U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2018, 07:21 PM
 
19,148 posts, read 14,780,068 times
Reputation: 6663

Advertisements

I'm putting this in the Religion forum because it is a reply to a thread on the Christianity forum that was closed because it was deemed inappropriate for that forum. The name of the thread which was submitted by a new user is called, ''Jesus' Resurrection is a legend that grew over time.'' Since I had already gone to the trouble of refuting the claim but the thread was closed by the time I tried to submit it, I decided to post the reply here.

And since it is here on the religion forum, I will add for the people here that whether you believe what the Bible says about the resurrection to be true or not is not the issue. My statements here specifically address the argument made in the now closed thread - Jesus' physical resurrection is a legend that grew over time

I am arguing only for the fact that the Gospels present a physical resurrection rather than a 'spiritual' non-bodily resurrection. It's not my intention to get into a debate on the veracity of the Scriptures. My reply to that poster follows.


Your theory has a number of holes in it and is quite easily deconstructed.

First, your claim that Paul was the only first hand account is simply not true. Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared to the other apostles and then to over 500 people before appearing to him.

Furthermore, while the Gospel of John is dated to AD. c 95, the text says quite clearly that John was written by an eyewitness of Jesus. In John 21:20-24 it is seen that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved. Now whether it is argued that the disciple whom Jesus loved is the apostle John or someone else, what is pertinent is the fact that stated within the text of the Gospel of John is that the Gospel was written by one of Jesus' close disciples and therefore an eyewitness. And it is stated quite clearly by this eyewitness of Jesus that the tomb was empty and that the linens He had been buried in, as well as the face cloth were still in the tomb minus Jesus' body (John 20:6-7). It is further stated by this eyewitness that Mary Magdalene clung to Jesus clung to the risen Jesus (John 20:17) This argues for a physical resurrection.

Secondly, your argument depends on late dating the synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke. While a firm date cannot be placed on when the synoptics were written, a very good case can be made that they were written by the early AD 60's, which if that is the case, means they were written while Paul was still alive. What is the evidence for an early dating of the synoptics? Whether Matthew or Mark was written first, it is agreed by scholars, as well as by the early church, that the Gospel of Luke was written afterward. But the book of Acts which was written by the same writer who wrote Luke wrote Acts after writing Luke. And the book of Act leaves out some historical details which Luke quite probably would have mentioned if they had occurred before he wrote Acts. In Acts, the death's of Stephen and James the brother of John are mentioned. However, the deaths of Peter and Paul which occurred during the mid AD. 60's during the Neronian persecutions are not mentioned. Neither is the Neronian persecution itself mentioned, or the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD. 70. The silence concerning these events, while not conclusive proof for an early dating of Acts and therefore for the synoptic gospels which were written before Acts, does provide good support that the synoptics were written by the early 60's at the latest.

It is also to be noted that Paul appears to have quoted from the Gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes two separate statements, one from the Old Testament, and one from what is recorded only in Luke 10:7 and nowhere else in the Scriptures, either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament.
1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
The first part of Paul's statement is a quote of Deuteronomy 25:4.
Deuteronomy 25:4 "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
The second part of Paul's statement is a quote that appears to be of a statement that appears only in Luke 10:7.
Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.
In the Greek the wording is the same for both passages. Luke adds only the word 'γὰρ' which simply means 'for,' 'indeed.'

1 Timothy 5:8 Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ

Luke 10:7 ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ

If indeed Paul is quoting Luke 10:7 then of course this would require that Luke be written before Paul wrote 1 Timothy. And yes, I did say, ''if.''

Third, you acknowledged that Mark introduces the empty tomb which lends no strength to your argument that Jesus' resurrection was not physical. The fact that Mark doesn't go on to record any post resurrection appearances does not negate the fact that he said the tomb was empty.

In summary, since it cannot be proven that the synoptic gospels were written in, to use the dates that you gave, Mark c. 70 CE; Matthew c. 80 CE;Luke 85-95 CE, but that as was shown, a strong argument can be made for an early dating in the early 60's, and since the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness as stated within the text, and since the Gospels speak of Jesus' resurrection as being physical, your argument that the physical resurrection of Jesus was a legend that grew over time simply cannot be dogmatically defended.

There's also the fact that the Jews thought of resurrection in terms of a physical resurrection rather than in some kind of spiritual resurrection.

As a matter of fact, that Jesus was resurrected in any form is a tradition that goes back to the beginning of the church age and is therefore not even dependent upon the Gospel accounts. Scholars well know that Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is what is called a pre-Pauline creed or tradition which Paul received soon after his conversion. He passed on that creed to the Corinthians. The resurrection of Jesus was declared from the beginning of the church. Not a legend that grew with time.
Gary Habermas on the Pre-Pauline Creed of 1 Cor. 15

Corinthians 15:3-7 is widely recognized by New Testament scholars as a statement of belief (creed) that was systematized long before Paul quoted it. If so, it represents the earliest historical account of Jesus’ resurrection, and goes back to the eyewitnesses themselves. Gary Habermas comments on the very early date of this creed, which even skeptical scholars acknowledge.

Do critical scholars agree on the date of this pre-Pauline creed? Even radical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann think that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion . . . no later than three years after the death of Jesus.” Similarly, Michael Goulder contends that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection appearances “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”

An increasing number of exceptionally influential scholars have very recently concluded that at least the teaching of the resurrection, and perhaps even the specific formulation of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dates to AD 30! In other words, there never was a time when the message of Jesus’ resurrection was not an integral part of the earliest apostolic proclamation. No less a scholar than James D. G. Dunn even states regarding this crucial text: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”

https://greatcloud.wordpress.com/201...d-of-1-cor-15/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2018, 08:18 PM
 
31,555 posts, read 7,264,974 times
Reputation: 4471
You and I have discussed this before (though you may not recall it) and before then I did a critique of the lane Craig argument for the resurrection, and discussed it since with some class 1 apologists like Eusebius and Pneuma.

So I'll give myself a break frankly and see how the others do. But No, I don't believe the gospel account are true or even that they do other than mutually debunk each other.

If they WERE true, then a Plot to get Jesus off the cross alive (probably with Pilate's connivance) is inevitable. And the claim that the Disciples believe it does not stand up - you may recall that an idea of a spiritual resurrection in fact fits what the NT says better than a physical one, and the claims that the disciples would not die for a lie - apart from them dying for a spiritually resurrected Jesus is as probable as dying for a solid -body resurrection - is based on Gospel claims (Acts) and early church traditions.

And that's as much as I'll say right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2018, 08:26 PM
 
19,148 posts, read 14,780,068 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You and I have discussed this before (though you may not recall it) and before then I did a critique of the lane Craig argument for the resurrection, and discussed it since with some class 1 apologists like Eusebius and Pneuma.

So I'll give myself a break frankly and see how the others do. But No, I don't believe the gospel account are true or even that they do other than mutually debunk each other.

If they WERE true, then a Plot to get Jesus off the cross alive (probably with Pilate's connivance) is inevitable. And the claim that the Disciples believe it does not stand up - you may recall that an idea of a spiritual resurrection in fact fits what the NT says better than a physical one, and the claims that the disciples would not die for a lie - apart from them dying for a spiritually resurrected Jesus is as probable as dying for a solid -body resurrection - is based on Gospel claims (Acts) and early church traditions.

And that's as much as I'll say right now.
Same old, same old. Your opinions are your own. I said that I'm not going to argue about whether the Gospel accounts are true. I'm arguing on this thread in response to a now closed thread only that based on the Gospels, Jesus' resurrection was physical, not a non-bodily spiritual resurrection.

You, Tiredofthenonsense, and Rafius are simply going to repeat your same objections, and I'm not going to waste my time bothering with you people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2018, 09:08 PM
 
34 posts, read 8,749 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
First, your claim that Paul was the only first hand account is simply not true.
Oh really? What other source do you have that is written in first person and says the "risen Jesus appeared to me"?

Quote:
Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared to the other apostles and then to over 500 people before appearing to him.
He uses the word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This word is the aorist passive form of the word ὁράω (horao). Notice how this word doesn't necessarily mean physical eyesight.

horáō – properly, see, *often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).*

So by Paul saying that Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη to the 500 or the Twelve he could just mean that a group of people had a mass ecstatic worship experience like people have in church today. This type of religious experience doesn't necessarily rely on sensory perception.

Quote:
Furthermore, while the Gospel of John is dated to AD. c 95, the text says quite clearly that John was written by an eyewitness of Jesus.
Most scholars reject traditional authorship. The highly sophisticated Greek was unlikely to come from an Aramaic speaking fisherman who, according to Acts, was illiterate. The high Christology seems to be from a much later time period because the synoptics didn't mention anything like John does. Also, there's an anachronism in John where Christians are said to have been kicked out of the synagogues. This didn't actually happen until after 85 CE.


Quote:
Secondly, your argument depends on late dating the synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Nope. It's scholarly consensus dating which means most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree with me. Even if you disagree with this the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the story still remain.

Quote:
It is also to be noted that Paul appears to have quoted from the Gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes two separate statements, one from the Old Testament, and one from what is recorded only in Luke 10:7 and nowhere else in the Scriptures, either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament........If indeed Paul is quoting Luke 10:7 then of course this would require that Luke be written before Paul wrote 1 Timothy. And yes, I did say, ''if.''
Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. It's pseudopigraphical. How do you know the author of Luke wasn't quoting 1 Timothy or they just shared the same source?

Quote:
Third, you acknowledged that Mark introduces the empty tomb which lends no strength to your argument that Jesus' resurrection was not physical. The fact that Mark doesn't go on to record any post resurrection appearances does not negate the fact that he said the tomb was empty.
Mark comes AFTER Paul and there's no appearance report. You don't get the first appearance report until Matthew c. 80 CE. This is consistent with legendary growth.

Quote:
There's also the fact that the Jews thought of resurrection in terms of a physical resurrection rather than in some kind of spiritual resurrection.
Jewish resurrection belief was diverse and we don't have that many sources that even mention it. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty because the sources we do have allow much more room for interpretation than that. Some even seem to exclude the physical body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12, 1 Cor 15:40-46.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2018, 11:30 PM
 
19,148 posts, read 14,780,068 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnowMoreThanYou View Post
Oh really? What other source do you have that is written in first person and says the "risen Jesus appeared to me"?
I already told you that the Gospel of John states that it is written by the disciple whom Jesus loves which makes him an eyewitness to Jesus' and to the fact that he was resurrected.


Quote:
He uses the word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This word is the aorist passive form of the word ὁράω (horao). Notice how this word doesn't necessarily mean physical eyesight.

horáō – properly, see, *often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).*

So by Paul saying that Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη to the 500 or the Twelve he could just mean that a group of people had a mass ecstatic worship experience like people have in church today. This type of religious experience doesn't necessarily rely on sensory perception.
You're making an illogical assumption that because the word ὤφθη doesn't ''necessarily'' mean physical eyesight that it doesn't mean physical eyesight here. Your argument also ignores the fact that Paul was physically blinded by the light that appeared to him and indicates that the light which not only he saw, but that the men who were with him saw, was a physical light.

Quote:
Most scholars reject traditional authorship. The highly sophisticated Greek was unlikely to come from an Aramaic speaking fisherman who, according to Acts, was illiterate. The high Christology seems to be from a much later time period because the synoptics didn't mention anything like John does. Also, there's an anachronism in John where Christians are said to have been kicked out of the synagogues. This didn't actually happen until after 85 CE.
Irrelevant. As I said, regardless of whether the disciple whom Jesus loved was John or another person, the fact of the matter is that the disciple whom Jesus loved was an eye witness to Jesus and to his resurrection.



Quote:
Nope. It's scholarly consensus dating which means most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree with me. Even if you disagree with this the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the story still remain.
While most scholars favor the high end of the dating range, the point is that not all scholars agree, and there is a range from AD 55 to AD 70 for the writing of the synoptics. As D. A. Carson points out in 'An Introduction to the New Testament' in his introduction to Matthew;
''Most scholars today hold that Matthew borrowed from Mark. Dates for Mark commonly vary from A.D. 55 to 70 with opinions generally favoring the high end.''

An Introduction to The New Testament, p. 152.
Carson also points out that the reasons for giving a late date for the synoptics rely on disputed judgments.
''The modern consensus approaches that limit; most hold that Matthew was written during the period A.D. 80-100. Yet most of the reasons advanced in defense of this date depend on a network of disputed judgments.]'' [Bolding mine]

An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 152.
And I have already stated reasons that provide evidence for an early dating of the synoptics to the early 60's.

Quote:
Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. It's pseudopigraphical. How do you know the author of Luke wasn't quoting 1 Timothy or they just shared the same source?
Paul wrote all of the epistles which bear his name. The early church did not accept known pseudopigraphical writings into the canon and rejected books that were found to be pseudopigraphical. An example of this is found in the Muratorian Canon;
3. As to the epistles34 of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Oid Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object35 in these;-which it is needful for us to discuss severally,36 as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey. [Bolded mine]

Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)


Quote:

Mark comes AFTER Paul and there's no appearance report. You don't get the first appearance report until Matthew c. 80 CE. This is consistent with legendary growth.
You're simply repeating an assumption about Mark coming after Paul that cannot be proven. Again, I've already provided the reason why a good case can be made for an early dating of the synoptic gospels.

Quote:
Jewish resurrection belief was diverse and we don't have that many sources that even mention it. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty because the sources we do have allow much more room for interpretation than that. Some even seem to exclude the physical body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12, 1 Cor 15:40-46.
Jubilees 23:31 simply says,
And their bones shall rest in the earth,
And their spirits shall have much joy,
And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment,
And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him

Jubilees 23
All that is saying is that the body goes into the ground. The spirit survives the death of the body which will at some point be resurrected and the spirit will return to the body. No need to infer a non-physical spiritual resurrection from that passage.

Neither does 1 Enoch demand a non-physical resurrection. I Enoch 103:3 says;
3The spirits of you who die in righteousness shall exist and rejoice. Their spirits shall exult; and their remembrance shall be before the face of the Mighty One from generation to generation. Nor shall they now fear disgrace.

The Book of Enoch, Chapters 61-105
This too merely states that the spirit lives on after the death of the body. Resurrection is not being referred to here.

However, 2 Maccabees 7:9-14 speaks quite clearly of a physical resurrection. The third brother who is about to have his tongue and hands cut off states that he hopes to receive them again in the resurrection.
[9] And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou like a fury takest us out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.
[10] After him was the third made a mocking stock: and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soon, holding forth his hands manfully.
[11] And said courageously, These I had from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I hope to receive them again.
[12] Insomuch that the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the young man's courage, for that he nothing regarded the pains.
[13] Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner.
[14] So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.

2 Maccabees


And you ignore the fact that the Gospel of John was written by an eye witness of Jesus' life and of his resurrection and that he presented Jesus' resurrection as physical. Mary Magdalene clung to the body of the risen Jesus (John 20:17). And John goes out of his way to show that Jesus' resurrected body was physical by stating that Jesus told Thomas to put his finger in his side (John 20:27).

Do you understand? The writer of the Gospel of John was with Jesus and saw the risen Jesus and he shows that Jesus' resurrection was physical. The fact that the Gospel of John was written around AD. 95 is irrelevant. The writer was an eyewitness as stated in John 21:20-24, and that blows your argument right out of the water. Your argument simply does not hold up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2018, 12:27 AM
 
34 posts, read 8,749 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I already told you that the Gospel of John states that it is written by the disciple whom Jesus loves which makes him an eyewitness to Jesus' and to the fact that he was resurrected.
John is not an eyewitness account and it's dated to after 90 for the reasons I mentioned above. Most scholars disagree with your naive assertion.

Quote:
You're making an illogical assumption that because the word ὤφθη doesn't ''necessarily'' mean physical eyesight that it doesn't mean physical eyesight here.
The appearance to Paul was a "vision" which he does not distinguish in nature from the "appearances" to the others nor does he give any evidence of anything more "physical." Therefore, the onus is on you to provide evidence that these were physical encounters instead of spiritual ones.

Quote:
Your argument also ignores the fact that Paul was physically blinded by the light that appeared to him and indicates that the light which not only he saw, but that the men who were with him saw, was a physical light.
How does a bright light support a physical resurrection? It's explicitly called a "vision from heaven" which Paul himself refers to as an "inner revelation" - Gal. 1:12-16.

Quote:
While most scholars favor the high end of the dating range, the point is that not all scholars agree, and there is a range from AD 55 to AD 70 for the writing of the synoptics.
Since this is a historical discussion then the scholarly consensus is what matters here. This is not a debate about the dates of the gospels.

Quote:
Paul wrote all of the epistles which bear his name.
Wrong. He wrote seven of them. Again, scholarly consensus. Catch up to modern biblical studies.

Quote:
You're simply repeating an assumption about Mark coming after Paul that cannot be proven.
Irenaeus says that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul's deaths and that would have been sometime in the mid 60's CE. Paul wrote in the 50's. Again, most scholars date Mark around 70 CE. We would expect a mention of the empty tomb from Paul since he was trying to prove to the Corinthians that there was a resurrection and explain "with what type of body do they come" - 1 Cor 15:35. Mentioning the empty tomb or something like "Jesus was touched" would have certainly helped his argument!

Quote:
Jubilees 23:31 simply says,[indent]And their bones shall rest in the earth,
And their spirits shall have much joy,
And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment,
And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him

All that is saying is that the body goes into the ground. The spirit survives the death of the body which will at some point be resurrected and the spirit will return to the body. No need to infer a non-physical spiritual resurrection from that passage.
Where is the part where it says that the "spirit will return to the body then the body will rise out of the grave"? I think you're just reading that in.

Quote:
Neither does 1 Enoch demand a non-physical resurrection. I Enoch 103:3 says;[indent]3The spirits of you who die in righteousness shall exist and rejoice. Their spirits shall exult; and their remembrance shall be before the face of the Mighty One from generation to generation. Nor shall they now fear disgrace.

This too merely states that the spirit lives on after the death of the body. Resurrection is not being referred to here.
Some experts disagree. George Nickelsburg argues:

“Nowhere do these chapters indicate that their authors anticipated a resurrection of the body and hence that they constructed the human being as a totality of body and soul. It is the soul [...] that receives reward and punishment [...] For this author eschatological blessing and curse will be granted to the soul or spirit and not the body” 1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36, 81-108; pgs. 519, 523.

"The Epistle of Enoch predicts resurrection at the end of history; elsewhere however it asserts future vindication of the righteous in terms that do not suggest the bodily resurrection but the transformation of the spirit after death (103-104). The reward of the righteous is to share the eternal, spiritual life of the angels in heaven. This is not the Greek idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the body. Rather it is the resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest in the earth." - J.J Collins, Judaism in Late Antiquity pg. 124

Quote:
However, 2 Maccabees 7:9-14 speaks quite clearly of a physical resurrection. The third brother who is about to have his tongue and hands cut off states that he hopes to receive them again in the resurrection.
The resurrection in 2 Macc is a resurrection to heaven where the martyrs receive a new body. 2 Macc 2:21 says that the "appearances came from heaven" so it can be inferred that the martyrs live in their new body in heaven. So while the author has the martyr "hope" to receive them again it's never explicitly stated that these people received physical earthly bodies.

Last edited by KnowMoreThanYou; 01-14-2018 at 12:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2018, 12:46 AM
 
19,148 posts, read 14,780,068 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnowMoreThanYou View Post
John is not an eyewitness account and it's dated to after 90 for the reasons I mentioned above. Most scholars disagree with your naive assertion.
John 21:20-24 says that he was an eyewitness. And that blows your argument completely out of the water. But just go on barking 'Nuh uh.' We're done here since you've now admitted that you believe that Christianity is false. That was your agenda which you should have stated from the beginning. You'll just go on denying anything that's said, just as you've been doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2018, 01:26 AM
 
Location: US
24,609 posts, read 12,894,427 times
Reputation: 1460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
John 21:20-24 says that he was an eyewitness. And that blows your argument completely out of the water. But just go on barking 'Nuh uh.' We're done here since you've now admitted that you believe that Christianity is false. That was your agenda which you should have stated from the beginning. You'll just go on denying anything that's said, just as you've been doing.
It was written by the beloved disciple...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2018, 03:11 AM
 
7,610 posts, read 6,303,535 times
Reputation: 1292
Then the fact that the gift of the comforter Holy Spirit who came a Pentecost in the upper room from Acts 2 who Never have happened if Jesus never died on the cross of Calvary , because God would not have a judgment for believers ....... So with out Jesus who gave His life for many transgressors to be saved , Christianity would of never have developed .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2018, 09:07 AM
 
34 posts, read 8,749 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
John 21:20-24 says that he was an eyewitness. And that blows your argument completely out of the water. But just go on barking 'Nuh uh.' We're done here since you've now admitted that you believe that Christianity is false. That was your agenda which you should have stated from the beginning. You'll just go on denying anything that's said, just as you've been doing.
John 21 was a later addition and I already quoted the Christian scholar Raymond Brown who says most scholars don't believe John actually wrote the gospel. If the author of John was an actual eyewitness then why did he compose his whole gospel in omniscient third person story mode like an author creating fiction would do? It doesn't even read like an eyewitness account.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top