Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

[ElishaElijah]

Nope.Projection. Making false claims about others is breaking the Ninth Commandment.

Can you reason rationally?

Are you living in sin? Yes. Can you comprehend or hear God, no. Romans 1 explains your problem and consequences for rejecting the Truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

' it appears ' ? Not if you accept what was written as it was written .

You mean the non-eyewitness accounts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you living in sin? Yes. Can you comprehend or hear God, no. Romans 1 explains your problem and consequences for rejecting the Truth.

Nope. If anyone is you are. And you cannot comprehend or hear God either.

You have to do better than this.

 

[John1.12]

LOL!! That is a terrible fail on your part. Biblical scholars have studied and dated the Gospels. There is no indication at all that they are eyewitness accounts. You claimed that there were eyewitness accounts. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

None of the Gospels even claim to be eyewitness accounts. How did you ever conclude that they were?

You have bought into the lies of your church.

Why do you need the scholars who have variations of the dates ,which are all over the place. I accept with in reason the dates given that actually in line with the narrative. And not the dates that make no sense given the narrative. No carbon dating needed .

 

[John1.12]

LOL!! That is a terrible fail on your part. Biblical scholars have studied and dated the Gospels. There is no indication at all that they are eyewitness accounts. You claimed that there were eyewitness accounts. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

None of the Gospels even claim to be eyewitness accounts. How did you ever conclude that they were?

You have bought into the lies of your church.

I'm talking about the bible , stay focused .

 

[Windwalker]

And that’s why you can’t comprehend or hear God, you have given yourself over to your sin and have a depraved mind.

You sound like those who said Jesus had a devil because he challenged their ideas. At least there is precedent for you to defend yourself with here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you need the scholars who have variations of the dates ,which are all over the place. I accept with in reason the dates given that actually in line with the narrative. And not the dates that make no sense given the narrative. No carbon dating needed .

There are no dates to the Gospels. The dates that scholars have are supported by evidence. Your dates are supported by hopeful wishes. You are not relying on reason, you are relying on emotion.

That is why I often ask if people can debate rationally. No emotion. No appeals to a God that probably does not exist, especially the evil version of God in the Old Testament. That is a self defeating argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm talking about the bible , stay focused .

I am focused. You claimed eyewitness accounts and could not produce any.

I tell you what, we know that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. Let's start with Mark's Gospel, the first written one, and go over why his version of the resurrection is made up.

 

[John1.12]

I am focused. You claimed eyewitness accounts and could not produce any.

I tell you what, we know that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. Let's start with Mark's Gospel, the first written one, and go over why his version of the resurrection is made up.

From the narrative? Great, which verse ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the narrative? Great, which verse ?

You mean fairy tale.

I tell you what, let's not use loaded terms.

You might want to read this. It is an article by a scholar that understands both the history and the languages of that time:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16366

I hope that you are aware that Mark originally ended at Mark 16 8. Here are the verses that I am referring to:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16:1-8 - New International Version

 

[John1.12]

You mean fairy tale.

I tell you what, let's not use loaded terms.

You might want to read this. It is an article by a scholar that understands both the history and the languages of that time:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier

I hope that you are aware that Mark originally ended at Mark 16 8. Here are the verses that I am referring to:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16:1-8 - New International Version

Richard Carrier lol . I've watched his debates ,the guy is a crack pot lol .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Richard Carrier lol . I've watched his debates ,the guy is a crack pot lol .

Why?

Unlike the apologists that you probably rely on he can support his claims with facts. You probably do not like him merely because he can support his claims. And you need to read the article. This is not his original claim. He expands on the work of another.

But just out of curiosity, why is he a crackpot?

Crackpots tend to avoid peer review since it quickly exposes them. Carrier embraces it. He is no afraid to put his ideas to the test. Where and when did any of your sources do the same?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you do not like Carrier here is a link to the article that he expanded upon. Peer reviewed, you cannot read the whole thing there, but you could ask the author. He appears to be willing to share:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Resurrection_of_Jesus_A_Response_to_NT_Wright

EDIT: A quote from the article:

“The earliest evidence for the empty tomb has no genuine eyewitness support (in contrast to the resurrection appearances) and Mk 16.8 suggests that the story was not well known. The first resurrection appearances are more likely to be visionary experiences interpreted as a bodily raised figure, which meant that the early accounts of Paul and Mark could assume an empty tomb even if historically this was not the case.”

 

[John1.12]

Why?

Unlike the apologists that you probably rely on he can support his claims with facts. You probably do not like him merely because he can support his claims. And you need to read the article. This is not his original claim. He expands on the work of another.

But just out of curiosity, why is he a crackpot?

Crackpots tend to avoid peer review since it quickly exposes them. Carrier embraces it. He is no afraid to put his ideas to the test. Where and when did any of your sources do the same?

Wow you really are dependent on men aren't you ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow you really are dependent on men aren't you ?

So are you. The Bible was written by men.

You appear to be dependent upon make believe. What makes that valid?

 

[John1.12]

Since you do not like Carrier here is a link to the article that he expanded upon. Peer reviewed, you cannot read the whole thing there, but you could ask the author. He appears to be willing to share:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Resurrection_of_Jesus_A_Response_to_NT_Wright

EDIT: A quote from the article:

“The earliest evidence for the empty tomb has no genuine eyewitness support (in contrast to the resurrection appearances) and Mk 16.8 suggests that the story was not well known. The first resurrection appearances are more likely to be visionary experiences interpreted as a bodily raised figure, which meant that the early accounts of Paul and Mark could assume an empty tomb even if historically this was not the case.”

Why would I need to read that ? We've got the bible at hand. Do you need your hand holding all the time ? Can you read ?

 

[John1.12]

So are you. The Bible was written by men.

You appear to be dependent upon make believe. What makes that valid?

yes but let's deal with those men and not men 2000 years later telling you what to believe, or rather giving you the crutch in order to 'academically 'have an excuse to reject the bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would I need to read that ? We've got the bible at hand. Do you need your hand holding all the time ? Can you read ?

Because you do not appear to fully understand the Bible. You need to understand the times and places that it was written in to fully understand the book. A person is apt to put a false interpretation on the book if they ignore time and place.

 

[John1.12]

Because you do not appear to fully understand the Bible. You need to understand the times and places that it was written in to fully understand the book. A person is apt to put a false interpretation on the book if they ignore time and place.

Yes and that information is contained within the bible my friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes but let's deal with those men and not men 2000 years later telling you what to believe, or rather giving you the crutch in order to 'academically 'have an excuse to reject the bible.

Let's drop the false accusations.

Try again.