Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[ding]

you'll be losing that one as well ...

Until you fools realize that you have to explain how, when and why Jesus was first worshipped as God and why the NT makes a concerted effort to show it as an historical event, I won't be losing anything.

 

[ding]

My apologies if you found what I wrote difficult to comprehend.

That's hilarious. The dunning effect in you is strong.

 

[ding]

There are many.

Google it and find out.

However, your above remark indicates you are entirely unable to assess these texts dispassionately and critically and therefore any further exchanges between us are a waste of our respective time.

My above remark reflects my belief that you are dishonest.

 

[ding]

What has that to do with what is likely a midrash?

It has nothing to do with that. You don't believe anything supernatural has ever occurred. So you must believe the OT is full of Jewish embellishments.

 

[Meriweather]

My apologies if you found what I wrote difficult to comprehend.

Why do you think you need to apologize? Somehow you have formed a strange construct that Christianity is about an afterlife without difficulties and people on earth follow a religion/faith for "comfort" or something to get us through something. It is a most ignorant imagining of Christianity, so I am trying to understand your own construct of Epicurus thought and how it fits into your life. Thus far my own conclusion is that you need to tear into/change (or imagine) Christian beliefs, for your Epicurean philosophy to make sense or even have a leg to stand on.

It works a lot better when people discuss their own beliefs rather than try to tell people what they "really" believe or why they are "really" doing something. Without apology, I simply find you clueless, but sometimes interesting.

 

[Hypatia415]

My above remark reflects my belief that you are dishonest.

The Bible is not inerrant. That you cannot address those evident contradictions I mentioned indicates that you are totally unable to view these texts dispassionately and critically.

 

[ding]

The Bible is not inerrant. That you cannot address those evident contradictions I mentioned indicates that you are totally unable to view these texts dispassionately and critically.

I find all of your arguments disingenuous.

 

[Hypatia415]

Why do you think you need to apologize?

I was being courteous.

Somehow you have formed a strange construct that Christianity is about an afterlife without difficulties and people on earth follow a religion/faith for "comfort" or something to get us through something. It is a most ignorant imagining of Christianity, so I am trying to understand your own construct of Epicurus thought and how it fits into your life.

From what you have written it seems that living the Christian life is very much down to the individual (basic tenets accepted).

Thus far my own conclusion is that you need to tear into/change (or imagine) Christian beliefs, for your Epicurean philosophy to make sense or even have a leg to stand on.

I am not an Epicurean but I do lean towards some of his philosophical ideas. That would include the rejection of superstition and giving priority to rational thought. To be content with a simpler life, to not be greedy in any sense, and not to be fixated on things like ambition, fame, or wealth.

Hence he named his philosophical school The Garden. Gardening becomes a metaphor for a life that appreciates the natural world, tries to live in accordance with it, and and for the individual to endeavour in so far as anyone can, to leave this world, for there is no other, a better place than when one arrived.

Seems a good way to live for me.

 

[Hypatia415]

I find all of your arguments disingenuous.

I find you to be extremely credulous.

 

[ding]

I find you to be extremely credulous.

I have evidence for my beliefs. You do not. All you have are criticism of my beliefs. You can't provide an explanation for why, when and how people began worshipping Jesus as God or explain why the NT makes a concerted effort to show it as an historical event.

The first Christians - who were Jews - 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 and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

 

[ding]

I was being courteous.

No you weren't.

 

[Hypatia415]

No you weren't.

(sarcasm) I understood that Christians believed only their deity had knowledge of human being's innermost thoughts.

 

[ding]

(sarcasm) I understood that Christians believed only their deity had knowledge of human being's innermost thoughts.

There's only one God. There isn't a yours or mine deity. So, no. I reject your understanding of Christian beliefs. It would be idiotic to expect you to ever properly characterize Christian beliefs. And your comment that you were being courteous is bullshit.

 

[Hypatia415]

And your comment that you were being courteous is bullshit.

Again you attempt to pretend you can read minds.

 

[ding]

Again you attempt to pretend you can read minds.

I don't need to read your mind. It is 100% observation and logic. Anyone who apologizes for the other person not understanding them is being disingenuous.

 

[Hypatia415]

I don't need to read your mind. It is 100% observation and logic.

I do not think that logic is your speciality.

Anyone who apologizes for the other person not understanding them is being disingenuous.

What an inane remark.

 

[ding]

I do not think that logic is your speciality.

Of course it is. I'm a degreed engineer who had a 38 year career in engineering.

What an inane remark.

It's not. You know full well what you were intending. It was a thinly veiled insult.

 

[BreezeWood]

No.

how do you explain evolution from matter to the original cellular being -

to present day living organisms.

 

[Hypatia415]

how do you explain evolution from matter to the original cellular being -

View attachment 1270881

to present day living organisms.

Would you not be better employed reading up on evolution? There are lots of available books on that very complex topic. I am sure your local public library could help you out.

 

[my2¢]

I enjoyed the OP, but I have to say that Chuck Colson offered one better. Here is how Colson, who served seven months on a plea deal with the Watergate prosecutors, put it:

“I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.”
― Charles Colson