Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[polonius]

Doesn't a careful comparison of the contradictions among Resurrection stories in the New Testament suggest that these are more likely fictional (or some apologists may say "symbolic") rather than a recording of actual historical events (those that actually happened)?

It is amazing how some biblical fundamentalists simply ignore what is plainly written in these accounts and instead involve themselves in disagreements on non-essentials!

Could the Resurrection stories simply be fictional accounts?

Question: Why was it necessary to have Jesus disappear in so short a time?

[KenRU]

CE,

Sorry for the very late response. Been very busy. Hope all is well.

Since you have conceded that those emotions existed while you still believed, then there were barriers.

There were no doubts for many years beforehand. I can’t make this any more clear.

I do commend that you wanted to think for yourself.

Thank you. I recommend this course for everyone.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

But this is pure guesswork on your part. You have no reason (other than a preconceived answer) to suppose this.

Once again, you MUST discount what I am telling you. You believe me when my words suit you, but when they don’t, suddenly my honesty is suspect.

There is only one person in this conversation with a bias for a preconceived idea.

You.

If you didn't want scientific proof, then why was just not believing in the Holy Spirit not good enough for you then? You wanted, from what I gather, proof that is tangible.

It is not a question of wanting. It is a question of believability. It is a question of conflicting information.

It isn’t like one day I learned one bit of information and whammo! No more belief.

You wanted things to be believable so it could conveniently make you not doubt.

No. You simply aren’t getting it, perhaps intentionally. So I am beginning to wonder why I bother.

I am simply commenting and observing that any such divine revelation, message or inspiration would have prevented me from leaving the faith once my doubts arose. Period.

What can of conflicting information are you talking about? Since when do contradictions negate everything in the Bible? Surely, learning about other pagan flood stories does negate the story of Noah being true.

No, but massive amounts of scientific data can do that job nicely.

However, is there anything that can prove that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist?

Wrong question. The correct question is: is there any proof that the holy spirit exists?

Is there anything that can prove that Mohammad didn’t fly to heaven on a winged horse?

I can’t (no one can, I would argue) just believe something when I really don’t. That would just be pretending, and wouldn’t fool god, would it?

Absolutely, but do you really want to consider that you may be wrong?

I have already considered it. That decision has long since been made. Can you consider that you may be wrong?

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic

You do recognize that the RCC is made up of people, who claim to be Roman Catholic, lol. Right?

The RCC, as in the Vatican, are made up of Satan worshipers that go out to deceive innocent Catholics. When I say the US is invading Syria, I don't mean all Americas are invading Syria.

To believe in Jesus, that sin is bad, the devil is bad and that Christ was the son of god. That was the message I rec’d from the RCC.

Did they succeed or fail?

Didn't the RCC succeed in making you feel fearful and guilty? Those emotions that Jesus said we shouldn't have?

All religion does this, imo.

But I noticed you dodged my point. If the RCC was some subversive satanic organization, why would the message I receive be the same one you did in your faith?

Not very satanic in practice, is it?

Things that it teaches and things they really believe can be two different things

Well then, you have a dilemma then. If it isn’t teaching satanic messages – messages contrary to the teachings of Jesus, then why bother at all?

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

No, he is making the point that anything can be misinterpreted. The Quran. The bible.

Do you doubt that people do horrible things in the name of Christianity?

No, he is saying that Islam makes disciples of Muslims like ISIS who kill.

No. You are wrong. Your interpretation is only correct if you ignore the words “it is also possible�.

Did Jesus have disciples who coerced others to convert by threatening with death?

Yes, people have done horrible things in Christianity but is it what Jesus espoused?

Not the point. He is saying that Matthew’s Gospel could be interpreted a different way. Doesn’t mean that he agrees with it. That is you reading into this quote something that is not there.

Now let's say, hypothetically, that is St Peter's cross. Why are people praying to him and not Jesus?

Holy Toledo. Catholics believe that it is ok to pray to saints. It doesn’t mean they don’t pray to Jesus.

I thought it when people go to church, they sign themselves with the cross honouring Jesus? They don't believe it's Peter! In the Bible, there is absolutely no way it condones praying to anyone but Jesus.

Your opinion is noted. Are those saints and other good “souls� not in heaven? Is Christ not the vine, and we not the branches? Aren’t we all connected through god and especially in heaven?

Each faith has its own interpretation of how this fictitious afterlife works. IMO, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism nor Satanism gets it more right than any other.

Do you believe in angels? Nothing about this is satanic. You can argue that it is not “true� Christianity if you want (a charge that Catholics can level at you as well) but neither is satanic.

Silly.

You mean, you don't believe it is Satanic.

Just as you don’t believe Catholicism is a legitimate form of Christianity, I suppose.

I do not know what is so hard to understand about the meaning of an inverted cross.

I do not know what is so hard to understand about the historical design of the Pastoral Cross.

Satanists do not despise Peter.

Neither do Catholics. Good thing we cleared that up.

And there is the bent cross.

Correction, it is the pastoral staff (signifies the shepherd of the universal church).

So what if it is a staff? That is what they say it means.

Typical conspiratorial response. “I don’t believe you�.

Are they going to tell you it's Satanic?

Are you going to admit that your version of Christianity is bigoted, biased and conspiratorial. Careful! If you say it is not, I now get to say I don’t believe you. Lol.

It is a blasphemous depiction of Jesus' crucifixion. In fact, it was considered so blasphemous that is was banned by the Church in 1921. Pope Francis brought it back.

Link: http: http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.c ... _5011.html (if you really are interested in knowing the ACTUAL origin of the various crosses)

It actually does not help your case to cite a Catholic source.

As it does not help your case to source conspiratorial websites.

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status

See what you did there? You ignored what I said in favor (once again) of your bias. I never said she was elevated to god status.

Then there is a lot you don't know about Catholicism.

Says the non-Catholic to the Catholic, lol. Funny.

Says the non Catholic to a self-confessed indoctrinated Catholic.

Glad you played this card. Let’s make this more accurate now shall we?

I am an ex-Catholic who has absolutely no, zero, nada motivation to defend Catholicism. I already believe it is a bunch of mystical nonsense. More so than many other faiths. And for more clarification, I was indoctrinated, but have long since shed the blinders of such a nonsensical mystical upbringing. That allows me to now look back at my past faith and religiosity with an unbiased eye. If I thought for one second you could or have presented proof that the RCC was a bunch of pagan devil worshippers, I would gather such evidence and present it to my family and show them how they have all been deceived.

But you haven’t. Because you can’t. Darn. I wish you could, lol.

As an ex-Catholic, you would never admit there is Satanism in the church because as I say, once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Sigh. Wrong yet again. I would love to find such evidence. Once again, you claim to know me, better than me. Your powers of omniscience are truly staggering.

Even most ex Catholics will never find fault with the RCC.

Then explain my previous (many many many) posts finding fault with the Catholicism and the RCC?

No, I'm not. Isis is a moon goddess.

I’m done debunking your crazy claims, CE. It is getting way too tedious. It must be very comforting to know more about Catholics then Catholics. More about the personal beliefs of atheists then they do. And, more about god, Christ and religion than everyone who disagrees with you.

Truly, you are favored by god.

I'm afraid that is a cop out for someone who has been refuted and won't admit it.

It can only be a cop out if my stance was shown to be untrue. It hasn’t. In fact, you have claimed to know more about me then me, and more about Catholics then Catholics so many times, the phrase ad nauseum is almost cliché at this point.

Have you ever been an atheist? Have you ever been a Catholic? Have you studied Catholicism in any way shape or form?

Hardly a cop out. Your humility on this subject is non-existent.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

A lot of things wrong here. I dismissed the idea of a personal god after much reflection, education and logical thought. It most certainly was not a simple hand-waving dismissal. There was nothing easy about it.

And sometimes what seems wrong or illogical is indeed wrong and/or illogical.

So you assumed that logic somehow negates the supernatural? They are separate things. If the disciples had only logic to depend on, they would not have been followers of Jesus.

Do you believe all the claims of supernatural events from other religions?

I think it is possible.

Then how could you possibly know from which god these supernatural events can be correctly attributed? Also, consider I have never experienced such an event, so, I have only 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge to believe such things ever happened.

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate.

It does when you deny a measure of happiness for others for that which you want for yourself.

Sometimes what makes a person happy doesn't mean it is necessarily good for them.

And the circular logic is complete. Who decides this CE? You? It is the height of arrogance to deny someone happiness for which you want for yourself. Especially when you can be no more certain of your faith and its accuracy than any other religious person.

It all depends on the viewpoint but my viewpoint does not decide whether homosexuals get married or not. Therefore I'm not denying anyone happiness.

Good to know that you disagree wit the bible on some things, lol.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me?

No, he wouldn’t, because he knows all and knows that I was a believer, without doubts at one time. Despite the fact the CE doesn’t believe me, lol.

Or maybe you were indoctrinated.

If you are the same religion now as when your parents raised you, then you were indoctrinated too, lol.

That's not necessarily so. Some may be blessed to know the true God. They just happened to have the right belief.

But then it would still be true (that you were indoctrinated), regardless of it being the “right� faith or not.

You were indoctrinated, just like every other Catholic, by your own admission.

If you assert it is a flaw for Catholics, it is then a flaw for you.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

Because I had the foundations; the roots planted deeply.

In other words, YOU were indoctrinated?

I knew you were going to say that. What I meant was that I also knew God existed from very young.

As did I.

I didn't understand Him like we are taught now.

As did I.

I just felt a presence. I have a measure of ESP and therefore am far more susceptible to supernatural presences.

And thus ended this line of discussion, lol.

[Clownboat]

Why would a person who had no idea what a god could be in the first place attribute that to something supernatural? How would they know what the supernatural was in the first place? When we imagine, it's due to things that have been observed before.

For the answer to this, we turn to psychology:
Human beings explain features of the world around them in two very different ways. For example, we sometimes appeal to natural causes or laws in order to account for an event. Why did that apple fall from the tree? Because the wind blew and shook the branch, causing the apple to fall. Why did the water freeze in the pipes last night, because the temperature of the water fell below zero, and it is a law that water freezes below zero.

However, we also explain by appealing to agents - beings who act on the basis of their beliefs and desires in a more or less rational way. Why did the apple fall from the tree? Because Ted wanted to eat it, believed that shaking the tree would make it fall, and so shook the tree. Why are Mary's car keys on the mantelpiece? Because she wanted to remind herself not to forget them, so put them where she thought she would spot them.

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/be ... ble-beings

No need. Imagination, ignorance and wishful thinking explain the gods just fine.

Oh, so you just dismiss other possibilities because it is convenient for you.

Convenience has nothing to do with it Claire. I acknowledge that imagination is all that is required for us to have all these competing god concepts. You however, interject angels, demons, devils and aliens as explanations. Why do you do this when imagination explains it just fine?

But who says that only imagination is required?

Myself and Psychology Today.

You are just assuming that. This is confirmation bias. Let's say we had this lightning bolt technology and we went to another planet and primitive people were there. They had never seen our technology. If we discharged this lightning bolt, could they just not assume we are some sort of god who causes lightning like Zeus? And remember the gods weren't supernatural beings to the ancients. They were observed beings, like aliens, who were considered superior because of the technology. They weren't spirits in the sky.

Like I said, you interject all sorts of outlandish IMO alternatives rather than acknowledge that imagination is all that would be needed. I assume you believe in the human imagination. Please provide me with a reason to believe in aliens, demons, devils and angels.

I'm posed with two scenarios.
1) People imagined the claim that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a horse.
2) Muhammad had alien technology at his disposal.
Which of these 2 do we know for a fact is a possible explanation?

In fact, it is said the technology we had today is from aliens.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/681334- ... echnology/

Thank you Claire. Please continue offering as much of this as an explanation as possible.
Also from that site for our readers enjoyment:
"The aliens violated the pact, said Schneider, by taking more humans than agreed upon. A war with the aliens has been fought ever since. He said the aliens plan to take over Earth by 2029 and he called on the government to tell citizens what it knows."

Like I said above, claim it was their god that did it. The benefit would be crediting such an impossible act to their god compared to another.

Except that didn't happen.

Right! My point. If it did happen, you couldn't just brush it under the rug and hope people wouldn't notice. A smart leader would take credit to show just how great their gods are or what have you.

What is this supposed to mean? That's not answering my question. The only beneficial thing for a pagan to accept Christianity was to avoid death, not glamorize their own gods.

I don't see a question to answer. You made the statement that pagans were forced to join Christianity. I agree, however, that black eye cannot be placed on me as I no longer force anyone to be a Christian.

So the claim wasn't believable to them but you suggest they could have stolen the resurrection story of the saints coming out of the tomb for their own?

I don't believe that the claim of the 500 was believable because 500 dead bodies getting up and walking around is only a claim found in the Bible. Therefore it cannot be trusted.

How do you know the resurrection claims were not to be found credible in Jerusalem?

The Jews to this day still reject that it happened.

How on earth did the resurrection claim survive?

People starting a church based off the death of Jesus where said people offered reasons for being on this earth, somewhere to go when you die and a way to see your dead loved ones again. You know, basically the same things all religions offer us.

So you can't see the link between the saint story and the OT prophecies? I didn't make that up. It's most likely a metaphor. Like I believe the demon possessed story was a metaphor for the Jewish Wars.

The story is outrageous. You must call it metaphor. However, it is not written as metaphor but as an actual event. Blame your holy book.

It is also prudent to note that even though the Bible says 40 days, it is actually not meant to be taken literally. It means a relatively long time. We have the theme of Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days, Moses fasting for 40 days and Noah being at sea for 40 days. It's symbolic.

What mechanism to you employ when reading the Bible that determines what is metaphor and what is not? Please be specific so I can start applying this said mechanism.

You have no scripture to support your view. I suggest you reject it because it is nonsensical, but the words are in the Bible whether you like it or not.

I can't help it if you dismiss my very rational answer.

Your rational answer betrays the fact that the claim is in the Bible whether you like it or not. You just seem to recognize that it is outlandish, therefore your mechanism seems to be to just call it metaphor. How is the idea that Jesus resurrected any less outlandish? Perhaps the claims that Jesus rose from the dead are metaphor as well? If not, please explain why not if other claims in the Bible are just metaphor.

Why couldn't all words in the different scriptures have been said? For example in Matthew 27:46-50

This is getting off topic. For all I know, the entire story is just a metaphor.

Yet you dismiss the rest of my comment which gives the context. Why?

Not sure what you mean. The point is that depending on the writer is what tells us how many women came to the tomb. NOT biblical consistency.

That's not the point. You are pointing out allegedly contradictions. We aren't discussing if angels exist or not.

I'm pointing out that the Bible is not clear about the quantity of angels. The number seems to vary from book to book, but for all I know, it's all metaphor anyways.

Yes:

Matthew says no; the other three say yes.

You mean, you haven't detected any gods.

No. None of the god concepts available for belief have been detected to affect our reality.

To you, prayer is ineffective.

No. Scientific studies have shown prayer to the Christian god anyways to be ineffective. For all I know, prayers to Vishnu help, but I will doubt it until shown otherwise.

To you, you think gods should help a team win. What makes this so?

Not to me Claire, to your favorite holy book:
- John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Do you know every person on this planet who have claimed to know spirits, and have refuted them?

Odd question... No, I don't know every person on this planet nor have I refuted all of them. What responsibility are you trying to place on me?

I am not talking about TV shows. I tend to be skeptical about paranormal investigators on TV. You see, if you are not aware of something, you somehow think it is not credible or doesn't exist.

Put your money where your mouth is Claire. Make me aware of the paranormal!

So what does putting the gospel in writing decades later somehow negate the gospels?

This makes them less credible. It allowed for later stories to be added to the Bible like the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story.

Paul didn't make up the gospels. You'd think the early Church would have had a problem with made up things.

Please describe this early church you speak of. What time frame are you alluding to and who was heading up this church?

Oral tradition is one way for a rumor about a man being resurrected to get spread.

So now you don't? Do you dismiss how they are transmitted? It's not a case of people whispering stories in other people's ears.

I don't understand what you are asking me. I'm pointing out that oral tradition is one way for rumors to start. Is oral tradition immune to starting rumors in your opinion?

Okay, so you don't dismiss it then. Great. Therefore stop being so sure the gospels only existed decades later.

That's not how this works. Show me that the gospels existed before we know they existed and then I will be sure. I'm aware of later additions to the gospels, and yet your wishful thinking has you believing that they were oral, and not just oral, but accurately so. As if additions only happened after it was written down and not while it was being orally told (if it was orally told at all that is).

There must be great care in preserving papyrus. It was fragile and subject to decay especially due to humidity. It had to be preserved in wooden cylinders. Parchments were way to expensive and were used rarely.

I see, so that's why we have thousands upon thousands of ancient papyrus.

So we need to ask, who would have been in possession of any writings and how did they preserve it?

I'm not aware of any early Christian writings (talking gospels still here), are you?

I am not talking about whether what they are saying is truthful or not. I am saying how to detect when writings have been made based on oral tradition.

Great?!? Please show that the gospels were oral tradition. We both seem to agree that if they were, there is no assurance that they were truthful.

Those lying pens of the scribes were in the OT.

Why do you choose to forget the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story? These are New Testament forgeries Claire.

A book is the only way to spread the gospel worldwide. Oral tradition couldn't be sustained around the world.

This is a false statement if being made about an all powerful god.

Wait, are you saying it's a fact? So know you suddenly believe the gospels aren't made up? You think there may have been no guards because of a fabrication, no?

No Claire, I'm just referencing the stories themselves. You could point out absurdities in the Spider Man comic without believing that they happened as told.

Yes, true. However, why? We need to understand that, in the Bible, Jesus' burial was not complete on the Friday evening (Matthew 16:1). If Jesus was not meant to be buried in the tomb, why on earth was He there in the first place? Couldn't they have embalmed in somewhere else?

The story itself tells us (now, whether or not the story can be trusted has not been establised). 'It was nigh at hand'.

It would be asinine to think woman spreading a rumour would stick.

This rumor was rejected by the Jews in Jerusalem. It could be argued that it did not stick. Well, not until many decades later hundreds of miles from where the event was claimed to have taken place anyways.

And they would not be worried about punishment from Pilate? Pilate didn't believe a resurrection would take place, but was afraid of the claim.

Correct. If the event didn't happen like it was reported to have happened many decades later, then the guards had nothing to fear.

IMO, Paul created the religion.

And just lured in gullible people, including the disciples who knew Jesus had died.

I have not claimed that the disciples were gullible. For all I know, they may have actually thought a resurrection took place.

So you think that because a specific scribes with lying pens in the OT, suddenly makes NT liars? That's a bit of a stretch.

It is you that ignores the additions to the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story, not I.

Do go on about how Joseph Smith had an alien encounter.

Don't dodge what I said. Do you believe the FBI is making up claims of aliens?

I think the FBI encourages people to come up with alien claims in order to distract from what is actually going on.

Therefore, according to your logic, it just could not have happened. It doesn't matter that it may have been a cover up, it's just not true to you.

No, I'm not gullible. Show me that an alien craft crash landed or what have you and I will believe.

Really? What would have happened to the disciple or Jesus had he not been buried that same day. Please enlighten me.

They respected the scriptures. Anyone, carrying around a corpse in public with angry people would have been scary enough.

This does not tell me what would happen to them like I asked. If nothing would have happened, then why would they really care if bigger things were going on?

Your answer is not suitable for a debate. When you don't want to concede I may have a point, you just bring aliens in.

I submit that if you find aliens to be valid explanations for Muhammad, Zeus's lightning bolts and Joseph Smith's encounter, then such a thing is very suitable in this debate. Personally, I wish such things were not suitable for debate, but you keep offer them up as if they are explanations.

No silly, they would have avoided any angry crowds.

How???

Covering the decomposing body with plenty of spices and covering it to keep it out of site.

I don't know, but I'm sure there would be those in Galilee that would. Maybe they were in contact with aliens that knew where to bury the body?

Again, when your feel your answer is lacking, you revert to aliens.

Not true, as you can see just above, I also included "I don't know, but I'm sure there would be those in Galilee that would" as an explanation. Aliens are explanations I offer up when debating you because you seem to find them to be reasonable explanation. I wish you didn't so I would not have to address them because I find them to be silly explanations personally.

So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Is more alien tech involved with this claim?

If you are not going to behave in a mature manner, then what is the point of debating?

If you find the alien tech explanation to be childish, then stop offering them up as explanations. More importantly, you failed to address my actual point twice in a row now.
This time you failed to address: So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people?
How do bodies symbolically do this?

[Willum]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Well of course the Dark Ages didn't destroy Christian works.

All of the Titus and Josephus' etc., are questionable. Sad, sad fact, Chrestos. Or Chystos.

That's one to look up: There were a people calling themselves "Golden People," Chrystos," who ascribed to the Golden Rule after 300 BC. Is this a coincidence?

[Goose]

Doesn't a careful comparison of the contradictions among Resurrection stories in the New Testament suggest that these are more likely fictional (or some apologists may say "symbolic") rather than a recording of actual historical events (those that actually happened)?

No more than the numerous contradictions between the narratives of Caesar’s assassination suggest that event was fictional.

It is amazing how some biblical fundamentalists simply ignore what is plainly written in these accounts and instead involve themselves in disagreements on non-essentials!

This coming from the person who completely ignores my post here where I refuted his argument over Luke’s use of τοτε (“then�) and just simply re-posts the very same arguments here that had just been refuted.

The irony.

[Clownboat]

Doesn't a careful comparison of the contradictions among Resurrection stories in the New Testament suggest that these are more likely fictional (or some apologists may say "symbolic") rather than a recording of actual historical events (those that actually happened)?

No more than the numerous contradictions between the narratives of Caesar’s assassination suggest that event was fictional.

Since you want to compare the two.
I will admit that I am unclear about the assassination of Caesar if you are willing to admit that you are unclear about the resurrection of Jesus.

This admission does make me feel a little silly since I know assassinations happen and have happened, unlike dead bodies coming back to life though.

Goose, did Jesus come back to life after 3 days?
I'm unaware if Caesar was assassinated.

[polonius]

polonius.advice wrote:

Doesn't a careful comparison of the contradictions among Resurrection stories in the New Testament suggest that these are more likely fictional (or some apologists may say "symbolic") rather than a recording of actual historical events (those that actually happened)?

Your reply:

No more than the numerous contradictions between the narratives of Caesar’s assassination suggest that event was fictional.

RESPONSE:

(1)Which one of the narratives of Caesar's assassination is considered to be divinely inspired?

(2) Please provide the citations for at least three of the contradictions in the narratives of Caesar's assination that you are claiming. Or are you just bluffing?


Polonius posted:

It is amazing how some biblical fundamentalists simply ignore what is plainly written in these accounts and instead involve themselves in disagreements on non-essentials.

Your reply

This coming from the person who completely ignores my post here where I refuted his argument over Luke’s use of τοτε (“then�) and just simply re-posts the very same arguments here that had just been refuted.

The irony.

RESPONSE: Actually not "irony" but the facts. Please provide your proof with the citation of where Paul learned of his reported account of the Resurrection of Jesus. Or is it solely Paul's own?

And the operative word is "proof" (complete with the citation, author of the citation, and approximate date of the citation).

Unless you can't find any.

Claiming that someone else had this information but you just don't know who, doesn't quite cut it. Anyone can make such a claim. What we need is the proof of the original author substantiating such a claim, not merely his supposition.

Or, as they say in law, such a claim is merely an "assertion without evidence" and should be disregarded.

[Goose]

Since you want to compare the two.
I will admit that I am unclear about the assassination of Caesar if you are willing to admit that you are unclear about the resurrection of Jesus.

I’m not unclear about either event. The point being, contradictions/discrepancies among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non–historicity.

This admission does make me feel a little silly since I know assassinations happen and have happened, unlike dead bodies coming back to life though.

Your feeling silly is noted.

Goose, did Jesus come back to life after 3 days?

Yes, I believe he did.

I'm unaware if Caesar was assassinated.

Your personal acceptance of either event is irrelevant.

[polonius]

Since you want to compare the two.
I will admit that I am unclear about the assassination of Caesar if you are willing to admit that you are unclear about the resurrection of Jesus.

I’m not unclear about either event. The point being, contradictions/discrepancies among accounts is not necessarily indicative of non–historicity.

RESPONSE: But in the case of supposedly divinely inspired accounts, it would be.

This admission does make me feel a little silly since I know assassinations happen and have happened, unlike dead bodies coming back to life though.

Your feeling silly is noted.

Goose, did Jesus come back to life after 3 days?

Yes, I believe he did.

RESPONSE: In this case, the historical fact, not your belief, is the operative question.

I'm unaware if Caesar was assassinated.

Your personal acceptance of either event is irrelevant.

[Goose]

polonius.advice wrote:

Doesn't a careful comparison of the contradictions among Resurrection stories in the New Testament suggest that these are more likely fictional (or some apologists may say "symbolic") rather than a recording of actual historical events (those that actually happened)?

Your reply:

No more than the numerous contradictions between the narratives of Caesar’s assassination suggest that event was fictional.

RESPONSE:

(1)Which one of the narratives of Caesar's assassination is considered to be divinely inspired?

Irrelevant. Or are you really only arguing against inerrancy and inspiration?

(2) Please provide the citations for at least three of the contradictions in the narratives of Caesar's assination that you are claiming. Or are you just bluffing?

No problem. Here's just a few between Nicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius.

• 1. Which senators were involved.
  2. How many senators were involved (Nicolas says 80!).
  3. What Caesar said when Tillius Cimber came at him.
  4. Where on Caesar’s body the first blow landed.
  5. Whether Caesar spoke at the first blow or not.
  6. Who made the first blow.
  7. Whether Caesar stood to defend himself.
  8. Caesar’s last words.
  9. The number of stab wounds, 23 or 35.
  10. Which wound actually killed him.
  11. Where Caesar finally died.
  12. What Caesar said to Brutus.
  13. Whether Caesar was stabbed in the groin or thigh by Brutus.
  14. What happened to Caesar’s body immediately after his death.

Using your reasoning the assassination of Caesar was probably fiction.

RESPONSE: Actually not "irony" but the facts. Please provide your proof with the citation of where Paul learned of his report Resurrection of Jesus.

Classic Red Herring. You need to go back and address my post. Unless of course you concede the point that Luke makes no explicit claim in his Gospel that the resurrection and ascension occurred on the same day.