How to debunk the resurrection?...

[krazedkat]

You misunderstand the Word of God completely, and show it in your ignorant black and white view of the Bible right now.

I've gone through this before, and it never seems to sink in with anyone. The term 'inspired Word of God' does not mean that God put every single exact thought that went into the Bible into the respective author's heads. The term 'inspired Word of God' is said as such because the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the will of God and His nature that they observed around them- in real life. How do we know it isn't all just mythology? Because teh same things those men observed and wrote about in the Bible are evident in present time, there for us to observe and learn about. God is independent of the Bible, we don't absolutely need it, but it is a huge and incredibly accurate influence on us(by us I mean Christians.)

You're influence by a book that endorses slavery in exodus 21? odd

[Watson]

*facepalm* Oh, wow...way to completely ignore fucking everything I said...

[Minimalist]

You misunderstand the Word of God

Its just the word of men, lad.


Now go live your life and forget about ancient superstition.

[Watson]

That's the thing, Min. I am living my life, and enjoying the hell out of it, too. What the hell has atheism doen for you? How old are you? And you're still cynical, jaded, and angry at the world, cursing people out on an internet message board.

No, I wil lforget nothing. I like to remember everything I have learned, for everthing is important.

[DeistPaladin]

The term 'inspired Word of God' is said as such because the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the will of God and His nature that they observed around them- in real life. How do we know it isn't all just mythology? Because teh same things those men observed and wrote about in the Bible are evident in present time, there for us to observe and learn about.

One could say the same thing about Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Chinese or any other mythology. Cultural trappings change, technology advances but humans remain humans with similar experiences and challenges in life. There's no need to see a divine hand in it, unless you wish to say that God's influence is in every story we tell. If that is the case, we're back to "just another book" .

[theVOID]

And then you have to ask yourself, VOID; "what does it really mean to 'accept' Jesus?"

Lol why don't you tell me? you're the one who believes in fairy tales.

Last time I read Romans, which was a 30 minuets ago, it doesnt say anything like that. Paul, a Jew, telling people to not keep the law? Thats like say Obama is a muslim.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal 2:16 KJV)

[Godscreated]

[quote='Godschild' pid='93523' dateline='1284442544']
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

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?

Yes, letter writing was expensive and John would not have spent that much to condemn people for no good reason. No matter how expensive letter writting was it did not take long to write the letters. Two letters sent to two different groups of like believeing christians does not seem to be a wide spread problem, not saying it wasn't.

Yes there were different varieties of christianity and there were a number of sects trying to destroy christianity, mainly Jews, and this is who John was writting about. Many of the varieties your talking about were gentile not Jewish. Marcionite and Valentian came after John had died so he could not have responded to them. Docetic and Ebionite were Jewish cults that were claiming to be christian but were influenced by Oriental and Greek phylosophies or did not believe that Christ was divine. This is what John was warning the true christians about. I say true christians because John was teaching from first hand experience.

Many of these so called christians were born after Christ was on earth and many were not associated with Him or even knew who He was until after Pentecost and the preaching of Peter. Jesus ministry never covered a great distance and only three years so this would limit the numbers of people that knew of Him. Only about 500 people were able to see Him resurrected. I'm sure that like today, some then wanted notoriety more than they believed in Christ and some probably went as far as to use Christ name to push their own agenda, what better way than to use a growing and popular religion. Just because some would take advantage of christianity did not make it less true. Just as today those who look to mislead people pick on the weak minded so these cults would not have challenged John and those who actually knew Christ.

---

How is a empty tomb evidence of Christ [?]

On that point, we agree.

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.

---

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.

Please go back and read the first 7 verses of Matthew 28. If Mary was there when the angel rolled back the stone he would not have said, see He has risen, they would have seen Him exit the tomb. The angel said to them He has risen and is not here come and see this and the rest of the wording of the verses indicate that Mary had not arrived before the stone was rolled away. Also when the guards told their story they did not mention that Mary was present when the angel rolled away the stone.

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.

I see this verse and Matthew 28 in agreement about the stone, could not the angel they meet in the tomb have been in the tomb in Matthew 28.

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.

Again we have two more verses to confirm that the stone was rolled away before Mary arrived and the wording in Matthew 28 does not dispute these three verses. There are also two angels in this version of the resurrection. Yes the four versions do differ slightly and only slightly there is no contradiction of the resurrection, yes the number of angels in the stories differ and the order that things happened vary slightly but none of that can dispute the resurrection. When a traffic accident happens and wittnesses tell what they saw they vary some in their stories abit and when the report is read no one disputes there was an accident, they may dispute exactly how it happened but no dispute that it happened.

No contradictions?

Nothing that would dispute the resurrection of Christ and actually a small arrangement of each version is the most that can really be said.

PS: Have not read the Biblegateway thing yet but I will.

[Minimalist]

What the hell has atheism doen for you?

Freed me from your fucking god and the parasites who serve "him."

[leo-rcc]

What the hell has atheism doen for you?

Atheism hasn't done anything for me, and I don't need it to do anything for me. It doesn't "do" anything. Atheism isn't selling a world view, it just not buying what yours is selling.

[LastPoet]

Hmmm what has god done for you watson? You know, besides the cosy feeling of being a security blanket?

As for atheism, well, see this video to an answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7ZhBN6iIM