Zone1 They Were Eyewitnesses to the Death and Resurrection

[alang1216]

Where's your evidence for that? My evidence that they saw Christ perform miracles is the written manuscripts.

What evidence do you have that these miracles were never performed by Christ? What evidence do you have that these accounts were hearsay?

I find your evidence unconvincing. The Jews that saw Jesus rarely converted. Why was it that Christianity appealed mostly to people who never saw Jesus?

 

[alang1216]

What evidence do you have that the first Christians never witnessed the miracles recorded in the written manuscript?

Who were your 'first' Christians? I don't refer to the 12 Apostles but to the arc of early Christianity.

Or that the first Christians were mostly pagans?

It is generally accepted that Christianity grew mainly due to pagan conversions.

Because the first Christians were Jewish people who knew Jesus and witnessed his resurrection.

Among Jews that was a rarity. Jews knew Judaism and knew their Messiah would be a great and powerful leader, not a common criminal cursed by God to die on a tree.

 

[alang1216]

Can you walk me through what that means in practical terms? How would that have come about? What would that have looked like?

Prime example: Christians believed Jesus as Messiah fulfilled Jewish prophesy and the Messiah was to be born in the home of David, Bethlehem. Yet Jesus was well known to be from Nazareth. How to reconcile? Two separate traditions emerged from different Christian groups and gave rise to the two, very different, birth narratives in the NT.

 

[alang1216]

According to the accounts lots of people witnessed the miracles performed by Christ, right? In fact, we know they talked about it because there are quite a few accounts where people sought out Jesus to perform miracles for them, right?

You may believe the NT stories are accurate, I'm more skeptical. If they were accurate then the Jews of Judea would be Jesus' largest followers. I see no evidence they were so if they were not convinced, neither am I.

As for Paul, he had his own supernatural encounter, right? So didn't Paul experience a miracle of his own?

I have no clue what Paul experienced. If someone came to you today and claimed such an encounter and expected you to follow his religious teachings, would you?

 

[LibertyKid]

I find your evidence unconvincing. The Jews that saw Jesus rarely converted. Why was it that Christianity appealed mostly to people who never saw Jesus?

In Acts is stated that around 3000 became Christian after Peter's sermon and the events around the day of Pentecost. Those that converted that day had witnessed the miracle of what was being spoken, stated in their native tongue or dialect, which was also spoken by a direct apostle.

Many signs and wonders followed post Ascension by the apostles and then also Saul, later to be called Paul.

 

[ding]

I find your evidence unconvincing. The Jews that saw Jesus rarely converted. Why was it that Christianity appealed mostly to people who never saw Jesus?

Again, you are making statements without any evidence whatsoever. The evidence shows that Jesus was worshiped as God and that the accounts details crowds of people witnessing the miracles he performed.

What evidence do you have for your beliefs that Jews that saw Jesus perform miracles rarely converted? How many Jews saw Jesus perform miracles? How many Jews did not worship Jesus as God as a result of the miracles they saw Jesus perform?

What evidence do you have that contests that Jesus performed ~40 miracles?

 

[ding]

Who were your 'first' Christians? I don't refer to the 12 Apostles but to the arc of early Christianity.

It is generally accepted that Christianity grew mainly due to pagan conversions.


Among Jews that was a rarity. Jews knew Judaism and knew their Messiah would be a great and powerful leader, not a common criminal cursed by God to die on a tree.

And what evidence are you basing this upon?

Because....

"... Christianity, in its earliest beginnings, is part of Judaism... it is a sect, among a number of varieties of Judaism in the Roman Empire. But it is also clear that at a certain point, they develop a consciousness which takes them outside of the social orb of Judaism. They're no longer part of the local Jewish community, they're a separate community, meeting in little household groups, all over the city. And, it's apparent, at least from the time of the Emperor Nero, that outsiders also view them as distinct. So that when Nero is looking for scapegoats upon whom to put blame for the fire in Rome in 64, he zeroes in on the Christians.

So, obviously they are recognized as a distinctive group. How did this happen? What is involved in their separation? The one thing I think we have to recognize is that it doesn't happen all at once. It does not happen in the same way in different places, nor does it happen at the same time. For example, as late as the 4th and 5th century, we have evidence of Christians still existing within Jewish communities, and we have evidence of members of Christian communities participating in Jewish festivals. The preacher of Antioch and later of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, complains in a series of eight sermons to his congregation, that "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This clearly indicates that the break between Judaism and Christianity, even as late as the 4th century ... still is not absolute, is not permanent. Yet, on the other hand, we can see even in Paul's letters, which are the earliest literature we have from the early Christians, that the social separation in the communities he founded has already taken place. They're not meeting with the Jews. They're meeting in various households. So it's a varied change. It doesn't happen all at once and it doesn't happen in the same way, everywhere..."

Wrestling With Their Jewish Heritage | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[ding]

Prime example: Christians believed Jesus as Messiah fulfilled Jewish prophesy and the Messiah was to be born in the home of David, Bethlehem. Yet Jesus was well known to be from Nazareth. How to reconcile? Two separate traditions emerged from different Christian groups and gave rise to the two, very different, birth narratives in the NT.

You are not really addressing the authors of the supposed mythology and their motivations. Walk me through how this supposed mythology began and why?

But as far as your idea that Jesus somehow couldn't be a descendant of David (He was because Mary was) and be from Nazareth, I'm a little confused about. There's nothing to reconcile there.

Do you have any evidence that the miracles performed by Jesus are myths? Why do you suppose that there are no writings from the time of Jesus that said, hey, these are just myths, they didn't really happen?

 

[ding]

You may believe the NT stories are accurate, I'm more skeptical. If they were accurate then the Jews of Judea would be Jesus' largest followers. I see no evidence they were so if they were not convinced, neither am I.


I have no clue what Paul experienced. If someone came to you today and claimed such an encounter and expected you to follow his religious teachings, would you?

I believe that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God and that the written manuscripts which detail the miracles performed by Jesus explain why the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God.

I believe that if what you are claiming were true, then there would have been a written record of it.

I believe the Babylonian Talmud mentions that Jesus was put to death for sorcery - which confirms he did indeed perform miracles - and for trying to bring Israel to apostacy. So the answer to your question is that the Jewish religious establishment is the reason more Jews were not convinced.

Maybe read Paul's account and then ask yourself what you would do if that happened to you.

 

[ding]

alang1216

Can you please list the evidence for your beliefs?

 

[ding]

Paul claimed to have a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus where he supposedly went blind.

Then he fumbled around for a few day and then pretended to regain his vision which must have made it extremely hard for the disciples to watch without bursting out laughing because they knew that when Jesus gave sight to the blind he cured a blindness of perception not sight.

THEY KNEW HE WAS FAKING IT.

And your evidence for this is what?

 

[ding]

I agree, Jesus rose from the dead twice. The first resurrection was from the tomb of pharisaic beliefs and practices. The second resurrection is from the death of the body to an eternal abode.

Permanent existence as a higher form of life.

And your evidence for this is what?

 

[ding]

I am not challenging the accounts of the resurrection. I am revealing what actually happened.

You know, the next time you put on your thinking cap try to include reality in your speculations. Reality matters dingbot. It is a constant constraint on what could possibly be the truth about what actually happened with reported 'miracles' supposedly 'performed' on this same planet. Dufus

You are secularizing the accounts without any evidence whatsoever because you don't believe in anything supernatural.

Unfortunately for you the people who witnessed these miracles saw them with their own eyes and worshiped Jesus as God because of what they saw.

 

[alang1216]

I believe the accounts were historical accounts of the 3 1/2 year ministry of Christ. I base that on the fact that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God, that the written accounts explain why they worshiped Jesus as God, and that there are no opposing accounts which challenge these accounts.

Why would anyone care what Christians told themselves? Also, why would Christians, who basically controlled the copying of manuscripts, care about accounts that challenged them?

Do you honestly believe that if these accounts were untrue and were designed to trick Jews into believing that Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophecies, that the Jewish religious leaders wouldn't have made that argument back then? So where is your evidence for that?

I think the fact that Jews didn't convert in large numbers is the answer.

Whose history of Christianity? The history recorded in the written manuscripts? Or your history where you discard the evidence?

The history that has been critically reviewed by HISTORIANS and judged to be factual.

 

[ding]

Why would anyone care what Christians told themselves? Also, why would Christians, who basically controlled the copying of manuscripts, care about accounts that challenged them?


I think the fact that Jews didn't convert in large numbers is the answer.


The history that has been critically reviewed by HISTORIANS and judged to be factual.

How does this dispute the fact that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God and there are no manuscripts which challenge the veracity of the miracles performed by Christ?

 

[alang1216]

In Acts is stated that around 3000 became Christian after Peter's sermon and the events around the day of Pentecost. Those that converted that day had witnessed the miracle of what was being spoken, stated in their native tongue or dialect, which was also spoken by a direct apostle.

Many signs and wonders followed post Ascension by the apostles and then also Saul, later to be called Paul.

Again, you are making statements without any evidence whatsoever. The evidence shows that Jesus was worshiped as God and that the accounts details crowds of people witnessing the miracles he performed.

What evidence do you have for your beliefs that Jews that saw Jesus perform miracles rarely converted? How many Jews saw Jesus perform miracles? How many Jews did not worship Jesus as God as a result of the miracles they saw Jesus perform?

What evidence do you have that contests that Jesus performed ~40 miracles?

There is a whole file of textural criticism, it is not just my opinions I'm relating:

What are the methods of historical criticism?​

The methods of historical criticism are strategies used by historians and textual critics to gauge the likelihood that a particular passage is veridical.

The criteria for methods of historical criticism are the following:

1. Multiple Attestation
2. Congruity
3. Coherence
4. Dissimilarity
5. Embarrassing Testimony

 

[alang1216]

And your evidence for these beliefs is what? And how does it dispute the facts that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God?

The fact that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God is hardly convincing evidence of anything. How many religions worshipped gods? Every one.

 

[ding]

Why would anyone care what Christians told themselves? Also, why would Christians, who basically controlled the copying of manuscripts, care about accounts that challenged them?


I think the fact that Jews didn't convert in large numbers is the answer.

Didn't we already establish the first Christians were Jewish? And didn't we already establish that the reason more Jews didn't follow Jesus was because either they didn't witness his miracles or followed the lead of the Jewish religious establishment which was against Jesus?

 

[ding]

The fact that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God is hardly convincing evidence of anything. How many religions worshipped gods? Every one.

It's certainly more evidence than what you have provided which is none. Besides it's the fact that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God and the 24,000 written manuscripts which detail the miracles performed by Jesus witnessed by Jews coupled with the lack of any challenge whatsoever and the Babylonian Talmud which said Jesus was put to death for sorcery and attempting to apostatize Israel that makes the evidence compelling enough to qualify it as proof.

Where is your evidence? Where is your proof?

 

[ding]

Why would anyone care what Christians told themselves?

They weren't technically Christians at the time. They were Jews. Maybe the reason the Jewish religious leaders didn't argue the miracles performed by Jesus were myths is because they really happened. In fact, they're accusing Jesus of sorcery is an admission that the miracles performed by Jesus were not myths but really did happen. Which is why they argued that Jesus was getting his powers elsewhere.

How many facts are you going to ignore? The simplest answer for why the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God is that he performed the miracles that were documented in the written manuscripts. The simplest answer for why Jesus was accused of sorcery is that he performed miracles. The simplest answer for why more Jews didn't follow Jesus is that they didn't see Jesus perform the miracles with their own eyes and/or were persuaded by Jewish religious leaders who said Jesus was a sorcerer.

Everything you are arguing is more complex and more complicated and without any evidence whatsoever.