Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

[John1.12]

The evidence for Jesus is not very strong at all. If you read and understood the Gospels you would know that they are not eyewitness testimony. They don't claim that. They were also written rather late. Paul was not an eyewitness. And claims of "visions" only make one question the sanity of the claimant.

1¶Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what the bible says .2 peter 1

16¶For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18And this voice which came from heaven we heard , when we were with him in the holy mount.

19¶We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

LOL! You just refuted yourself. It only claims that there were eyewitnesses, not that what is written is eyewitness testimony.

If Jack sees something and writes it down, that is eyewitness testimony. If Jack sees something and tells Bill who tells Dave and he writes it down that is not eyewitness testimony. There may have been an eyewitness, but that is hearsay and that is all that the Gospels are.

 

[John1.12]

The evidence for Jesus is not very strong at all. If you read and understood the Gospels you would know that they are not eyewitness testimony. They don't claim that. They were also written rather late. Paul was not an eyewitness. And claims of "visions" only make one question the sanity of the claimant.

20¶For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21¶Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection .

23¶And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok enlighten me then .

The one presupposition of science is that real events will at times leave real evidence. One can also conclude that massive events will leave massive evidence. That is why we know that there was no flood of Noah. There is no evidence of it.

 

[John1.12]

The evidence for Jesus is not very strong at all. If you read and understood the Gospels you would know that they are not eyewitness testimony. They don't claim that. They were also written rather late. Paul was not an eyewitness. And claims of "visions" only make one question the sanity of the claimant.

An eyewitness saying of other eyewitnesses ( we ) about Jesus .
1 John 1:1

“That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD which we have SEEN with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled , of the Word of life;”

 

[Subduction Zone]

20¶For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21¶Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection .

23¶And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Again, claims that there were witnesses, not actual eyewitness testimony. You continue to refute your own claims.

 

[John1.12]

LOL! You just refuted yourself. It only claims that there were eyewitnesses, not that what is written is eyewitness testimony.

If Jack sees something and writes it down, that is eyewitness testimony. If Jack sees something and tells Bill who tells Dave and he writes it down that is not eyewitness testimony. There may have been an eyewitness, but that is hearsay and that is all that the Gospels are.

? Peter wrote Peter .

 

[Subduction Zone]

An eyewitness saying of other eyewitnesses ( we ) about Jesus .
1 John 1:1

“That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD which we have SEEN with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled , of the Word of life;”

John the evangelist was probably not an eyewitness. People make claims.. That does not make them eyewitness..

Please note the poetic nature of this claim. Was he around "from the beginning"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

? Peter wrote Peter .

Hard to say.. Probably not Peter. The disciples were not educated men. Writing was not nearly as common of a skill then as it is today.

 

[John1.12]

The one presupposition of science is that real events will at times leave real evidence. One can also conclude that massive events will leave massive evidence. That is why we know that there was no flood of Noah. There is no evidence of it.

Aside from Billions of dead things, Buried in rock layers, Laid down by water, All over the earth ect Getting back to the death ,burial and resurrection which I asked for , what ' real ' evidence should be expected , given the narrative, date , place ect ?

 

[John1.12]

John the evangelist was probably not an eyewitness. People make claims.. That does not make them eyewitness..

No it says he was .

 

[John1.12]

Hard to say.. Probably not Peter. The disciples were not educated men. Writing was not nearly as common of a skill then as it is today.

So it doesn't really matter what it says does it? you'll keep coming back to your presupposition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it says he was .

Not really. See my edit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it doesn't really matter what it says does it? you'll keep coming back to your presupposition.

That real events leave real evidence? I am not using that here. I am relying on those that understand the Bible the best.

 

[John1.12]

Not really. See my edit.

Basically you don't trust the accounts . But your offering silly reasons for not trusting them . What's the issue with just accepting the accounts as written?

 

[John1.12]

That real events leave real evidence? I am not using that here. I am relying on those that understand the Bible the best.

I can see your relying on others.

 

[John1.12]

That real events leave real evidence? I am not using that here. I am relying on those that understand the Bible the best.

Real evidence? what does that even mean. ? For instance in the case of the DBR what is the ' real evidence ' that we should expect ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Basically you don't trust the accounts . But your offering silly reasons for not trusting them . What's the issue with just accepting the accounts as written?

Trust must be earned. When investigated they fail. And no, at best you do not understand why they are not accepted. You could on the other hand be being dishonest. I think it is kinder to assume that you lack understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see your relying on others.

Better than relying upon a book of myths. We all rely on others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Real evidence? what does that even mean. ? For instance in the case of the DBR what is the ' real evidence ' that we should expect ?

The "DBR"?