice says.

To illustrate, ill go back to my murder witness.

When i saw the man and woman arguing, i heard there voices, faintly. Why faintly? Because 2 reasons, i was seeing it through a closed window in the house and second, they wer not yelling load enough. However, when the other guy butt in, i heard the words "stay out of it" very clear because he shouted it.

But, everything else, i heard the voices, but yet i did not hear the words of the voices.

To accuse paul of memory laps, youd have to know his INTENT.

You can use the same word with a different intended meaning.

Or perhaps he could not remember all of the details on the story that he made up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep. Called a religion of faith...

So back to no credible witnesses. Also called believing what one wants to believe.

 

[lukethethird]

Anybody convinced of anything yet?

 

[Jollybear]

Name a Christian apologist. I have not seen one pass some very basic honesty tests.

Its funny, you called me dishonest and i was not. Dishonest is a false statement with intent to decieve. You said that. How do you know my intent?

It appears that you may be overly gullible when it comes to your religion.

The transpiration of this debate will reveal if im gullible or not as time goes by.

Honest translation is to translate as it is written. Not as one wishes it to be written. Translating to eliminate contradictions is not honest. This is also an example of how believers can "lie" without knowing it. Technically a lie involves an intent to deceive. These self deluded people probably did not have such an intent, but it looks that way to everyone else.

I agree that it has to be translated honestly and honesty isnt about what we wish truth to be.

However, i disagree that if they translated it dishonestly, that they would not KNOW IT. How could they not know if they did?

And that may be the lame excuse that they use to excuse themselves, but that does not seem to be the case here. That is in the Wiki article that I linked.

And the same wiki link you gave me made the same point i did about hearing a voice and understanding the voice. They made mention of the greek words and they can be honestly translated as hearing a voice and hearing a sound or not understanding the voice.

Even jesus said when teaching said "he who has ears, let him hear" and "you have ears but do not hear" meaning, hearing the sound, the voice, but not comprehending the words.

But, i think its more like how i heard a sound of arguing behind the window when i was witnessing a murder.

Or perhaps he could not remember all of the details on the story that he made up.

Usually people who have experiences in there life that change them or are significant chapters in there life, dont forget them. Plus, he met ananias, in person. They talked of there experience together. That would embed it in his memory even more.

Also id like to ask you again how jim jones compares to paul? Jim jones committed suicide and killed his followers too. Hardly like paul, would you say?

How was David like paul though?

Also heres a interesting article that quotes all the early relavent NONE christian and hostile sources pertaining to Jesus, his death and followers and the persecutions.

Just from those sources alone we can conclude Jesus existed, he claimed to be messiah, tought, percieved to have magic, and was killed under pilate, was burried, his followers claimed resurrection and persecutions followed.

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[RESOLUTION]

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.

'Surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating?' To have such evidence as the spread of this truth by the witnesses of that time is really denying the only proof we have of anything which has happened in history. We only know history by the written account and word of mouth of those who witnessed it. In the UK it is said that the Roman Soldiers whose legion were stationed at a place called 'Chester' wrote in their official records as being the legion the ones who put Christ to death. We know that Christianity spread because of men who can be traced back to that time travelling throughout the world to tell others. Do you know any man if lying would give the credit for the power they had to another? Would you spend the rest of your life professing a lie and being thrown in prison or put to death? This tells me that we cannot dismiss out of hand the things about life, death and resurrection of the one man called Jesus Christ.

 

[paarsurrey]

Would you apply the same level of skepticism in other historical claims regarding other individuals? Would you ask for a medical certificate before granting the death of any other individual from ancient history?

Everybody grants that Julio Cesar died stabbed, nobody would ask for a medical proof for his death.

Besides
They pierced his chest with a spear , if for any reason Jesus survived the crucifixion, the spear would have killed him.

NT Bible is not a history book. Jesus did not claim that NT Bible of Pauline Christianity is a history book. Did he, please?
It is more of a mythical book. Right, please?
Regards

 

[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?

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

Instead it proved that Jesus did not die. Blood and water gushed forth, which is a sign that Jesus had not died. Right, please?
Regards