RE: How to debunk the resurrection?...
September 14, 2010 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2010 at 2:55 pm by DeistPaladin.)
(September 14, 2010 at 1:35 am)Godschild Wrote: You should re-read what I stated, the words "in the flesh" that I bolded are not in the passages at that particular place in the passages. Do you think I would state something so carelessly.
Someone needs to tell Biblegateway the mistakes they've made then. Just one example:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV
Quote:These three short letters are not what I would call a great amount of time, I would and do say they are of great love for his fellow believers.
Letter writing was an expensive process at that time. That two of his three cannonical epistles condemn these Christians who believed in a non-physical Jesus (possibly the Docetics) is an indication that this was a widespread problem.
These letters correlate what we know of the real history of Christianity. There was not, as Christians like to think, a unified faith. There was a wild variety of Christianities at that time (Marcionite, Docetic, Ebionite, Valentian, etc.). That's why the Council of Nicaea in 325 to sort all this out was even necessary.
My original point in bringing up these verses is to ask, if this was written by someone who knew Jesus, it was written within the lifetimes of others who would have known him. That being the case, why was it such a controversy that Jesus existed in the flesh and was born to a family? Why did John condemn them, invoking the language of faith instead of pointing to an obvious historical reality that others would remember?
Quote:How is a empty tomb evidence of Christ [?]
On that point, we agree.
Quote:Now you are being entirely unreasonable, many people say they rise in the morning before the sun is up, as a matter of fact my grandmother called 4:30 AM morning when I was a teen, to me as most teens it was still the middle of the night. I think you understand what I'm saying here.
OK, fine, I'll let it go.
Quote:I do not see where this passage says that Mary was present when the stone was rolled away. The angel was setting there waiting for Mary to arrive.
The very previous verse that I'd already quoted to you said otherwise.
...I'll have to finish this later. I have to run...
In Matthew, Mary arrived, an angel rolled away the rock and announced the resurrection. Mary ran back to tell the disciples and met them and Jesus.
In Mark, Mary saw the stone had already been rolled away and a single angel (man in white?) met them inside, not outside, the tomb.
In Luke, Mary saw the stone had already been rolled away, they entered the tomb, saw no body, then saw two angels and then ran back to tell the disciples who didn't believe them. Jesus makes a later appearance, first on the road to Emmaus.
In John, Mary arrived when it was "yet dark" (fine, let that go), found the stone already moved, ran back to meet the disciples without seeing any angel or angels. Simon, Peter and John go to investigate and find the clothes and empty tomb. Mary stood outside weeping. Two angels in the tomb ask why she's crying. Then Jesus appears to her right there. He then later appears to 10 of the disciples but not Thomas. Then we have the "doubting Thomas" story.
No contradictions?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
