Calling Out Alang1216: The God of Abraham is a myth

[ding]

One event, multiple versions. You read the gospel, put together the actual events of the resurrection into a single version if you can.


Except I made a claim that you ignored (Mark's final verses)


Nothing about the unreliable stories is plausible.

If that were the case you'd be falling all over yourself to make your case instead of making vague unsubstantiated claims.

No one knows what your mind thinks regarding Mark because you haven't provided any specifics.

Your claims are pretty funny since you only provide conjecture without any evidence whatsoever. For instance, you claim Jesus was never placed in the tomb. You claim that the resurrection and every miracle performed by Jesus are embellished but you offer no evidence or even a narrative for how and why.

 

[ding]

And if the sighting were a month or a year after his death?

Walk me through it. It's your case to make. It's because it's such a ridiculous claim that you won't do it.

It has everything to do since there are many other contradictions in the NT.

No. It has absolutely nothing to do with the miracles of Christ. This is you grasping at straws because you have no evidence for any of your beliefs.

Like you, they decided Jesus was the messiah/divine and worked backwards from there.

Incorrect. I think you are projecting. My conclusions are based upon the first Christians who witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.

The resurrection is supported by the Christian departure from the Jewish perception of resurrection and the remarkable rise of Christian Messianism. It actually begins to worship Jesus as Lord, associate Him with divine status, and attribute to Him co-eternity with the Father. This is not only historically unique, but also apologetically unappealing – so much so that the early Church had to pay the ultimate price for it (including separation from the synagogue and even persecution). Additionally, the early Church organized itself into a missionary community that not only went beyond the boundaries of Israel but also to the very frontiers of the Roman Empire, making it one of the most pluralistic religious organizations in the history of religions. With a crucified Messiah as its head, the early Church formed one of the most dynamically expansive communities in history.

 

[ding]

No, Jesus' body was not left to rot on the cross because Joseph of Arimathea received permission from Pontius Pilate to remove it for burial before the Passover Sabbath. While it was common practice for Roman authorities to leave the bodies of crucified criminals to decompose as a deterrent, this was not a universal rule, and bodies were sometimes buried or released to families. In Jesus' case, the approaching high Sabbath and Joseph of Arimathea's request from a wealthy follower likely provided compelling reasons for Pilate to make an exception to the usual procedure.

What happened to Jesus' body

• Permission for Removal: The Gospels state that Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy and respected member of the Jewish council, asked Pilate for Jesus' body.
  
  
• Granting of the Request: Pilate granted permission for the body to be taken down.
  
  
• Expedited Burial: Joseph and other followers then removed the body and quickly buried it in a nearby tomb to avoid violating the approaching Sabbath.
  

Why this was an exception

• Common Roman Practice:
  The standard Roman procedure for handling crucified criminals was to leave their bodies on the crosses to serve as a public warning and to be consumed by animals.
  
  
• Historical Evidence of Burial:
  While the practice of leaving bodies to rot was common, it wasn't universal. Archaeologists have found evidence of crucified individuals being given proper burials.
  
  
• Jewish Law and the Sabbath:
  Jewish law required bodies to be taken down and buried before sundown on important holy days, such as the Sabbath.
  
  
• Pilate's Political Considerations:
  Pilate was in a precarious political position, and granting Joseph's request to remove the body would have been a way to appease Jewish leaders and maintain peace during the significant Passover festival.

 

[ding]

So why was the tomb empty?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, Paul believed Jesus performed miracles, viewing them as signs of Jesus's divinity and the truth of the Gospel, though he emphasized the resurrection more in his letters as the ultimate proof. While Paul's letters focus less on the specific historical events of Jesus's life, they do mention Jesus's death and resurrection as foundational to his message and acknowledge that Paul himself performed signs and wonders, implying that Jesus, as the source of that power, also performed miracles.

Evidence of Paul's belief in Jesus's miracles:

• Signs and Wonders:
  Quora states that in the book of Acts, Paul himself performs signs and wonders to back up his preaching, which implies he saw miracles as a way to testify to the truth of his message and the power of the one he served.
  
  
• Divine Status:
  Paul saw miracles as proof of Jesus's divinity and messiahship. He saw the power of the Holy Spirit working through him, and his ministry was a continuation of the power that flowed from Jesus.
  
  
• The Resurrection as a Miracle:
  The primary miracle Paul emphasizes is the resurrection of Jesus, a foundational event that confirmed Jesus's divine status.

Why Paul didn't mention Jesus's miracles more:

• Different Focus:
  Paul's primary purpose in his letters was to explain the significance of Jesus's death and resurrection, rather than recounting his earthly life.
  
  
• Audience Awareness:
  Paul's readers likely already knew about Jesus's miracles, so Paul didn't need to elaborate on them.
  
  
• The Resurrection was the Main Event:
  Paul focused on the resurrection as the most powerful confirmation of Jesus's identity.
  
  
• Miracles Through the Apostles:
  Paul's own ability to perform miracles meant he didn't need to focus on Jesus's prior miracles as proof; instead, the power of the Spirit working through the apostles served as a testament to the ongoing reality of God's work.

Yes, in his letters, the Apostle Paul presented Jesus as divine, attributing to him divine attributes and roles, such as sharing in creation and receiving worship. Though Paul was a devout monotheistic Jew, he saw Jesus as possessing a unique identity with God, as seen in 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Jesus is called "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things". This perspective is further supported by passages like Philippians 2:6-11, which describes Jesus existing in the "form of God" before his incarnation and ultimately receiving supreme exaltation.

Here's a breakdown of how Paul's writings indicate his belief in Jesus' divinity:

• Sharing in God's Creative Act:
  Paul states in 1 Corinthians that "through whom are all things". Since only God is the Creator, this implies Jesus shares in God's creative identity, rather than being a created being.
  
  
• • Pre-Existence and Incarnation:
    The hymn in Philippians 2 describes Jesus as existing "in the form of God" before becoming human, highlighting his pre-existence and involvement in the incarnation.
  • Receiving Worship:
    Paul's writings also suggest Jesus receives worship, a practice reserved for God alone in Jewish tradition.
  • Lordship:
    By applying the title "Lord" (Kyrios in Greek) to Jesus in a context parallel to the one God in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul aligns Jesus with the divine identity of Yahweh.
  • Exaltation and Confession:
    The passage in Philippians concludes by stating that "every knee should bow" at Jesus' name and "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," echoing the worship due to God.

While Paul maintained the belief in one God, his writings present Jesus as uniquely sharing in God's identity, demonstrating a "high Christology" that was early and foundational to Christian belief, according to Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) and michaeljkruger.com.

Whatever Paul did or believed, he was not a witness to Jesus' miracles or resurrection. He knew little more than the Jews of Babylon hundreds of years later. His claims to performing miracles certainly elevated his status and personally served him well, alas for him, they were unable to save Paul's life.

 

[alang1216]

So why was the tomb empty?

You have way more faith in the authenticity of the NT accounts than I do. I've written about their errors, edits, mistranslations, typos, and deliberate alterations and additions.

Since the only evidence you have comes from the NT (and what was later written about Christian beliefs) we have reached an impasse. I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. Until either of us has new material to share we should, as we both knew we would, call it a draw.

 

[ding]

This is so funny.

While psychological error and oral embellishment (the "telephone game") are among the explanations proposed for the resurrection narratives, these are disputed theories rather than established facts. The origin of the resurrection stories is a complex and highly debated topic in biblical scholarship and is not fully explained by any single theory.
Arguments supporting psychological error and oral transmission

• Contradictions in accounts: Biblical scholars, including those like Bart Ehrman, point out discrepancies between the Gospels regarding the resurrection appearances. For instance, the accounts differ on who first visited the tomb, the number of angels seen, and whether Jesus appeared in Jerusalem or Galilee. Some interpret these variations as evidence of a developing legend transmitted orally, similar to the telephone game.
• Growth of narratives over time: The accounts appear to grow more detailed and physical as time passes. The earliest written account, in Paul's letters, describes spiritual "appearances," or visions. The later Gospels introduce details like an empty tomb and Jesus physically interacting with his disciples. Some scholars argue this indicates legend formation rather than eyewitness testimony.
• Bereavement visions: Some psychological hypotheses suggest that the disciples' grief and trauma following Jesus's crucifixion could have led to hallucinations or "bereavement visions" of their deceased leader. This is considered a natural, if not common, psychological phenomenon.
• Group psychology: The theory of cognitive dissonance has also been proposed. This suggests that the disciples' strong expectations that Jesus was the Messiah clashed with the reality of his death. Their subsequent visions or interpretations of events helped resolve this psychological conflict and cement their belief.

Arguments against these naturalistic explanations

• The "telephone game" analogy is flawed: Proponents of the historicity of the resurrection argue that the telephone game is a poor analogy for the Gospels' development. Unlike the game, the transmission of the story was not a one-time, linear event. The accounts were told and retold within a community where others could correct them. Furthermore, oral cultures in the ancient world had highly developed memory skills.
• Multiple, independent attestations: New Testament scholars like Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig cite multiple independent sources for the resurrection accounts, including the letters of Paul and the separate Gospel narratives. This "multiple attestation" strengthens the claim that early disciples had experiences that led them to believe Jesus had risen.
• Testimony of women: The Gospels record that women were the first to discover the empty tomb and witness the risen Jesus. This is seen by many scholars as an authentic detail because, in the first century, women's testimony was not highly valued in a court of law. It is unlikely that Gospel writers inventing a story would have given such a pivotal role to women.
• Early creedal tradition: The Apostle Paul refers to an early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which scholars date to just a few years after Jesus's death. This pre-Pauline tradition already included the core elements of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection appearances, suggesting that the belief was firmly established early on, leaving little time for legendary embellishments to accrue.
• Lack of motive for deception: Skeptics and believers alike agree that the early disciples sincerely believed what they were preaching. The disciples faced persecution and martyrdom for their beliefs, which suggests they were not lying or perpetrating a known fraud.

Conclusion
Ultimately, there is no scholarly consensus on the origins of the resurrection narratives. Competing hypotheses—including psychological error, legendary development, and historical events interpreted as miraculous—are debated by scholars based on their respective interpretations of the available historical and psychological evidence.

 

[ding]

Whatever Paul did or believed, he was not a witness to Jesus' miracles or resurrection. He knew little more than the Jews of Babylon hundreds of years later. His claims to performing miracles certainly elevated his status and personally served him well, alas for him, they were unable to save Paul's life.

Immediately after the 1Corinthians 15 kerygma (with its list of witnesses), Paul presents an interesting dilemma which could apply to all the witnesses in that list:

First side of the dilemma: …if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are also found to be false witnesses of God because we witnessed before God that He raised Christ…

The other side of the dilemma: If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. …Why am I in peril every hour? …I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1Cor 15:14-32).

If we look at this passage carefully, we can see the makings of a classical dilemma which has the objective of verifying the witness value not only of Paul, but also of the Twelve, the 500, James, and the “other apostles.” From a legal perspective, the most objective way of validating a witness’ testimony is to show that that witness has “everything to lose, and nothing to gain.” From the opposite perspective, a witness who has everything to gain and nothing to lose may be telling the truth, but there is no extrinsic way of validating this. Indeed, there is a haunting suspicion that the witness may be acting in his own self-interest. A better witness would be one who had nothing to gain or lose, for at least he would not be acting in his own self-interest. But the best witness would be one who had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) because this witness would be acting against his own self-interest, which is a disposition which most of us want desperately to avoid. I believe that Paul is trying to show that not only he, but also the others in the list of witnesses, are in this category, and therefore deserve to be ranked among the best possible witnesses.

 

[ding]

You have way more faith in the authenticity of the NT accounts than I do. I've written about their errors, edits, mistranslations, typos, and deliberate alterations and additions.

Since the only evidence you have comes from the NT (and what was later written about Christian beliefs) we have reached an impasse. I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. Until either of us has new material to share we should, as we both knew we would, call it a draw.

No. I have way too much honesty and integrity to argue the telephone game and a rotting corpse .

Or to argue the only evidence I have comes from the NT.

 

[ding]

You have way more faith in the authenticity of the NT accounts than I do. I've written about their errors, edits, mistranslations, typos, and deliberate alterations and additions.

Since the only evidence you have comes from the NT (and what was later written about Christian beliefs) we have reached an impasse. I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. Until either of us has new material to share we should, as we both knew we would, call it a draw.

Paul was there. He is a credible witness. Jesus was worshipped immediately after he rose from the dead. Non-Christian historians confirmed it. Jesus was put to death for performing miracles (sorcery) and claiming he was equal to God (blasphemy) exactly as the NT recorded it. The Babylonian Talmud confirmed it.

 

[ding]

You have way more faith in the authenticity of the NT accounts than I do. I've written about their errors, edits, mistranslations, typos, and deliberate alterations and additions.

Since the only evidence you have comes from the NT (and what was later written about Christian beliefs) we have reached an impasse. I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. Until either of us has new material to share we should, as we both knew we would, call it a draw.

Why was the tomb empty?

 

[alang1216]

Immediately after the 1Corinthians 15 kerygma (with its list of witnesses), Paul presents an interesting dilemma which could apply to all the witnesses in that list:

First side of the dilemma: …if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are also found to be false witnesses of God because we witnessed before God that He raised Christ…

The other side of the dilemma: If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. …Why am I in peril every hour? …I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1Cor 15:14-32).

If we look at this passage carefully, we can see the makings of a classical dilemma which has the objective of verifying the witness value not only of Paul, but also of the Twelve, the 500, James, and the “other apostles.” From a legal perspective, the most objective way of validating a witness’ testimony is to show that that witness has “everything to lose, and nothing to gain.” From the opposite perspective, a witness who has everything to gain and nothing to lose may be telling the truth, but there is no extrinsic way of validating this. Indeed, there is a haunting suspicion that the witness may be acting in his own self-interest. A better witness would be one who had nothing to gain or lose, for at least he would not be acting in his own self-interest. But the best witness would be one who had everything to lose (and nothing to gain) because this witness would be acting against his own self-interest, which is a disposition which most of us want desperately to avoid. I believe that Paul is trying to show that not only he, but also the others in the list of witnesses, are in this category, and therefore deserve to be ranked among the best possible witnesses.

Paul may have been a true believer or he may have been an opportunist, not unlike some televangelists in our time. He did make a career of preaching. I'm not saying this is the case or even it is the most likely case, only that we don't know the truth.

I don't know of any other witnesses that actually wrote during Paul's lifetime.

 

[ding]

Paul may have been a true believer or he may have been an opportunist, not unlike some televangelists in our time. He did make a career of preaching. I'm not saying this is the case or even it is the most likely case, only that we don't know the truth.

I don't know of any other witnesses that actually wrote during Paul's lifetime.

What did he gain from it? Why would he believe Jesus rose from the dead and worship Jesus as God?

 

[ding]

Paul may have been a true believer or he may have been an opportunist, not unlike some televangelists in our time. He did make a career of preaching. I'm not saying this is the case or even it is the most likely case, only that we don't know the truth.

I don't know of any other witnesses that actually wrote during Paul's lifetime.

As incredible as it is to believe that God was born into this world to testify to the truth, suffer death at the hand of his creatures and rise from the dead, it's even harder to believe that the recording of the miracles and resurrection of Christ was the result of a telephone game of errors. There is no way that God fearing Jewish men would commit blasphemy because of the telephone game. That's an insult to intelligence. No one is that dumb to build such a large body of work based upon errors. Paul was there. He knew what was going on with Jesus before his conversion. There is no way that Paul wouldn't see through all the errors if it really didn't happen. So the only possible explanation is that they did it knowingly. The problem with that is that Paul had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

 

[alang1216]

Why was the tomb empty?

You have way more faith in the authenticity of the NT accounts than I do. I've written about their errors, edits, mistranslations, typos, and deliberate alterations and additions.

 

[alang1216]

What did he gain from it? Why would he believe Jesus rose from the dead and worship Jesus as God?

One possible answer: Evangelist fraud refers to the misuse of a religious position to deceive people for financial gain. While some religious figures are genuinely philanthropic, others have exploited their spiritual authority and the trust of their followers to enrich themselves through deceptive practices, such as selling fraudulent "miracle" products, running misleading investment schemes, or misusing donations. Well-known examples include the financial scams of televangelists Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff, and Robert Tilton, who were accused of fraud and other illegal activities involving their ministries and donations.

 

[alang1216]

No one is that dumb to build such a large body of work based upon errors.

So you consider yourself a Muslim AND a Mormon? If not, why not, using your criteria?

 

[ding]

You have way more faith in the authenticity of the NT accounts than I do. I've written about their errors, edits, mistranslations, typos, and deliberate alterations and additions.

No you haven't. Not in any detail and not in any way that explains how so many texts exist if they are diametrically opposed to what happened in reality. All you have done is make vague references that are more like nitpicking. Your arguments don't make sense, are based entirely upon conjecture and have no supporting evidence.

You claim Jesus was never buried so that's why he wasn't in the tomb. Yet that very statement validates that there was a tomb. Your only basis for believing the body of Jesus wasn't in the tomb is that as a practice Romans left the bodies of the people they crucified to rot and feed the birds to serve as examples to others. Yet you dismiss that that wasn't the custom for Jews and that the Gospels recorded that Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish high court, requested and received Jesus's body from Pontius Pilate.

Was the narrative that Joseph of Arimathea requested and received Jesus's body from Pontius Pilate a lie or was it an embellishment? Walk me through how that can be an embellishment instead of a lie.

The reason you have been so vague is because whatever inconsistencies you think exists don't change anything. There is no rational explanation for the number of narratives concerning the miracles performed by Christ. They can't be the product of the telephone game error. That would be impossible. They can only either be true or a conspiracy. And since there is no way it was a conspiracy (a point you seem to agree with) the only possible explanation is that it is true.

 

[ding]

One possible answer: Evangelist fraud refers to the misuse of a religious position to deceive people for financial gain. While some religious figures are genuinely philanthropic, others have exploited their spiritual authority and the trust of their followers to enrich themselves through deceptive practices, such as selling fraudulent "miracle" products, running misleading investment schemes, or misusing donations. Well-known examples include the financial scams of televangelists Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff, and Robert Tilton, who were accused of fraud and other illegal activities involving their ministries and donations.

Paul was a devout Jew. Paul believed in the God of Abraham. Prior to his conversion Paul was a Pharisee who persecuted the followers of Jesus. Are you suggesting Paul betrayed the God of Abraham for financial gain? Do you even know what history recorded as Paul's fate?

Paul was officially imprisoned at least two times according to the Book of Acts: once in Philippi and once in Caesarea, followed by a period of house arrest in Rome. However, early Christian tradition and Paul's own writings suggest he was imprisoned many more times, with Clement of Rome claiming he was imprisoned seven times.

Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown into a Roman prison. Paul was held under guard in Caesarea for two years before his trial before Felix. After his journey to Rome, Paul was kept under house arrest for two years, awaiting trial before Caesar. Paul was executed, most likely by beheading, during the Nero's reign around 64-67 AD for his Christian faith and witness to the resurrection of Jesus, a central tenet of the faith, during a time when Christians were persecuted in Rome.

So where was Paul's financial gain? Where is the embellishment in this history and for what purpose would it be embellished?

Because it seems that you are arguing Paul lied for financial gain. Is that correct? How is that not a conspiracy?

 

[ding]

So you consider yourself a Muslim AND a Mormon? If not, why not, using your criteria?

Why would I? How does that prove your belief that the 37 accounts of miracles performed by Christ are embellishments? How does that prove your belief that every reported encounter with the risen Christ are embellishments?

In all Jesus appeared a dozen different times over forty days to more than 515 individuals. He appeared to women and to men, He appeared to individuals and to groups, He appeared indoors and outdoors, He appeared to people who were skeptics and people who were believers, He appeared to people who were hardhearted and people who were tenderhearted. And He talked with people, He ate with people, He even invited Thomas - the skeptic, the doubter - to put his finger in the nail holes in His hands, put his hand in the spear wound in His side - to see and touch the evidence himself. Then what was Thomas's reaction? To say, "My Lord and my God!" He became convinced by the evidence that Jesus had returned from the dead. And what does history tell us about Thomas? He spent the rest of his life declaring Jesus did return from the dead, He is the Son of God, even to the point of being put to death for his faith in southern India.

Can you explain how these are embellishments instead of lies?