The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 2)

[Monk Of Reason]

Umm, what?? What are you talking about "texts that were not first hand accounts"? The bottom line is, a second century bishop stated who wrote the BOOKS. That is the fact of the matter. You can disagree with what he said, but the fact of the matter is, he said it, and that is how we've come to know who wrote the Gospels...its not like 2,000 years later we just randomly pulled names out of a hat and whichever name we pulled, thats the name that had the pleasure of being attributed to the biographies of Jesus.

It still does not make them historians or credible for historical accounts.

Oh really? Name some then.

I"ll pull one from your book. In due time.

Dudeeee, excuse the language, but what the HELL are you talking about? This particular argument involves the authorship of the bible, and the source that I used was an external source!!!!!

You have some serious reading comprehension problems, Monk.

An external source from a Bishop of the church?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It still does not make them historians or credible for historical accounts.

The credibility comes from someone who was only 100 years removed from the events...not from people who exists 2,000 years later writing in popular journals or authoring popular books, or even on religious forums.

I"ll pull one from your book. In due time.

I can't wait.

An external source from a Bishop of the church?

I meant an external biblical source. He may have had something to do with the Church, but he didn't have anything to do with the Gospels.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The credibility comes from someone who was only 100 years removed from the events...not from people who exists 2,000 years later writing in popular journals or authoring popular books, or even on religious forums.

I'm not giving the credibility of the claim to someone 2000 years later. I am stating that they aren't credible sources for a historical claim. That is fact. In fact the biggest problem we have is that there are NO historically accredited individuals from the time frame involved that have vouched for anything in the bible except for vague references to someone who might be Jesus.

The lack of an opposing claimant to the gospels does NOT grant them any further credibility.

I can't wait.

Betcha can't. Are you aware of the discrepancy between Mark and Luke in regards to Joseph's lineage? Or that only Matt and Luke mention virgin birth while the other John and Mark do not? The last one I'll leave you with, and most troubling, is the conflicts in the date of Jesus's birth. Mark states it was during the reign of King Herod and Luke states that it was during the first census of Israel. Herod died in march of 4 BC and the first Census of Israel took place in 6 and 7 Ad.

I meant an external biblical source. He may have had something to do with the Church, but he didn't have anything to do with the Gospels.

Exactly. He had nothing to do with it. Though for purposes of stating the authorship of the gospels this hasn't been disputed to my knowledge so I don't know why you are defending it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm at work right now posting on my break so I don't have to time to explore these links now. But why does it matter if he was a former atheist? Does this somehow strengthen the argument somehow?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Former anythings often provide the the most valuable testimonies, because they believed with their whole hearts, whichever doctrine it is that they have overcome. They offer a unique perspective, that folks that currently hold their former beliefs, can more closely relate to. Whether former Muslim, former cult members, or former atheists.

I am a former Christian. So does that give my testimony more value than Call of the Wild's?

 

[Sapiens]

I am still waiting on you to make some kind of meaningful post related to any subject matter that is being discussed. It would seem that unless you are arguing in favor of dogs producing non-dogs, you really don't have anything of substance to say.

When you post something meaningful I'll be glad to, till then you've got us stalled in a case of garbage in, garbage out.

For the dog producing non-dog BS (no one ever even implied that) your answer is: CB910 and CB901.1.

 

[Sapiens]

As an individual, you are a 23 year old, that as I remember indicated you had read the Bible all you needed to by the age 19. The question is the reasonableness and persuasiveness of the argument that is brought to the table, on which count you really haven't made out so well. All you've basically exhibited is blind faith in unbelief.
Consider your testimony in comparison to the amount of education and years on the two guys I posted links to, when they were atheists. There is an outspoken self-proclaimed "former Christian", now agnostic, Bart Ehrman that a lot of Godless like to have investigate matters for them, and amusingly Muslims even trot him out without realizing that he doesn't deny the crucifixion of Christ because the historical evidence is just too compelling. There are good debates between Bart Ehrman and Lane Craig.

It may work a little different than atheists, because once a person is born again, they can't really become an ex. Those who believe themselves to be, may have only deluded themselves into believing, they had been born again.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

It does work for sects and cults. The best way to find formers is do a search like "former" or "ex" attached to particular Christian identities. You will find no shortage of ex or former Mormons, Jehovah's witness, SDA, Roman Catholics, Christian Science etc.. I haven't done the search in a while, but I didn't find much in that search for protestant denominations.

Woops!

"ex-born again" gives me only 87,000,000 hits.

"former born again" drops to 65,000,000

Here's a site for you: Testimonials of Ex-Christians: I once was a born-again Christian… :sorry1:

 

[fantome profane]

As an individual, you are a 23 year old, that as I remember indicated you had read the Bible all you needed to by the age 19. The question is the reasonableness and persuasiveness of the argument that is brought to the table, on which count you really haven't made out so well. All you've basically exhibited is blind faith in unbelief.

The question he asked you was is his testimony more valuable than Cotw because Monk is a former Christian. If you discount Monk's opinion because of his age, perhaps you should ask Cotw his age.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm not giving the credibility of the claim to someone 2000 years later. I am stating that they aren't credible sources for a historical claim.

That is fact. In fact the biggest problem we have is that there are NO historically accredited individuals from the time frame involved that have vouched for anything in the bible except for vague references to someone who might be Jesus.

So you tell me what qualifies a person to be a "accredited individual".

The lack of an opposing claimant to the gospels does NOT grant them any further credibility.

No, but the fact that it was the unanimous testimony of the early Church that the names attributed to the books were from the individuals whom we acknowledge as the authors til this day, that gives it credibility. They were closer to the scene that we are, so why should we not accept what they claimed, as if it is difficult to believe?

It is no wonder that some people are unbelievers, because they can't even get themselves to believe simple stuff, like "Peter's friend wrote a Gospel"...or "Paul's friend wrote a Gospel". If that is so difficult to believe or come to terms with, then of course something more extraordinary like a Resurrection would be even more difficult to believe. It is no wonder.

But that's ok though, because as Jesus said in Matt 7:13-14

13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Betcha can't. Are you aware of the discrepancy between Mark and Luke in regards to Joseph's lineage?

Yup. I have a question for you too: Are you aware of the responses and refutations that have been given in reply to these alleged discrepancies?

Or that only Matt and Luke mention virgin birth while the other John and Mark do not?

The failure to mention something does not imply a contradiction, it just implies a FAILURE TO MENTION.

The last one I'll leave you with, and most troubling, is the conflicts in the date of Jesus's birth. Mark states it was during the reign of King Herod and Luke states that it was during the first census of Israel. Herod died in march of 4 BC and the first Census of Israel took place in 6 and 7 Ad.

There have been responses to this as well. Look it up.

Exactly. He had nothing to do with it. Though for purposes of stating the authorship of the gospels this hasn't been disputed to my knowledge so I don't know why you are defending it.

Um, the authorship of the Gospels has always been disputed by skeptics..or don't you know this?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The question he asked you was is his testimony more valuable than Cotw because Monk is a former Christian. If you discount Monk's opinion because of his age, perhaps you should ask Cotw his age.

Keep Cotw's name out of it.

 

[Bunyip]

YouTube search for some good videos on the scriptures and historicity of Jesus by a former atheist Lee Strobel whose education was in journalism and law.

Short video on prophecy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gr4kn2tf_k

Full version The Case for Christ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikxb09pyZwM

More
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lee+strobel

Lee Strobel is a conman. He invented false evidences for his book 'The case for Christ', such as the ridiculous notion that microscopic letters were found on coins. He also famously exploited a sick and dying Anthony Flew by falsely claiming that he had accepted god.

If there were a good case for the historicity of Christ, Strobel would not have felt the need to invent fake 'evidence'.

 

[Bunyip]

Neither can any of those "scholars" that you that you personally named.

Sure. What is your point?

 

[Sapiens]

Pete, You gotta learn to read/watch some what more critically.


The Premier Webite for Debunking Lee Stroble's "Case for ..." Apologetic Series.

BTW: any comment on the hits I found for ex-born again and former born again? You could at least be honest enough to retract you erroneous statement. Remember, the truth will set you free.

 

[Sapiens]

First, there is no shortage of those deluded into believing they were "born again" because when a priest or pastor sprinkeld water on their heads as infants. The search I mentioned regarded denominations, but thank you for that search. Things are just as prophesied during this "falling away" or apostasy that has accelerated considerably over the last 50 years.
FALLING AWAY OR APOSTASY

Did you ever stop to wonder why only about 4% of the U.S. believe there is no God?

Not really, do you feel strength in numbers? Do you think might makes right? Do you believe that such questions are best answered by plebiscite? Do you know that the more educated you are the less likely you are to believe in the first place?

Do you know where that 4% figure comes from? Hint: it's dishonest. Just like your posts concerning ex and former. Remember Pete, it's your guy who tells you "the truth shall set you free."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sure. What is your point?

Apply that same line of reasoning to those scholars that you applied to me. That is my point.

 

[Bunyip]

Apply that same line of reasoning to those scholars that you applied to me. That is my point.

At least try to make sense.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As an individual, you are a 23 year old, that as I remember indicated you had read the Bible all you needed to by the age 19. The question is the reasonableness and persuasiveness of the argument that is brought to the table, on which count you really haven't made out so well. All you've basically exhibited is blind faith in unbelief.
Consider your testimony in comparison to the amount of education and years on the two guys I posted links to, when they were atheists. There is an outspoken self-proclaimed "former Christian", now agnostic, Bart Ehrman that a lot of Godless like to have investigate matters for them, and amusingly Muslims even trot him out without realizing that he doesn't deny the crucifixion of Christ because the historical evidence is just too compelling. There are good debates between Bart Ehrman and Lane Craig.

It may work a little different than atheists, because once a person is born again, they can't really become an ex. Those who believe themselves to be, may have only deluded themselves into believing, they had been born again.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

It does work for sects and cults. The best way to find formers is do a search like "former" or "ex" attached to particular Christian identities. You will find no shortage of ex or former Mormons, Jehovah's witness, SDA, Roman Catholics, Christian Science etc.. I haven't done the search in a while, but I didn't find much in that search for protestant denominations.

So as a former Christian It doesn't count because I'm too young? BTW I have a masters degree and I'm working on my PhD. I have years of study in nursing, finance, economics and physics. I also have had minors in humanities, history and philosophy. But yeah I"m just some clueless internet atheist who is incapable of formulating my own opinion.

I do not have blind faith in atheism via definition of my position (as an agnostic atheist. I have zero blind faith in anything). Should I just come back in 20 years after more life experience and then would you accept me as something more viable?

I can bring you FAR more educated men and women who were former Christians or Muslims that have now become atheists. I know a priest who have turned atheist in their 30's after years and years of study of the bible. They held congregations for nearly a decade before they passed over. What is your reaction to him?

 

[Ingledsva]

Umm, what?? What are you talking about "texts that were not first hand accounts"? The bottom line is, a second century bishop stated who wrote the BOOKS. That is the fact of the matter. You can disagree with what he said, but the fact of the matter is, he said it, and that is how we've come to know who wrote the Gospels...its not like 2,000 years later we just randomly pulled names out of a hat and whichever name we pulled, thats the name that had the pleasure of being attributed to the biographies of Jesus.



Oh really? Name some then.



Dudeeee, excuse the language, but what the HELL are you talking about? This particular argument involves the authorship of the bible, and the source that I used was an external source!!!!!

You have some serious reading comprehension problems, Monk.

A second Century "Bishop" would obviously be a biased source.


And what proof is there that he himself actually knows "who wrote the books."



*

 

[Sapiens]

What is your reaction to him?

Apostate! Burn him!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So you tell me what qualifies a person to be a "accredited individual".

Generally I mean someone or something that has been given historical verification for accuracy.

No, but the fact that it was the unanimous testimony of the early Church that the names attributed to the books were from the individuals whom we acknowledge as the authors til this day, that gives it credibility. They were closer to the scene that we are, so why should we not accept what they claimed, as if it is difficult to believe?

It is no wonder that some people are unbelievers, because they can't even get themselves to believe simple stuff, like "Peter's friend wrote a Gospel"...or "Paul's friend wrote a Gospel". If that is so difficult to believe or come to terms with, then of course something more extraordinary like a Resurrection would be even more difficult to believe. It is no wonder.

But that's ok though, because as Jesus said in Matt 7:13-14

13"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Why shouldn't we just take what they have to say as fact? Because I have no reason to. There is no compelling evidence to assume that the religious texts were historical. Why don't you accept what Muhammad says? Or buddah? The same reason you reject those claims is the same reason why I reject this one.

Yup. I have a question for you too: Are you aware of the responses and refutations that have been given in reply to these alleged discrepancies?

Haven't read anything satisfying.

The failure to mention something does not imply a contradiction, it just implies a FAILURE TO MENTION.

Seems kinda important. Or that the books written later chronologically included virgin birth but the first two did not seems a bit fishy.

There have been responses to this as well. Look it up.

Go look up the responses to the responses.

Um, the authorship of the Gospels has always been disputed by skeptics..or don't you know this?

I am aware. However I don't think I'm fully qualified to get into that debate. But for the sake of argument of your (hopefully final) point lets assume that the authors are who they say they are.