MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[abaris]

wow maybe i should read a little further before I post something that I've already been beaten to

Still true, though it applies more to professor's brand of crazy with it's end times porn.

[Jenny A]

So what? Who are we to tell a person when to write something? Regardless a damn WHEN he wrote it...what matters is the truth value in what he is saying...and no one can take someone's experiences away from them.

You're missing the point. You see the longer people wait to describe an event, the more likely they are to misremember it. But more importantly the bigger and more public an event, the greater the chance that someone will write about it sooner rather than later. Therefore, if no one records a major event contemporaneously, chances are much higher it didn't happen. Thus the "truth value" of the writing is highly dependent on when it was written.

Which he claims to know by supernatural means. It's not historical evidence.

My point was he knew about the STORY of the Resurrection from one of Jesus' right hand man, Peter. So if the Resurrection is a complete hoax, then the hoax would come from someone that would have known whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to him, which would be Peter.

Uh huh, he knew it 20 years later, second hand.

You continue to miss the point which is that Paul does not ever discuss the details of Jesus' life, and he is the first "witness." His testimony is based entirely on revelation.

How am I missing it when I responded directly to it?? As I said, if his purpose wasn't to write about Jesus' life, then of course he wouldn't write about Jesus' life. And also as mentioned, he didn't need to write about Jesus' life because we already have four Gospels which have taken that to task.

He predates the gospels, so Gospels have nothing to do with what Paul would write if he had actual knowledge as opposed to supernatural revelation.

Sorry if you're claiming he met Jesus in the flesh after Jesus' death, than we just have another incredible supernatural claim here.

Point? So what?

Claims of miraculous knowledge hurt rather than bolster the veracity of Paul.

And he tells them to live god-like lives without ever referring to what Jesus said about how people should live? Why not? Because he had no details of Jesus' life whatesoever.

First off, I disagree about the notion that Paul had no details about Jesus' life...he said he met with Peter, one of the ORIGINAL disciples and James brother of Jesus...and I doubt they were spending their time having beers and shooting pool. All were missionaries, and they would have been discussing those kinds of things...in fact, Paul probably got the creed from them during that time...where they would have had an extensive conversation where Paul was filled in with the details that Peter and James had first-hand knowledge of.

We really don't know which Paul he met with (Pickup's post above). And more importantly, he never mentions any of those hypothetical discussions of the life of Jesus.

Name some whose training is not theological. Good luck because the vast majority of them are Christian and the vast majority of those who aren't were when they got their biblical training in divinity school. And they say the are in the majority because recently, they have secular competitors who disagree.

Moving the goal posts...now the criterion is someone that doesn't have training in theology...but what you fail to realize is just because you have training in theology doesn't mean you have to grant that Jesus existed or his alleged Resurrection...you can be a Buddhist, train in theology, and still not believe that Jesus existed...hell, being a Christian theologian doesn't even necessarily mean that you are a Christian...it just means that theology is an area of interest for you..

So again, the fact that you think all of them are "thelogicians" says nothing towards the notion that they all believe in the historical Jesus because of the biases that comes with their training in theology...

It is yet another non sequitur coming from your direction.

The study of theology does not prepare one to analyze the veracity of historic documents. That's it. It would be very odd if the only people studying Jefferson were political philosophers. But that is essentially the position we are in with regard to the Bible up until recently. Recently, there have been questions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Laughing after saying stuff is not enough to establish truth. Or else Beavis and Butthead would be running science.

Pretty sure they've got their hands full with the Southern Baptist Convention, anyway.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, chanting victory makes up for being full of shit.

Of course... why else would we have Muslims shouting Allahu-akhbar right before painting the pavement with their intestines?

That is actually a fair question.

I'll go with "indoctrinated assholes" as my answer.

[abaris]

I'll go with "indoctrinated assholes" as my answer.

Well, look at professor looking forward to biblical end times. He's only jizzing over his keyboard so far, but you can see indoctrination right here on this very board. Pitiful creatures finding no pleasure or purpose in real life and lusting for sky daddy rushing to the rescue.

[robvalue]

Indoctrination is a sad thing to behold. Adults forever stuck in the mindset of a child who needs to be constantly told what to do by an authority figure. Needing things to be very simple and black and white to avoid having to think very hard about reality, or how to be a decent person.

[His_Majesty]

You're missing the point. You see the longer people wait to describe an event, the more likely they are to misremember it.

Bullshit.

1. I remember watching a documentary on the JFK assasination, and in the documentary, there was a host of witnesses of that day...and there was even a young fella (at the time) on there that testified to what he saw, since he was at the hospital when the vehicle that JFK was shot in pulled up, and he said he remember seeing pieces of brain matter inside the vehicle. This was over 50 years ago, and guess what, he remembered it.

2. Some of the survivors of the Jonestown mass suicide are still living today and have testified in documentaries on what it was like living in Jonestown...and this was over 30 years ago.

3. In 1994, I went on a trip to Seattle to spend Christmas with my uncle...and I remember the trip very vividly. That was over 20 years ago.

The conclusion is, yeah, as you said, you are less likely to remember certain things the longer time pass since the event...but you don't forget significant things...like seeing brain matter inside the car that someone was shot in...like what it was like living in Jonestown...and trips that are near and dear to your heart...you dont' forget the significant stuff...and you certainly wouldn't forget a Resurrection.

But more importantly the bigger and more public an event, the greater the chance that someone will write about it sooner rather than later.

The average person living at that time and in that region could not read or write, Jenny...which is why the word had spread based on word of mouth, and it continued to spread from there. The most damning defeater of your "someone would have written it down" is the fact that Christianity spread like a wildfire DESPITE no one writing it down at that particular time...it still spread, regardless, and now it is the world's largest religion by numbers of followers based no one "writing it down" when you felt they should have written it down.

So if you went back in time and you witnessed Jesus performing all of his miracles, (since you are currently living in a day where there is camcorders, audio recorders, televisions, social media, etc)...if you went back in time and after seeing Jesus perform miracles, noticing no one is writing stuff down yell out "Could someone please write this stuff down???"

Jesus would turn to you and say "Don't worry, Jenny, I got this". In other words, it wasn't/isn't needed.

Therefore, if no one records a major event contemporaneously, chances are much higher it didn't happen.

Or chances could be that it did happen, just no one wrote it down.

Thus the "truth value" of the writing is highly dependent on when it was written.

As long as it was written during the time of the eyewitnesses, thats all that matters.

Uh huh, he knew it 20 years later, second hand.

No, he WROTE it down 20 years later...big difference, Jenny. He received shortly after the cross, which mean that the belief in the Resurrection itself is early.

He predates the gospels, so Gospels have nothing to do with what Paul would write if he had actual knowledge as opposed to supernatural revelation.

If he is predating the Gospels, and in his narratives he is talking about a Resurrected Jesus...don't you find it odd that we have a guy talking about a Resurrected Jesus well before the Gospels, which are BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus, is talking about a Resurrected Jesus???

hmmmm

Claims of miraculous knowledge hurt rather than bolster the veracity of Paul.

He said that Jesus appeared to him post-mortem...now whether or not you believe it was a spirtiual vision, or an actually physical appearance is irrelevant...the point is, he made the claim...so either he was hallucinating, lying, or telling the truth.

We really don't know which Paul he met with (Pickup's post above).

Bullshit. He said he only met with Peter, not NONE OF THE OTHER APOSTLES ...so obviously he is talking about Peter, apostle of Jesus (Gal 1:18-24)..and unless you can point out a different apostle that was named PETER, then you are obviously moving the goal posts...Pickup's post will not be able to save you, dear...dodging clear and apparent implications only proves to me that I am winning.

And more importantly, he never mentions any of those hypothetical discussions of the life of Jesus.

Then I guess we are to conclude that he met Peter and they didn't discuss Jesus at all...in 15 days.

The study of theology does not prepare one to analyze the veracity of historic documents. That's it. It would be very odd if the only people studying Jefferson were political philosophers. But that is essentially the position we are in with regard to the Bible up until recently. Recently, there have been questions.

They are all historians in some fashion, Jenny.

[JonDarbyXIII]

You're missing the point. You see the longer people wait to describe an event, the more likely they are to misremember it.

Bullshit.

1. I remember watching a documentary on the JFK assasination, and in the documentary, there was a host of witnesses of that day...and there was even a young fella (at the time) on there that testified to what he saw, since he was at the hospital when the vehicle that JFK was shot in pulled up, and he said he remember seeing pieces of brain matter inside the vehicle. This was over 50 years ago, and guess what, he remembered it.

2. Some of the survivors of the Jonestown mass suicide are still living today and have testified in documentaries on what it was like living in Jonestown...and this was over 30 years ago.

3. In 1994, I went on a trip to Seattle to spend Christmas with my uncle...and I remember the trip very vividly. That was over 20 years ago.

Sorry, I have to interject on this one because it's something I cover specifically in my book: Jenny said misremember, not that they wouldn't remember it at all.

The example I've always used is the Oklahoma City Bombing. I remember sitting in my Biology class when we heard and felt the blast. I remember that when we were told a bomb had gone off downtown, someone asked whether it was downtown Oklahoma City or downtown in our suburb. I remember my exact response: “There’s no way it was Oklahoma City, you moron. Do you realize how big a bomb would have to be to feel it this far away?” (Even then, I was a smart ass and had a habit of putting my foot in my mouth.) I remember my best friend and I jumping into his car and heading downtown since we both had first aid training. (We were young and naïve, thinking we could help, never considering we would probably just get in the way.) I especially remember the screeching U-turn we made when we heard on the radio that investigators thought they might have found additional bombs in the rubble. This was the basis of the story as I retold it over the years, and not surprisingly, that is the extent of what I remember.

Looking back there is much more that I do not remember. I can’t for the life of me remember to whom I had made the sarcastic comment, though I seem to think I could narrow it down to a few specific people who I remember having been in that class. I have no idea if my friend and I simply left class in the ensuing chaos or if we told anyone what we were doing. I don’t even remember what I did after we turned around—I wouldn’t think I would have gone back to class, but I remember spending some time watching the news on a TV in another class-room. (Though actually, that might have been before we decided to try to go and volunteer. But again, I don’t remember.)

There are also details over which my friend and I have argued as the years have passed. I remember the class immediately coming to a standstill with the interruption. I remember someone sticking her head in to tell us what had happened. My friend, however, specifically remembers us only hearing the news after class had let out—specifically citing someone who had been upset that we hadn’t been informed earlier. Both of us have specific logical reasons that convince us that the events unfolded exactly as we remember them, and although these details don’t appear to be reconcilable, neither of us was ever willing to budge.

Then there are the details that I have crafted in my own mind. A few years after the fact, I couldn’t remember if we had been in Biology or Human Physiology. My friend said he was absolutely certain it had been Biology. Although I concur now, I’m not sure if it’s because I actually remember it or because his certainty convinced me and just made me think I remembered it. Likewise, the exact time of the blast is a matter of historical record, but in my mind, I tend to want to re-member my Biology class being earlier in the morning.

All the examples you gave are the same--I'm sure people remember those events, but I imagine that if pressed, there would be numerous discrepancies to actual occurences.

[Mudhammam]

We really don't know which Paul he met with (Pickup's post above).

Bullshit. He said he only met with Peter, not NONE OF THE OTHER APOSTLES ...so obviously he is talking about Peter, apostle of Jesus (Gal 1:18-24)..and unless you can point out a different apostle that was named PETER, then you are obviously moving the goal posts...Pickup's post will not be able to save you, dear...dodging clear and apparent implications only proves to me that I am winning.

You mean my posts that you failed to respond to? Let's see, you've convinced nobody of your FAITH (which, in fact, seems to amount to very little given your reliance on "arguments"), but you have convinced everybody who wasn't already emotionally invested in heavenly gain that we've been right all along: Christians often serve up the best argument against Christianity.

What else do you call winning?
That mainstream scholarship no longer believes in Christ? That creationism is now a cause worthy of laughter and derision even amongst the educated religious? That the origins of the Universe no longer require a grand magician hiding in a castle in the sky? If you call that winning, you're cognitive dissonance probably rivals that of Charlie Sheen when he was at the height of drug addiction. Question is, what's your excuse?

[Minimalist]

only proves to me that I am winning.

"Winning" would be convincing anyone that you aren't a flaming fucking asshole. From I can see, you are only cementing your position as a flaming fucking asshole.

I don't call that "winning." You are right where you were when you started.