The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[Trailblazer]

You have a story book. Nobody comes back from the dead.

Why would it even matter if they did come back from the dead? They are just going to die again.
Think about why the resurrection is so important to all these Christians.

 

[Spartan]

Why would it even matter if they did come back from the dead? They are just going to die again.
Think about why the resurrection is so important to all these Christians.

Every believer has a resurrection day coming unto ETERNAL LIFE in heaven. That's the message from Christ and the New Testament.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The burden of proof isn't on me. The historical accounts of the Gospels and epistles exist. I didn't make them up. Deal with them (IF YOU CAN).

You can't claim that they are "historical" until you have reliable evidence for that. All you have so far is circular reasoning.

 

[Spartan]

You can't claim that they are "historical" until you have reliable evidence for that. All you have so far is circular reasoning.

Nope. No evidence presented by you it's circular reasoning.

And besides your lack of evidence for that, where's the evidence for your sophomoric rant that the resurrection is a myth??? Do you ever back up your claims? Where's the beef?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's ANOTHER SKEPTIC'S CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP. Get with the program, SZ.

So you do not have any degrees in theology. Any real theologian knows that both Matthew and Luke copied huge sections of Mark:

How Editorial Fatigue Shows That Matthew and Luke Copied Mark

Did Matthew Copy from Mark?

Marcan priority - Wikipedia

An actual theologian would have known this just as a mathematician would have known that the general derivative of sin(x) is cos(x) no "evidence" would be necessary. I did not mean to insult you with the obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. No evidence presented by you it's circular reasoning.

And besides your lack of evidence for that, where's the evidence for your sophomoric rant that the resurrection is a myth??? Do you ever back up your claims? Where's the beef?

Wrong, try again. You do not even understand the claim. You really should never have brought up that "formal education" crack. You keep demonstrating that it is not I that is lacking in education.

 

[Spartan]

Wrong, try again. You do not even understand the claim. You really should never have brought up that "formal education" crack. You keep demonstrating that it is not I that is lacking in education.

Once again, you fail in backing up your rants.

 

[Spartan]

So you do not have any degrees in theology.

Got two of them to zero for you.

Any real theologian knows that both Matthew and Luke copied huge sections of Mark:

How Editorial Fatigue Shows That Matthew and Luke Copied Mark

Did Matthew Copy from Mark?

Marcan priority - Wikipedia

An actual theologian would have known this just as a mathematician would have known that the general derivative of sin(x) is cos(x) no "evidence" would be necessary. I did not mean to insult you with the obvious.

That's just more bs. The "Q" Source? Really? Do you ever read or study the nonsense you post?

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

And by the way, there's ZERO manuscript evidence for Q. It's just another one of your "no evidence" hypotheticals!

There's simpler explanations than having to posit your mythical Q. One is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14, John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. That's one of the primary sources skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

So Q is not even necessary.

So get a new dog to trot around the arena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, you fail in backing up your rants.

Dude you are projecting like crazy. Have you seen some of your posts? All they are are rants.

 

[Trailblazer]

Every believer has a resurrection day coming unto ETERNAL LIFE in heaven. That's the message from Christ and the New Testament.

Every believer has a resurrection day coming unto ETERNAL LIFE in heaven. That's the message from Christ and the New Testament.

The resurrection to heaven is not of the elemental body, it is of the spirit. Man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit. That was the teaching of Jesus.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life.
Heaven and Hell, p. 351

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got two of them to zero for you.



That's just more bs. The "Q" Source? Really? Do you ever read or study the nonsense you post?

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

And by the way, there's ZERO manuscript evidence for Q. It's just another one of your "no evidence" hypotheticals!

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14, John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

So get a new dog to trot around the arena.

LOL!! You did not read or understand the sources. I did not even mention Q. Yes there appears to be another source for Matthew and Luke and "Q" is just German for source. That is all. You appear to be relying on loons instead of scholars. And your third source supported my claim, that Matthew and Luke copied Mark.

This is the problem when you only rant and do not reason. You also have made the error of thinking that the names of the Gospels are those of its authors. The vast majority of scholars recognize that fact that all of the Gospels are anonymous and probably were not written by the people whose names have been attached to them.

A theologian would have known this too.

 

[QuestioningMind]

FIRST, how do you know they're unverified claims if you haven't read the books?

Cat got your tongue?

As for evidence, see Post #98

Darn, that's strike TWO! I gave you ANOTHER chance to point out the VERIFIABLE evidence in those books and AGAIN you failed to do so. How sad.

What you DID provide was post #98 that contains garbage such as THIS:

The three truths are:

• The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
• Jesus’ disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
• As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

So tell me, HOW many women were in this group? WHO were these supposed women... names and ages please. WHAT evidence do you have that these nameless numberless women were telling the truth and didn't just make it up for attention?

As for experiences these followers' had... again, WHO were they? WHAT are their names? HOW have you determined that these nameless people told the truth? HOW do you know that who they 'believed' to be Christ actually was?

The only TRUTH listed here is that as a result of their preaching the Christian church grew. But of course the same can be said about Joseph Smith... the preaching of his followers resulted in the growth of the Mormon church. It's also true that the followers of L. Ron Hubbard is what caused the grown of the Church of Scientology. In fact, it's true for every single made up religion... including yours.

 

[Spartan]

Darn, that's strike TWO! I gave you ANOTHER chance to point out the VERIFIABLE evidence in those books and AGAIN you failed to do so. How sad.

What you DID provide was post #98 that contains garbage such as THIS:

The three truths are:

• The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
• Jesus’ disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
• As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.

So tell me, HOW many women were in this group? WHO were these supposed women... names and ages please. WHAT evidence do you have that these nameless numberless women were telling the truth and didn't just make it up for attention?

As for experiences these followers' had... again, WHO were they? WHAT are their names? HOW have you determined that these nameless people told the truth? HOW do you know that who they 'believed' to be Christ actually was?

The only TRUTH listed here is that as a result of their preaching the Christian church grew. But of course the same can be said about Joseph Smith... the preaching of his followers resulted in the growth of the Mormon church. It's also true that the followers of L. Ron Hubbard is what caused the grown of the Church of Scientology. In fact, it's true for every single made up religion... including yours.

If you want to know the answers to these questions then DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Read the Gospels, etc. like anyone well versed on the issues has had to do. Don't be lazy. You obviously haven't done any research on these issues.

 

[Spartan]

LOL!! You did not read or understand the sources. I did not even mention Q.

Your article did. You didn't read your own article? Why am I not surprised. From the first link in your previous post:

"A problem remains, however, with material contained in both Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark — the so-called “double tradition”. The most widely held explanation here is the two-source theory, which states that Luke and Matthew were based on a lost collection of material called Q (from German Quelle, or “Source”) in addition to Mark."

This is the problem when you only rant and do not reason. You also have made the error of thinking that the names of the Gospels are those of its authors. The vast majority of scholars recognize that fact that all of the Gospels are anonymous and probably were not written by the people whose names have been attached to them.

That's nonsense. That's yet another wild claim you can't substantiate. Where's your polling and evidence for that claim?? From my experience, it's rare for a conservative scholar to have that viewpoint. That leaves your liberal shills who often screw up a wet dream.

There's also any number of early church fathers who confirm the authorship of the traditional Gospel authors.

A theologian would have known this too.

They know the early church fathers confirmed the traditional Gospel authors.

 

[Spartan]

The resurrection to heaven is not of the elemental body, it is of the spirit. Man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit. That was the teaching of Jesus.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life.
Heaven and Hell, p. 351

No problem. I never argued that mere mortals would have a physical resurrection to heaven. But Jesus' resurrection was physical, as evidenced in his charge to Thomas to stick his hand in his wounds.

 

[oldbadger]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Countless times skeptics of Christianity in these fora have been challenged to 'bust' (falsify) the resurrection as it is presented in the New Testament, etc. Every time they've been challenged they run from it, or come up with some shallow argument which they never fully defend. Or they run to Genesis for cover. At no time that I can recall has anyone ever busted the resurrection, although the skeptics love to present wall-to-wall THEORIES on what might have otherwise occurred. They LOVE their theories and unfounded claims. But so far they have no credible evidence to substantiate those theories.

If anyone presents an argument that a (the) resurrection violates the laws of nature / physics, then they must present replicated and peer-approved scientific studies demonstrating that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

This thread is about the resurrection of Christ as seen in the Bible / Gospels / New Testament and early extra-biblical writings. Skeptics are invited to try to falsify it, using scriptural and/or historical arguments, etc. And if they can't bust the resurrection, they should strongly reconsider their contrary opinions on the matter.

Skeptics, let's see your bad-boy arguments, and do please endeavor to come up with some EVIDENCE to back up your arguments, and not just pontificate one theory after another!

Oh dear! This old chestnut.

There was no resurrection.

The only gospel which could be presented as evidence of about Jesus's last week did not (originally) even make mention of a resurrection.

The resurrection is simply 'spin'.

 

[Nimos]

The burden of proof isn't on me. The historical accounts of the Gospels and epistles exist. I didn't make them up. Deal with them (IF YOU CAN).

Just because they exists doesn't make their content true, that requires a claim. We know that the Lords of the rings exists, that doesn't mean that Mordor is a real place either or do you think that all the other ancient religions speaking of Gods, are true as well?

 

[JJ50]

No problem. I never argued that mere mortals would have a physical resurrection to heaven. But Jesus' resurrection was physical, as evidenced in his charge to Thomas to stick his hand in his wounds.

NOT EVIDENCE!!!!

 

[Spartan]

Just because they exists doesn't make their content true, that requires a claim. We know that the Lords of the rings exists, that doesn't mean that Mordor is a real place either or do you think that all the other ancient religions speaking of Gods, are true as well?

OK, then I respectfully refer you to a great deal of evidences about Jesus, etc., in the following works.

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

“The Case for Miracles,” by Lee Strobel

 

[Spartan]

NOT EVIDENCE!!!!

Flush.