Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[Hafar1014]

On the specific point we are discussing Job 40 does not argue that "might makes right." God is addressing human limitations. That's not bias. That is reality.

Lest you forget your own hypothetical situation begins with you meeting the creator of existence. In that scenario, do you really believe you will question the creator of existence? Because as I read what you wrote, you implied you know better than the creator of existence.

If might doesnt make right why did Christians slaughter the Gnostics

 

[Hafar1014]

There's tons of evidence and you dismiss it.

There are 24,000 written manuscripts which chronicle the 3 1/2 year ministry of Christ and document the many miracles performed by Christ and his resurrection; the Babylonian Talmud confirms the crucifixion and the reason for the crucifixion which corroborate the NT accounts; there's the dramatic change in the behavior of the disciples coming out of hiding fearing for their lives to proclaim Jesus is Lord despite persecution, imprisonment and death which corroborate his resurrection; there's the empty tomb which no one disputed was empty; there are no texts which dispute the miracles and resurrection of Christ; non-Christian historians recorded the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God; there are no texts which dispute Jesus was worshipped as God by the first Christians who were his apostles and disciples..

Your beliefs are not evidence. Something someone wrote is called here say. Thats not evidence either.

 

[ding]

of course, just stop by while im mowing w/ my new zero turn lawn mower and we will see how fast you can run ...

Not so innocent after all, are ya? But who are you kidding... you don't have a lawn.

 

[ding]

If might doesnt make right why did Christians slaughter the Gnostics

And by Gnostics you mean Cathars. Maybe because they were reprehensible pieces of shit who hated the material world, were communists and were at war with the church for hundreds of years. They did it to themselves. Learn some history.

 

[BreezeWood]

You think 2 billion people have no basis for their beliefs.

yes, their bibles are written for their satisfaction than the goals required for the truly religious - as the false commandments those congregations use to place themselves above others.

They didn't submit themselves to beatings, persecution, imprisonment and death for no good reason.

those reasons were those of the 1st century events, jesus - liberation theology, self determination - nowhere found in the 4th century christian bible or any desert bible claiming heavenly portrayal.

the very reason those events took place, the repudiation of judaism: false commandments, hereditary idolatry, religion of apartheid, heavenly personifications that never occurred et al.

 

[ding]

Your beliefs are not evidence. Something someone wrote is called here say. Thats not evidence either.

This is literally the evidence that proves 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 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.

 

[BreezeWood]

Not so innocent after all, are ya? But who are you kidding... you don't have a lawn.

- a farm ... innocents is not running away its running over weeds and jackals.

 

[Hafar1014]

This is literally the evidence.

1. 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.
2. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
3. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
4. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy.
5. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
6. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
7. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
8. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
9. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
10. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
11. The empty tomb.
12. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
13. There are no accounts of his body being found.
14. 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.
15. 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?
16. 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.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event.
18. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God.

Hearsay
. Dictionary & Legal Definition

• General meaning: A rumor or word-of-mouth information that might not be true.
• Legal context: Evidence based on a statement made outside of court that is being used to prove the truth of what was said. Generally, this is inadmissible unless an exception applies. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Evidence is any information, object, or testimony presented to establish the truth of a fact or support a claim. It acts as the bridge between an assertion and reality, proving whether a statement is true or false. [1, 2, 3]

Its not a fact because you choose to believe it. Belief is a valid way to think

 

[Hypatia415]

Anyone claiming Jesus was the Messiah was (and still is) a blaphemer of the highest order.

I have to take issue with you on that. Jesus of Nazareth was not the first individual to be hailed as a Messiah by his followers. Bar Kokhba in the second century CE was likewise considered to be the one.

However, we know that various Messianic movements from the late first century BCE arose among the rural populations of the region.

Again the known history of the area from the first century BCE has to be considered.

As for blasphemy. According to Geza Vermes only the articulation of the sacred name would have resulted in Jesus of Nazareth being found guilty of blasphemy by his fellow Jews. And nowhere are we told did he ever do that.

 

[ding]

yes, their bibles are written for their satisfaction than the goals required for the truly religious - as the false commandments those congregations use to place themselves above others.



those reasons were those of the 1st century events, jesus - liberation theology, self determination - nowhere found in the 4th century christian bible or any desert bible claiming heavenly portrayal.

the very reason those events took place, the repudiation of judaism: false commandments, hereditary idolatry, religion of apartheid, heavenly personifications that never occurred et al.

No one cares what you believe. Your posts are mostly incoherent gibberish.

 

[ding]

- a farm ... innocents is not running away its running over weeds and jackals.

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[ding]

Hearsay
. Dictionary & Legal Definition

• General meaning: A rumor or word-of-mouth information that might not be true.
• Legal context: Evidence based on a statement made outside of court that is being used to prove the truth of what was said. Generally, this is inadmissible unless an exception applies. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Evidence is any information, object, or testimony presented to establish the truth of a fact or support a claim. It acts as the bridge between an assertion and reality, proving whether a statement is true or false. [1, 2, 3]

Its not a fact because you choose to believe it. Belief is a valid way to think

evidence.

 

[ding]

They were afraid of going to hell. The basis is fear

That's idiotic. The basis is what they saw with their own eyes. Paul even explains the gravity of his decision. No where in his explanation does he say he feared going to hell. Paul was a Jew. So by your logic Paul didn't believe in hell, right? Because according to you Jews don't believe in hell. So why would Paul fear something he didn't believe in?

 

[norwegen]

I have to take issue with you on that. Jesus of Nazareth was not the first individual to be hailed as a Messiah by his followers. Bar Kokhba in the second century CE was likewise considered to be the one.

However, we know that various Messianic movements from the late first century BCE arose among the rural populations of the region.

Again the known history of the area from the first century BCE has to be considered.

As for blasphemy. According to Geza Vermes only the articulation of the sacred name would have resulted in Jesus of Nazareth being found guilty of blasphemy by his fellow Jews. And nowhere are we told did he ever do that.

Simon bar Kokhba was second century, long after Jesus. The late first century self-proclaimed messiahs also came after Jesus. If you're going to say Jesus of Nazareth was not the first to be hailed as messiah, your examples should be people who came before Jesus.

Anyone claiming Jesus is their messiah doesn't really know what messiah is, as first of all, messiah was a figurehead of the ancient Israelites.

 

[Hypatia415]

I'm not going to argue with you about it. I don't care what you believe. You think 2 billion people have no basis for their beliefs. That just isn't so.

I am not challenging your beliefs. I am challenging your claim that a literal resurrection took place. And that your texts prove that what you believe is premised on historical fact.

Jesus was worshipped as God by the first Christians for good reasons.

No he was not. In all likelihood the phrase "son of God" would, to a first century CE Palestinian Jew have been interpreted as an angelic or celestial being. And when the human connection was made the phrase would have been understood to refer to a just and saintly man.

However, in the Hellenistic milieu, and only there, the phrase would have likely called to mind a miracle worker as well as having connotations with various demi gods and heroes who were "sons" of various deities.

They didn't submit themselves to beatings, persecution, imprisonment and death for no good reason.

What persecution? You have mentioned this three times now without providing an iota of attested historical evidence. You have also failed to provide the names of those "non-Christian historians" whom you allege "recorded the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God".

That all suggests you can provide no historical material to substantiate your allegations.

 

[ding]

I am not challenging your beliefs. I am challenging your claim that a literal resurrection took place. And that your texts prove that what you believe is premised on historical fact.

Great then present your evidence and not arguments for why you dismiss evidence.

No he was not. In all likelihood the phrase "son of God" would, to a first century CE Palestinian Jew have been interpreted as an angelic or celestial being. And when the human connection was made the phrase would have been understood to refer to a just and saintly man.

However, in the Hellenistic milieu, and only there, the phrase would have likely called to mind a miracle worker as well as having connotations with various demi gods and heroes who were "sons" of various deities.


What persecution? You have mentioned this three times now without providing an iota of attested historical evidence. You have also failed to provide the names of those "non-Christian historians" whom you allege "recorded the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God".

That all suggests you can provide no historical material to substantiate your allegations.

Let me know when you have a credible explanation for why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God immediately after he rose from the dead.

 

[alang1216]

On the specific point we are discussing Job 40 does not argue that "might makes right." God is addressing human limitations. That's not bias. That is reality.

So God is more powerful than a lowly human so I can't question his decisions? Sounds like a very good example of "might makes right".

 

[ding]

So God is more powerful than a lowly human so I can't question his decisions? Sounds like a very good example of "might makes right".

It was your hypothetical situation. Not mine. Put yourself in the moment and ask yourself what you would really do if you discovered everything you believed was wrong and found yourself confronted by an all powerful being that created existence. I think your problem is that your bias is preventing you from believing your own hypothetical situation is possible so you aren't properly engaging in your own hypothetical situation.

This isn't about what God would do. This is about what YOU would do. I don't dare speak for what God would do. I can only surmise that if you are ever truly in that situation what you would do. And I don't think you would be coping an attitude or questioning the creator.

P.S. I suspect at death we lose our "baggage" the material world requires. So it is possible that we won't have any emotions whatsoever. No thought of self so to speak. So I am not sure how you would react at death. I suspect you would see things as they were without bias or remorse or guilt. I suspect the only "feeling" we would retain is love but it wouldn't actually be a "feeling." So whatever judgment there is will most likely be done by ourselves. Fairly, without bias and without emotion. The only question I believe is how much of God's love/presence we can accept. I do not believe it will be the same for all people. I do believe there will be some who can't accept any.

 

[Hypatia415]

Simon bar Kokhba was second century, long after Jesus.

I noted that fact.

The late first century self-proclaimed messiahs also came after Jesus.
If you're going to say Jesus of Nazareth was not the first to be hailed as messiah, your examples should be people who came before Jesus.

There were others before Jesus who were the leaders of Messianic groups. Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias) c. 4 BCE, Simon c. 4 BCE, and Athronges c. 4-2? BCE. Josephus covers all this. However, when he writes that a figure "seized the opportunity to seek the throne" or "was proclaimed king" by his followers it is reasonable to surmise that those figures were messianic pretenders.

Anyone claiming Jesus is their messiah doesn't really know what messiah is, as first of all, messiah was a figurehead of the ancient Israelites.

That is not the only definition of Messiah.

What was the Messianic hope of Israel in the inter-Testamental age? What kind of Redeemer figure was expected? A likely reliable answer may be found in prayer within two particular sources; the Psalms of Solomon and the ancient prayer (Tefillah) the Eighteen Benedictions. Their content of Messianic belief would require being compared with that of a Qumran liturgical blessing and the later rabbinic interpretation of classic Messianic prophecies.

The whole concept of Messiah within Judaism is far from being clear cut.

 

[alang1216]

It was your hypothetical situation. Not mine. Put yourself in the moment and ask yourself what you would really do if you discovered everything you believed was wrong and found yourself confronted by an all powerful being that created existence. I think your problem is that your bias is preventing you from believing your own hypothetical situation is possible so you aren't properly engaging in your own hypothetical situation.

This isn't about what God would do. This is about what YOU would do. I don't dare speak for what God would do. I can only surmise that if you are ever truly in that situation what you would do. And I don't think you would be coping an attitude or questioning the creator.

Ask yourself what you would really do if you discovered everything you believed was wrong and found yourself confronted after your death by a dog that told you you have it all backwards and there was never an all powerful being that created existence.