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.
Just because I never saw Abraham Lincoln doesn't mean he never existed. The Holy Bible is one of the most historically well referenced documents on the planet. To hear the word and to deny it's truth is somewhat foolish. One puts one self in a pretty sad club when they don't or won't believe.
I've believed in Jesus as far back as I can remember. I was told that I was five years old when I believed. However, as far as evidence goes, I accept as valid the recorded testimony of the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus and who were willing to suffer and die, which at least some of them did, for proclaiming the Gospel.
Unless you regard their testimony with a hermeneutic of suspicion and think they were involved in a conspiracy to promote what they knew to be a false belief even at the cost of their own lives, then the issue which must be addressed is why they believed they saw the risen Jesus. There have been a number of naturalistic theories advanced by skeptics over the years to explain why they thought they saw the risen Jesus, such as the mistaken identity theory, and the swoon theory in which Jesus only appeared to be dead but recovered enough to somehow get out of the tomb and convince the apostles that He had risen. But a half dead horribly disfigured Jesus would not have convinced anyone that He had been resurrected. As well, there is the hallucination theory which supposes that they only imagined that Jesus appeared to them. But that theory fails because Jesus appeared not only to the apostles over a forty day period, but also to many others. Jesus carried on conversations with the apostles, ate with them, invited them to touch Him. The conspiracy theory fails as well because people aren't willing to die for what they know to be false. Since they were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus they knew firsthand that Jesus had risen and therefore that He was who He claimed to be.
If you are really interested in objectively considering the evidence, and aren't just looking for a debate, then take the time to watch these videos which present the evidence in some detail. I've presented these before on other threads, and I post them again for the benefit of anyone who is willing to take the time to watch them. Don't ask me to post a few things from the videos for you to address. If you're truly interested in the evidence then watch the videos. That's a reasonable expectation.
Atheists- The only people that are dedicated to fighting what they claim doesn't exist. Now you have a clue about their intellectual capacity. Pray for them, it drives 'em crazy!
Atheists- The only people that are dedicated to fighting what they claim doesn't exist. Now you have a clue about their intellectual capacity. Pray for them, it drives 'em crazy!
Insults such as the one you just made only invite more insults and drag down the thread.
We don't mind. Insults don't matter. In fact I didn't see Trappert's post as insulting. It was making a point, and it was a misleading one. We are of course not dedicated to fighting a god that we don't believe exists. We are dedicated to fighting what certainly does exist - Organized religion and its unhelpful and often damaging influence on society all across the globe.
Christians can pray for us as much as they like. It bothers us no more that if they watched television at us. Your own point, backed up with several videos, which I believe I have seen before and if so, they make erroneous arguments five minutes in, is not insulting either, but it is equally misleading. No I don't believe the disciples were engaged in a conspiracy to promote a belief they knew wasn't true; they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.
What they were not promoting was a claim that his body got up and walked, displayed its wounds and ate a piece of fish. The evidence for that rests not in the disciples and their doings in the latter part of the 1st c, but in three contradictory stories that show every sign of having been concocted by three different writers - and that means they only had one resurrection story they agreed on - the tomb was empty.
And since they were not eyewitness and were relating the story they heard, who can say why the tomb was empty or even if it really was? As evidence, the resurrection accounts are reason not to believe, rather than reason to believe.
We don't mind. Insults don't matter. In fact I didn't see Trappert's post as insulting. It was making a point, and it was a misleading one. We are of course not dedicated to fighting a god that we don't believe exists. We are dedicated to fighting what certainly does exist - Organized religion and its unhelpful and often damaging influence on society all across the globe.
Christians can pray for us as much as they like. It bothers us no more that if they watched television at us. Your own point, backed up with several videos, which I believe I have seen before and if so, they make erroneous arguments five minutes in, is not insulting either, but it is equally misleading. No I don't believe the disciples were engaged in a conspiracy to promote a belief they knew wasn't true; they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.
What they were not promoting was a claim that his body got up and walked, displayed its wounds and ate a piece of fish. The evidence for that rests not in the disciples and their doings in the latter part of the 1st c, but in three contradictory stories that show every sign of having been concocted by three different writers - and that means they only had one resurrection story they agreed on - the tomb was empty.
And since they were not eyewitness and were relating the story they heard, who can say why the tomb was empty or even if it really was? As evidence, the resurrection accounts are reason not to believe, rather than reason to believe.
And what is most telling about Jesus' resurrection being the products of overactive imaginations is the fact Jesus' tomb was never preserved by the apostles or their followers as a shrine. Isn't that interesting.
Look to the Old Testament for dozens and dozens of tombs of figures like Abraham, Lot, Noah and yes even Adam and Eve (wonder if they'll find any bones and a missing rib if they open that one up) and yet the most important figure of the entire Bible and we haven't a clue where he was buried???????
We don't mind. Insults don't matter. In fact I didn't see Trappert's post as insulting. It was making a point, and it was a misleading one. We are of course not dedicated to fighting a god that we don't believe exists. We are dedicated to fighting what certainly does exist - Organized religion and its unhelpful and often damaging influence on society all across the globe.
Christians can pray for us as much as they like. It bothers us no more that if they watched television at us. Your own point, backed up with several videos, which I believe I have seen before and if so, they make erroneous arguments five minutes in, is not insulting either, but it is equally misleading. No I don't believe the disciples were engaged in a conspiracy to promote a belief they knew wasn't true; they were promoting a belief they thought was true - that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.
What they were not promoting was a claim that his body got up and walked, displayed its wounds and ate a piece of fish. The evidence for that rests not in the disciples and their doings in the latter part of the 1st c, but in three contradictory stories that show every sign of having been concocted by three different writers - and that means they only had one resurrection story they agreed on - the tomb was empty.
And since they were not eyewitness and were relating the story they heard, who can say why the tomb was empty or even if it really was? As evidence, the resurrection accounts are reason not to believe, rather than reason to believe.
The disciples did not believe that Jesus was resurrected in some spiritual sense, ''that Jesus' spirit had risen from his body and gone back to heaven.''
Resurrection, whether it was believed in, or denied, as it was by the Sadducees, was always understood by the Jews to be a physical resurrection.
I'll quote Justin Martyr with regard to that fact.
Justin Martyr, DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.
For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. [Bolding mine]
Note the bolded. Trypho was saying that there were those who denied the resurrection, and that when a person dies his soul goes to heaven. In other words, there were those who denied resurrection and instead believed the soul went to heaven when a person died. Or to put it another way, contrary to your opinion, resurrection was not thought of as the spirit rising from the body and going to heaven, but rather, resurrection which was denied was set in contrast with the soul going to heaven. Among the Jews who believed in resurrection, the belief was of a physical bodily resurrection at the end of the age. When Jesus told the disciples that He would die and rise again in three days, they could not understand it. They did not expect Him to rise again. But He did, and they were witnesses to His resurrection.
And that resurrection was understood as a physical resurrection is made clear in John 5:28-29 in which Jesus speaks of all who are in the tombs coming out of the tombs, some to a resurrection of life, and some to a resurrection of judgment.
John 5:28 "Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29] and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Resurrection in Jewish thought refers to a physical bodily resurrection. Not to the soul going to heaven when a person dies, although the soul of the believer does go to heaven at the point of physical death. That is the intermediate state between physical death and bodily resurrection in the future.
And yes, the disciples were eyewitnesses as John states in 1 John 1-3.
1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2] and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3] what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
The New Testament writers were not writing fiction, and while you may choose not to believe them, they expected what they wrote to be taken as factual.
And no, the video doesn't make any erroneous or misleading arguments.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-17-2016 at 12:28 AM..
The Holy Bible is one of the most historically well referenced documents on the planet.
You could always offer some verifiable evidence for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your own point, backed up with several videos, which I believe I have seen before and if so, they make erroneous arguments five minutes in, ....
Spot on my old lemon. Mikes standard response that has been dubunked time and time again yet continues to be dragged out by him as 'evidence'. The videos make the a priori assumption that the gospels are true and then use the gospels as evidence. LOL! Only 30 seconds in it starts quoting the Bible. 1 minute in it starts to use conversions of noted people as evidence that it's all true. At 5:30 they drop the bombshell -
We have given evidence for a theistic word view.
We have shown that the NT is reliable
We have established that miracles are logically possible.
Huh? Did I miss where they did that!!
Video two goes on to give it the old 'scholars agree' treatment...and claim the indisputable facts that ...
1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus was buried just outside Jerusalem. Well yeah...but that wasn't GospelJesus.
It then goes on to examine the 'fact' that took place following the crucifixion - without establishing that they were 'fact'. It's the same old same old that Mike produces every time, which is basically, it's true because the Bible and believers say it's true. The rest of the video garbage is 'evidence' based on the above three 'facts' (We have given evidence for a theistic word view. We have shown that the NT is reliable. We have established that miracles are logically possible.). The videos are hogwash.
Want to have a bet that before long he will drag out the Gary Habermas video where he produces his evidence that Jesus existed....by claiming that all the thing mentioning him in the gospels....are fact? LOL!
You could always offer some verifiable evidence for that.
Spot on my old lemon. Mikes standard response that has been dubunked time and time again yet continues to be dragged out by him as 'evidence'. The videos make the a priori assumption that the gospels are true and then use the gospels as evidence. LOL!
Nothing I've said has been debunked, and your refusal to believe what I've said is not a debunking, but merely your refusal to believe the testimony of the apostles who you claim didn't even exist, just as you deny that Jesus existed, even historically.
Quoting you.
''I don't really think there was a historical Jesus and frankly, I don't particularly care short of enjoying a good discussion about it but if there was then I'm with you...he was no gospel Jesus.''
I'll not waste my time going over this with you again. What you reject as evidence has been accepted as evidence by others.
I posted the videos for whoever is willing to take the time and make the effort to objectively listen to and examine the evidence. That's not you. Suit yourself then.
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.
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.
Only 30 seconds in it starts quoting the Bible. 1 minute in it starts to use conversions of noted people as evidence that it's all true. At 5:30 they drop the bombshell - 
