Raf

oh

Highly amused. Great big meanie.

Sigh. Vince has been teaching, for at least 20 years, that you could lose your salvation. Here's a book recommendation for you. :)

Likewise.

Honestly, my reply: I could believe in Santa Claus, Allah, the Easter Bunny and Slender Man tomorrow and that would not make them exist. The existence of life proves life. It does not prove a deity. But even if it did, it would not prove a tribal deity who can't get his story straight. Existence is not contingent on belief. And insistence is not evidence.

How am i supposed to argue with a coconut. :)

The way it works is... you provide the proof, and people believe. Not you make the claim and it;s everyone else's job to inform you where the stench of B.S. is coming from.

This actor played... Professor Jules Hilbert Michael Dorsey Stanley Motss Sam Daniels

Ok, so I'm going to tread on this very carefully. A few years ago, Ken Hamm debate Bill Nye on the subject of evolution. Ken is not a scientist, but he's a young earth creationist who's studied the subject extensively and is no slouch. (He's an idiot, in my opinion, but he's not a stupid idiot). Bill Nye is not a scientist either, but he is an advocate for science education. So both men were asked, what would change your mind? Ken said, Nothing. Nothing will change his mind. Nothing will shake his faith. Nothing can convince him that the Word of God is not true. Bill Nye's answer: Evidence. Show me the evidence and I will change my mind. I don't think it's a virtue to say I won't change my mind. I will. But with evidence. And that's the key difference here. CLAIMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Appeals to emotion are not evidence. Non sequiturs (like Romans 1) are not evidence. When we say something like "the disciples saw him and did not believe," we are making an assumption that the story told in that particular gospel is true. It's not. It's a claim, and one that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. Mary Magdalene's silence is a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. When did Peter get to the tomb? John gives us a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. You know, when The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield contradicts Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, which contradicts Spider-Man Homecoming starring Tom Holland, which contradicts Spider-Man starring Nicholas Hammond, you don't try to harmonize the four accounts. Rather, you recognize each as a work of fiction interpreted by different storytellers. But name those storytellers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though those were NOT the authors of those books) and suddenly they're historians! They're fiction writers. So believe what you want, but real investigation does not begin with a conclusion.

Speaking as a moderator: Please keep posts about the topic, not about the people. And yeah, be nice.

No he doesn't.

stop confusing me

Rocky, I believe my approach is consistent with item 3 on your list (item 3 is very poorly named but the details are laudable). Rottie, On some threads I'm the provacateur. On others i try to just answer questions people may have and address preconceptions. I didn't start or revive this thread, but I'm trying to show that my position is not one of emotion, anger or hard-heartedness. Contrary to what was alleged in now-deleted comments, I have no problem with people reading or studying scripture. I just like to say read ALL of it. If you want to stay a believer til the end of time, more power to you. If you're curious about where i stand now, ask away!

Actually, yes, it does. You know, it's not hard-heartedness that gets people to change their minds. It's open-mindedness. It's rational thought. It's the courage to face yourself and say you were wrong about something. It's realizing when people are manipulating your emotions because they lack confidence in their own position. If you have to discourage people from investigating their beliefs with an open mind, maybe you just don't have that compelling an argument to make. If I were confident in my belief, I would say "INVESTIGATE AWAY!" confident that the facts will lead you to the same place they have led me. And I don't even have an all-powerful God on my side. Like I did above: I actually told her, take another look at Jesus Christ Our Passover. These other guys will no doubt suggest additional material Read it! I ENCOURAGE investigation. Here's what I would say to her if I were a believer: Pray about it. Study. Pray again, more. Ask people you trust. Don't make rash decisions. Think it through. PRAY AGAIN. Let me know if I can help you! I will do my best to show you what I see in the scriptures. I will pray with you. What I would NOT do is try to guilt the person into remembering we're all sinners and only soft-hearted humble people agree with me and everyone else is stiffnecked, hard-hearted and lacking in humility.

I'll take informal logical fallacies for $2000. And the answer is...

You know I'm an atheist now, right? I don't want to be misleading, but we have not chatted for a while.

Jesus Christ Our Passover would be a decent read for a rebuttal. I'm sure Mark S and others would have other resources and observations. I tried to just go by what's in the verses. I've read a LOT of stuff lately and I can't say for sure that I haven't regurgitated a line or two from other sources, but if I did it was unintentional. I'll be happy to add a footnote to give someone proper credit if I'm found to have committed any plagiarism here (lol).

I had a lot written and it all got deleted. Trying to reconstruct it. Bear with me... Why would they make up a woman as the first witness? It should be pointed out that, at first, they didn't. Remember I Corinthians 15? That's the first account of the resurrection, chronologically speaking. Mark is second. Then come Matthew and Luke at about the same time. John is last. Paul says Jesus appeared FIRST to Cephas, then to the 12. Nothing about women. Nothing about two anonymous disciples on the road to Emmaus. Not a hint. The story of the women being first had not been invented yet when Paul was writing. (Wanna know something REALLY strange? Paul never mentions an empty tomb). Mark comes along aBOUT 20 years later and has three women first to arrive at the tomb. The stone is rolled away from the door by the time they get there. They go in. No Jesus. They see ONE man in white saying he's risen, go tell you friends! They go back and keep their mouths shut. The end. [As far as we know. The conclusions of Mark that you see in your Bibles are almost certainly forgeries. There may have been an original ending, but it's lost to history]. Well, that's a lousy ending. Matthew knows this, so he sets out to improve on the ending. He has two women (doesn't mention the third because... well, who knows? Maybe she owed him money) arrive at the tomb. And as they arrive, there's an earthquake! [That no other gospel writers mention!] and an angel [one angel] rolls the stone away from the tomb, sits down on it and smokes a blunt! (I added the blunt. The rest is in the text). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see the angel and he tells them Jesus is risen, go tell you friends! He'll meet up with you in Galilee! (Where, class? GA-LI-LEE. That's right). It's implied but not stated that the women look inside the tomb. Maybe that's when they saw the one guy in Mark who said the same thing to them, and Matthew just didn't want to be redundant? So they go back and ... on the way they run into Jesus. Mark left this out, which is a shame because it's REALLY cool. They see him and the clasp his feet! [That means they touch him. Remember that. It becomes important later]. Jesus tells them, "Tell my disciples to go to Galilee!" Where, class? GA-LI-LEE. That's right! Not sure why Mark left out the appearance of Jesus. You would think that would be a crucial bit of info. Not sure why Mark left out the angel on the stone, or why Matthew left out the man in the tomb. But okay, writer's prerogative? Now, a few verses later, the disciples go to Galilee (where, class? GALILEE, That's right) because that's where Jesus said to go. And they see him and he talks to them and... some... doubted? Okay. Fair enough. It was a lot to process. Okay, so three women are first to learn of the resurrection in Mark, two are first to see the risen Christ in Matthew. Why make that up? We next turn to... Luke. Women again. We're not told how many, but it's at least three, and at least one of them is NOT the same one mentioned in Mark. They go to the tomb. The stone is already rolled away from the door. Nothing about anyone sitting on the stone. Nothing about an earthquake. It's already rolled away by the time they get there. They go inside (no one tells them to go inside. They just do it because that's why they're there). No Jesus. But they see... two men in FABulous attire! And both men say "He is risen! Go tell you friends!" [I'm adding that second part. It actually doesn't say that in Luke]. So they go back to the Eleven (Paul said it was the Twelve. Matthew and Luke say it was the Eleven. Paul wrote his account before the story of Judas' betrayal was made up) and they (according to Mark keep their mouths shut but Luke's got no time for that, and according to Matthew they actually run into Jesus himself but Luke's got no time for THAT, so in his account they) tell the apostles everything. Everything. Unlike Matthew, Mark or Luke, they tell the apostles everything. And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense. And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense. And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense. Why repeat that? Because it is an element of the story that the apostles did not believe the women. Why make it up and have women as the first witnesses? Because it increases the drama! There's no mystery to this, Lee Strobel! Paul's resurrection account was BORING. It didn't even contain a tomb, much less women. Then Luke has Peter run to the tomb to check it out for himself. Peter. Just Peter. No mention of anyone else (though the Emmaus story in the same chapter says he was not alone, so). Sees the empty tomb and says well I'll be... The Emmaus boys meet up with Jesus, don't know it's him, realize it's him, and he vanishes! They go, like, WOW! Let's tell the others! So they go to Jerusalem, where they meet up with the Eleven and Jesus shows up and says Yo! It's true! TOUCH ME! It's really me! I'm here, right where I told you to meet me in (where, class? GA-LI-WHAT?) Galilee is 80 miles from Jerusalem. Jesus says, This is what is written. The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. And no one in the back said "chapter and verse, please!" because the Old Testament never says that. Ever. Anywhere. So they take a walk to Bethany, about a mile and a half away. And Jesus ascends. Wait, what? That's it? He ascends from Bethany on the day of (after?) the resurrection? He's with them ONE DAY? Read Luke AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT. You can't squeeze 40 days into that story. So, recapping: Mark has three women first at the tomb. Matthew has two. Luke has three, but not the same three as the first three. So right now, AT LEAST four women are part of this group. Luke also says there were others. Still not sure why Mark left out the other man in the tomb or why he and Luke left out the angel on the stone, or Jesus appearance to the women on the say back to Jerusalem. Not sure why Matthew left out ANYONE in the tomb or the appearance on the road to Emmaus or the party crashing in Jerusalem, not to mention the ascension. Now, was the ascension in Bethany the day of the resurrection before or after the disciples went to Galilee (80 miles on foot)? It would have to have been after, right? I'm getting confused. Oh well. Luke will come back in Acts and suddenly manufacture 40 days where he originally had just one anyway, so let's move on to... John. In John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb first. No one else is mentioned. All four gospels agree she was there. There is no agreement among all four on ANYONE else. But on Mary Magdalene, we're clear. She was there. She sees that the stone has been removed from the entrance. No angel on the stone. No men inside the tomb. She doesn't even go into the tomb. She runs back to tell Peter and the Disciple Jesus Loved (DJL) that the Lord's been taken away. How does she know this? We're not told. Maybe she could see from outside the tomb that the inside was empty? It never says she went in. Ok, fine, it never says she didn't either. Anyway, Peter and DJL race to the tomb. DJL gets there first, but doesn't go in. Peter (a man) is first to go in. He sees the Shroud of Turin (just checking to see if you're still reading. This post is getting long). He says well I'll be. Then DJL comes in. They believe. They go back to where they were staying (this was in Jerusalem). FINALLY, after all that, Mary Magdalene looks inside the tomb and sees... TWO ANGELS IN WHITE! They ask her why she's crying. She says she couldn't get her shadow to stick (Still with me? Good. Just checking). So she turns around and there's this OTHER guy (psst. It's Jesus). And she's so excited to see him that she clasps his feet! Oh, wait. Sorry, that was Matthew. So Jesus says, "Yes, it's me! Touch me!" Oh, wait, that was Luke. Jesus says "HANDS OFF, woman! It's me. I've got work to do, but I'm alive. Go tell you friends." And she does. Did Peter get to the tomb before or after Mary Magdalene saw the man? I mean the angel? I mean the two men? I mean the two angels? How long was Mary Magdalene quiet? Long enough for it to be the ONLY thing Mark found worth mentioning, not long enough for ANY other gospel writer to find it important. Who was with Mary? At least three other women. But John couldn't be bothered with any of them. Why is Matthew the only one to send the disciples to Galilee? Why does Luke give the distinct impression that Jesus ascended on the same day he crashed the party in Jerusalem? John is clear that there was more time than that. Jesus appears to the disciples (he doesn't say how many) on the resurrection Sunday, then a week later when Thomas can join in on the fun (they're still in Jerusalem at this point: it's the same house for both appearances, according to John). Then there's an epilogue where some time passes and the guys go fishing. Jesus shows up and kills a few thousand fish for them. And then, John 21:14 says this was the THIRD time Jesus appeared to his apostles. So the first time was in Jerusalem. The second time in the same house in Jerusalem. And the third time by the Sea of Galilee. On a mountain, according to Matthew. So, I'm guessing like right next to the Sea of Galilee, because Matthew says they saw him on a mountain. But they were fishing. It's strange though. John reads like they were surprised to see Jesus, not like they were expecting him because he told them to be there. Oh well. John ends. No earthquake. No angel sitting on the stone. No single man inside the tomb. Peter runs out to the tomb BEFORE Mary sees angels (in Luke it's AFTER Mary sees the angels). Why make women the first witnesses of the resurrection if the story is just made up? Precisely because it adds to the credibility of the story! The same reason you move the angel around or add angels. The same reason you add nameless disciples on the road to Emmaus and disappearing/teleportation acts that lead you to seriously question why anyone had to roll the stone away from the tomb in the first place! Acts 1. Because we're not finished. At the end of the novel "First Blood," the character of Rambo dies. In the movies, he lives. The same guy who wrote the first novel wrote the novelization for the second Rambo movie. In his introduction, he acknowledges that Rambo dies in his first book, but in the story itself there's no mention of it. It's a novelization of the movie, and you're supposed to forget what you read in the last chapter of his original book -- just go with the movie's ending. I'm thinking something like that happened with Luke. You read the last chapter of the gospel and Jesus ascends the same day as he first appeared. Then you turn to Acts, and presto! He's around for 40 days proving he's alive. No one else mentions 40 days. None of the gospels say it's 40 days before he's skybound. This is the progress of a legend. It starts out simple and then details are added and removed, replaced and refined until you have the tale you want to tell. Making women the first witnesses doesn't mean it happened in history. That's a pious fiction. Look at Romans 16. The church didn't have a problem with women at that time. According to Acts, a woman was the first Gentile convert (who knows if that's true or not? The point is, it wasn't something scandalous). Lee Strobel is well-intentioned, but his "Case for" books leave a lot to be desired -- I speak as a journalist and as someone who tries to be a critical thinker: Strobel fails miserably at both.

By the way, if you're going to invent a story and try to pass it off as history, it would be best to keep your characters as obscure as possible. That way when nobody can find any evidence that they exist, you can say, why would there be any evidence? Like Jack Dawson on the Titanic. You don't make him the second most powerful man of two different Empires. Because those are records that can be checked.

Can't argue against my point, so dodge, distract, etc. I've seen this movie before.

What is there to answer? Nothing described in that verse happened. In addition it really should be noted that "Messiah" in that verse is a convenient translation of "anointed one." There were LOTS of anointed ones in the Bible. Kings were anointed. While it's true that The Messiah or The Christ is, like, THE Anointed One, there's no indication that this verse is talking about the Christ. Again, ask a Jew who knows his scripture. He'll tell you that it's actually talking about two different anointed ones: one after seven weeks and the other 62 weeks after that. But don't take my word for it. Ask a Jew who knows his own holy book.

Related: If you read the Old Testament without Jesus-colored glasses, it would be next to impossible to conclude many of the verses that are declared to be "fulfilled" in the New Testament were ever referring to the Messiah in the first place. Isaiah 53? DEFinitely not about the Messiah. Don't believe me? Read chapter 52, 53 and 54, remembering that the chapter and verse divisions were added. Read straight through. It's not talking about the Messiah. The servant is Israel. I've linked an article written by an unbiased Jewish scholar of the Bible who wrote the book (in two volumes) on why Jews don't become Christian. It's got a lot of pages, chapters and footnotes. His name is Tovia Singer.

1. TLC: We were specifically warned to keep posts about the topic and not about each other. You could not go a single sentence without violating that reasonable instruction. Not one sentence. 2. Neither of the verses you refer to are in the Old Testament. 3. The notion that there are hidden meanings in Old Testament passages that secretly refer to the Messiah is laughable. "Out of Egypt I have called my son" is not a Messianic prophecy. "A virgin shall be with child" is not a Messianic prophecy. "You will not leave my soul in hell or allow your holy one to see corruption" is not a Messianic prophecy. Having a "sovereign" God who can "do things like that" makes any statement mean anything, simultaneously making it absolutely pointless to present scriptural evidence to people who can change scripture to mean whatever they want it to mean. There's a reason, as a whole, that Jews who know their scriptures best have not converted to Christianity: they know when their own scriptures are being distorted to prove things they do not prove.

Short version of the above post: Looking at it from the perspective of a historian, the Bible presents us with few witnesses, no unbiased witnesses, all second and third hand from accounts that disagree with each other in ways that are both trivial and significant. The best you can say is that some people in the early church believed it. But that it actually happened? Probably not.