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 07-04-2019, 04:09 AM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
So in the debates on YouTube I have watched over the years (and I have watch at least 40 debates on the Resurrection) one item stands out coming from the apologists to bolster faith in Jesus' resurrection: the so-called "Earliest credal statement in Christianity":

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Now this one passage in verse 4 intrigued me. I am pretty familiar with the Bible as a former Christian and I don't ever recall reading anything about Jesus being predicted to rise the 3rd day in the Old Testament. So after years of wondering about this on and off I finally decided to wise up and google it. And what do you think Paul is referring to when he says "according to the scriptures"? Now I should preface the answer with this: All Christians take this "creed' seriously as being definitely dated back to at least 3 years after Jesus' resurrection. Why? Because all the apologists keep hammering this point home. Case in point:

"However, a wide range of scholars believes the earliest Christian creed was formulated and taught less than five years after the death and Resurrection."

So when Paul says, "that he was raised on the third day according to the [Old Testament] Scriptures" which verse(es) is Paul referring to? Well, actually it turns out to be a verse NOT about Jesus but about the Hebrews, and by extension in Paul's universe, all who believe in Jesus. The verse is none other than Hosea 6:1-2

1. "Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. 2. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

So that's it. The verse doesn't refer to Jesus, or the Messiah, or to anything having to do with Jesus' resurrection. It's basically just Hosea saying that yahweh will restore his people after three days. And just because the number three is mentioned in the verse and because Paul believed Jesus rose after three days Paul ties this Hosea verse to Jesus' resurrection. THAT'S IT!!!!

Occasionally, an apologist will throw out Jesus' own reference to Jonas being in the belly of the whale for three days as proof Jesus rose on the third day but again, the Old Testament Jonas chapter has nothing whatsoever to do with a Messiah figure rising from the dead. More apologetic claptrap.

This is part and parcel of all the lies that Christianity is founded on. This verse is no more proof of Jesus' resurrection than Julius Caesar's tome, The Gallic Wars.
I guess the word that I focused in on is "deceived". if people believe it, is it deceiving? i wonder why people believe this stuff these days. thats true enough for me.

people are leaving Christianity thrill. maybe because many Christians are not deceiving people. They are telling them what they know to be real. They tell others, its start striking a cord with themselves, and then they themselves leave the religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-04-2019, 04:17 AM
 
10,523 posts, read 12,733,337 times
Reputation: 3864
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
No, it isn't Christianity is the stumbling -block, it is lack of Christian credibility that is the stumbling -block.

it isn't made more credible by mis-presenting Paul (his stumbling-block is the Cross (1) and then Pretending that this fiddling makes Paul reliable. You are not doing Paul, Christianity nor yourself any favours with such attempts to fool people. You are only helping Atheism.

(1) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23).
Credibility? You, a mere creature dares to question the Creator? You are like the clay pot questioning the potter.

You spend countless hours, day after day, year after year, debating the mistakes in a 2000 year old written text. But you fail to see that these mere creatures who wrote the documents were trying to explain something that happened, and to explain something of the power of God.

Fortunately anyone of any intelligence, or of humble mind, can understand the reality that God is powerful and can do wonderful things. The fact that there are mistakes in a text that is telling us exactly what we already know intuitively, accounts for nothing.

The texts could be 90% full of errors and it would not do anything to discount what people understand already in their hearts and minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 04:50 AM
Status: "Scarface IS fiction!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
5,037 posts, read 936,220 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
The biblical and Christian "history" that gets bandied about on these threads is really quite comical. The self-congratulatory confidence of some posters here, who actually have no idea what they are talking about, is even more comical. Right, watch some YouTube videos and read some Wikipedia articles and sign yourself up to debate William Lane Craig. Let us know how that works out. He entertains questions at virtually every public appearance. Confront him with your vast knowledge (and be sure to bring a wet towel to wipe the egg off your face). For that matter, you can submit challenging questions directly to him on his Reasonable Faith website.

Biblical and Christian scholarship is vast and serious. YouTube videos, Wikipedia articles and inane discussions on internet boards aren't the stuff of which it is made.

For those who don't know, some of Paul's letters are the earliest documents in the NT with the possible exception of the letter of James. We can date with considerable accuracy Paul's conversion, his visits to Jerusalem and other key events. This is why scholars know that the parts of hymns and creeds that Paul quotes date to the very earliest days of Christianity.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

The essential fact for Paul was the reality of the resurrection as a historical event. He had confirmed this with eyewitnesses, including Peter and James. He explicitly states that many of the eyewitnesses were still living when 1 Corinthians was written, about 20 years after the event (it is not the earliest of Paul's letters). Sending this letter to Corinth for circulation throughout the area would have been ridiculous if what Paul was saying could have been easily contradicted: "What are you talking about? This isn't what Peter, James and the other apostles claim. There is no one living who claims to have seen the risen Jesus." In fact, the most elderly of the eyewitnesses were still alive when Trajan became emperor in 98 AD.

The essential fact for the early Christians was that the resurrection had occurred, not that it was "according to the [OT] Scriptures" Jesus himself analogized his death and resurrection to the story of Jonah, so there would scarcely have been any concern about OT references other than this. (Explicit resurrection typology is also found in Psalm 16: "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.")

Jesus and virtually everything he said and did, including his death and resurrection, completely confounded the Jews. He was not at all the conquering warrior Messiah they had anticipated, which is why they rejected him. After his resurrection, there was indeed almost a mania among Jewish Christians to find references to him in the OT in order to convince their fellow Jews. Some of what they "found" seems bizarre today, but finding double meaning in obscure biblical passages was an accepted Jewish practice. There was also extensive rabbinic midrash, some of which referred to a dying Messiah.

In short, the fact that the OT contains no explicit reference to the Messiah rising after three days is neither startling nor significant. What is significant is that only the historical reality of the resurrection explains the complete transformation of the dispirited Christian community a few days after the crucifixion.
Get a BIG cloth, you will have a lot of wiping after I have had my mid day meal. In fact call an ambulance, you are going to get traveled over by a convoy of egg carrying trucks.

Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 07-04-2019 at 04:50 AM.. Reason: Speeling mistake corrected ;)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 04:53 AM
Status: "Scarface IS fiction!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
5,037 posts, read 936,220 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Estimates of the Christian population during the first three centuries are extremely inexact. See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...-does-it-take/ and https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...st-christians/. (Prof. Larry Hurtado is one of the premier scholars of early Christianity.)

Given the Roman persecution of both Christians and Jews in the decades after Jesus' death, the survival of Christianity is quite miraculous. I don't suggest this was constant intense persecution, because some emperors were more tolerant than others, but at no time prior to 150 CE was being a Christian a popular or risk-free activity.

Prof. Jenkins' estimates for the period 40 CE to 350 CE are startling, https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.org...ul%2C2011.pdf:
TABLE 3.1. Growth in Number of Christians, 40 CE to 350 CE

Year Number of Converts

40 CE 1,000
50 CE 1,400
100 CE 7,400
109 CE 10,000
150 CE 40,000
178 CE 100,000
200 CE 210,000
246 CE 1,000,000
250 CE 1,100,000
300 CE 6,000,000
315 CE 10,000,000
350 CE 32,000,000
We can debate the meaning of "spreading like wildfire," but under the circumstances I believe it is a conservative description of the above figures. Remember, Prof. Jenkins' estimates are the "scholarly guesses" to which Prof. Hurtado refers. I at least don't have the sense from Acts and Paul's letters that the Christian community in 40 CE and 50 CE was quite as small as Prof. Jenkins suggests, but as I say the mere survival during this period is miraculous. Since you are a fan of Prof. Jenkins and the growth of Christianity, you should be interested in his book The Coming Global Christianity.
Except the claims of persecution are all probably 2nd century AD inventions or later. There is NO evidence the Christians were persecuted, and the evidence from Pliny the Younger is that the Romans did not even know who the Christians were in 110 AD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 05:55 AM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Except the claims of persecution are all probably 2nd century AD inventions or later. There is NO evidence the Christians were persecuted, and the evidence from Pliny the Younger is that the Romans did not even know who the Christians were in 110 AD.
lmao. and the holocaust and moon landings faked too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 07:48 AM
Status: "Scarface IS fiction!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
5,037 posts, read 936,220 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
lmao. and the holocaust and moon landings faked too.
We have so much evidence for the holocaust and moon landings that only idiots and the deluded deny them. But we DO have evidence that most of the history of the church was invented from the second century AD onwards. So either present the evidence I and expert historians are wrong or stop making very stupid attacks with something you are ignorant of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 08:48 AM
 
11,234 posts, read 11,256,867 times
Reputation: 3445
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
You and I have butted heads before, Nerfball. I establish facts and you run away like a kid terrified of the schoolyard bully. From your tone I'll assume you're middle-aged to senior. As such I'd expect you talk with a little decorum and not throw hash around like a few Christians in here who know absolutely nothing of what they're talking about.

People here know my stance and what I'd expect WL Craig to answer for:

I know quite a bit about what I'm talking about and I've demonstrated it before in numerous thread. As a former Christian I have been on both sides as opposed to you who only has the fluff your church pastor (who only has a degree in theology out of a box of cornflakes) spews at you every Sunday and which you eagerly lap up like a....well, lapdog and then spew back at us. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

I've watched every debate on YouTube idiot Craig has posted and I hear the same tired old 4 lines of "proof" for the resurrection he throws out to the audience each time. Start at minute 3:00 of the video below if you need to familiarize yourself with them. Educate yourself:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-yIVXj_RWU



The guy should just put on a tape of his last debate and use it as his opening statement for successive debates because it never changes. And NO ONE has questioned him on the most logical fallacy he's using to underpin his anemic argument: he automatically assumes there's a God in order to support his contentions that a God could raise Jesus from the dead--not that God might or might not do it, but that God COULD do it. Well, if God can create our universe which by the latest estimates is 94 BILLION light years x 94 BILLION light years and the trillions of galaxies contained therein I'm sure God COULD raise a dead man. The question is WOULD HE BOTHER TO?

Idiot Craig hasn't a single line of proof outside the Bible. Ask him to produce something written to within 50 years of Jesus--outside the epistles which are questionable at best far as unbiased authentic properly dated sources, and total frauds written in the 2nd century by anonymous Christian shills at worst--Craig couldn't produce a single line of testimony from contemporary historians testifying to Jesus, the apostles or Paul! Why? Because nobody of note in the first 95 years of the 1st century wrote a single word about Jesus, the apostles or Peter and Paul! How do you like them apples?????

So let's dispense with Craig as a serious historian and label him for what he really is: a crackpot armchair philosopher who's sold his brain to Jesus.

Far as the rest of your diatribe it's too full of errors, bias and flat-out nonsense to address in its entirety, but I'd be happy to take any specific points you care to throw at me and I'll give you a good spanking and send you to bed without a cookie when I reply.

Well, as I predicted, nerfball just posted and ran. No doubt terrified of that "spanking" I'd give him if he responded, but more terrified he'd be sent to bed without a cookie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 09:17 AM
Status: "Scarface IS fiction!" (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
5,037 posts, read 936,220 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
The biblical and Christian "history" that gets bandied about on these threads is really quite comical. The self-congratulatory confidence of some posters here, who actually have no idea what they are talking about, is even more comical.
I have dealt with this one before, but like all good Christians, you just ignore answers you do not like. So once again, can you read the NT in it's original Koine Greek? Have you read the early Christian fathers up to and including Eusebius? Do you have the ability to determine if plagiarism has occurred? And have you read actual, relevant historians instead of just the usual apologetics? If not, you are in no position to claim how good the history here is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Right, watch some YouTube videos and read some Wikipedia articles and sign yourself up to debate William Lane Craig. Let us know how that works out. He entertains questions at virtually every public appearance. Confront him with your vast knowledge (and be sure to bring a wet towel to wipe the egg off your face). For that matter, you can submit challenging questions directly to him on his Reasonable Faith website.
You do not get to attack others for doing bad history and then use WLC, who is NOT a historian, and is known for ignoring evidence he does not like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Biblical and Christian scholarship is vast and serious. YouTube videos, Wikipedia articles and inane discussions on internet boards aren't the stuff of which it is made.
Neither are biblical and Christian scholarship the stuff of which it is made when done by apologists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
For those who don't know, some of Paul's letters are the earliest documents in the NT with the possible exception of the letter of James. We can date with considerable accuracy Paul's conversion, his visits to Jerusalem and other key events. This is why scholars know that the parts of hymns and creeds that Paul quotes date to the very earliest days of Christianity.
Yes, we also know Paul says Jesus is an angel, and that he never definitely mentions a historical Jesus. Hebrews is also pre 70 AD, and only talks about a heavenly, divine Jesus revealed in the OT, who's one and only sacrifice took place in heaven, and that (arguably) he never, ever was on earth.

And scholars do NOT know if the creeds and hymns are that early, because there is also the danger of interpolations or corrections. And we know Paul's letters have been doctored and rearranged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

The essential fact for Paul was the reality of the resurrection as a historical event.
Yet nowhere does he mention it as a historical event. He never tells us where this resurrection took place, only that it was revealed in scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
He had confirmed this with eyewitnesses, including Peter and James. He explicitly states that many of the eyewitnesses were still living when 1 Corinthians was written, about 20 years after the event (it is not the earliest of Paul's letters).
There are no eyewitnesses in the passage you quoted. What IS in the passage (if you know the Greek) is that they all had visions (opthe) of the risen Jesus. And note that not once does Paul say anyone saw Jesus (in a vision or otherwise) until AFTER his resurrection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Sending this letter to Corinth for circulation throughout the area would have been ridiculous if what Paul was saying could have been easily contradicted: "What are you talking about? This isn't what Peter, James and the other apostles claim. There is no one living who claims to have seen the risen Jesus."
Which is ridiculous. How would anyone in Corinth know what Peter, James and the other apostles claimed. They could not send an email, could they, and travel was both limited and expensive. So why would they go and confirm what Paul said was the truth or not?

And Paul tells us he WAS contradicted, although he does not tell us by whom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
In fact, the most elderly of the eyewitnesses were still alive when Trajan became emperor in 98 AD.
More apologetics. The average life expectancy of an adult was just under 50 years of age. So to argue that several people lived to be around 100, and that they all knew John is statistically unlikely. And we know the early Christians had no problem inventing things (95% of the works we have are rejected by Christians as bogus), which makes the long lived links between John and the Christians in 150 AD extremely unlikely. Even more damaging, Tertullian in 200 AD tells us the gospel according to John ended at chapter 20. So apparently John was still writing chapter 21, even though he had been dead for 100 years. Literal ghost writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
The essential fact for the early Christians was that the resurrection had occurred, not that it was "according to the [OT] Scriptures"
No, the essential fact is they only ever talk about the resurrection as revealed in the OT, or as seen in visions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Jesus himself analogized his death and resurrection to the story of Jonah, so there would scarcely have been any concern about OT references other than this. (Explicit resurrection typology is also found in Psalm 16: "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.")
Yes, in the later, fictional gospels that were in part invented out of the OT. And we have no direct evidence for these gospels until around 150 AD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
Jesus and virtually everything he said and did, including his death and resurrection, completely confounded the Jews. He was not at all the conquering warrior Messiah they had anticipated, which is why they rejected him. After his resurrection, there was indeed almost a mania among Jewish Christians to find references to him in the OT in order to convince their fellow Jews. Some of what they "found" seems bizarre today, but finding double meaning in obscure biblical passages was an accepted Jewish practice. There was also extensive rabbinic midrash, some of which referred to a dying Messiah.
Yet apart from the genuine early letters, we have no evidence about what happened in the first 100 years of Christianity, other than what the unreliable and untrustworthy 2nd century AD Christians told us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerfball View Post
In short, the fact that the OT contains no explicit reference to the Messiah rising after three days is neither startling nor significant. What is significant is that only the historical reality of the resurrection explains the complete transformation of the dispirited Christian community a few days after the crucifixion.
Except we have no evidence of an actual resurrection, or a dispirited Christian community, so you can not make that claim.

Here, have a cloth, you are covered in egg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 09:53 AM
 
11,234 posts, read 11,256,867 times
Reputation: 3445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
I guess the word that I focused in on is "deceived". if people believe it, is it deceiving? i wonder why people believe this stuff these days. thats true enough for me.

people are leaving Christianity thrill. maybe because many Christians are not deceiving people. They are telling them what they know to be real. They tell others, its start striking a cord with themselves, and then they themselves leave the religion.

99% of Christians don't know what to believe, except what their Sunday school teacher tells them. Their teacher tells them Jesus' name appears throughout the Old Testament. Do you think any of them would bother to crack a Bible to see if it's true? Of course they wouldn't. Statistically, 50% of Christians never open their Bible once during the year. Realistically, I'd say it's more like 75%. Give them the simplest Bible quiz and they'd flunk.

But the smart ones who do do a little studying are finding how rife with lies the whole enterprise is and they're saying, "I'm outta here!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2019, 11:59 AM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
99% of Christians don't know what to believe, except what their Sunday school teacher tells them. Their teacher tells them Jesus' name appears throughout the Old Testament. Do you think any of them would bother to crack a Bible to see if it's true? Of course they wouldn't. Statistically, 50% of Christians never open their Bible once during the year. Realistically, I'd say it's more like 75%. Give them the simplest Bible quiz and they'd flunk.

But the smart ones who do do a little studying are finding how rife with lies the whole enterprise is and they're saying, "I'm outta here!"
yeah, this is true. the word in contention is 'lies" and being 'deceitful".
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

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top