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?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

"WE" WILL NOT SLEEP

QUESTION: Does Paul's commentary above (1 Cor 15: 51-52; 1 Thess 4:13) indicate he believed that first century Christians would not die before christ's return?

No. It is important to note that in the above discussion Paul, addressing the topic of the future resurrection, is using a collective "we" to refer to anoited spirit begotten Christians AS A GROUP and NOT to those exclusively living in the first century; this is not at all unusual and is fairly common in the Christian Greek scriptures.

And it's even MORE important to not try to gloss over the fact that whoever wrote the passage went out of their way to use the phrase "We who are still alive". The word "future" wasn't used, for example. If we read just the words themselves, and not try to spin it to resemble some particular theological bias, the "WE" is about those who are still alive.

You may INTERPRET "still alive" to mean those who are still alive in the FUTURE... but that meaning isn't made clear, so that it is open to interpretation and invention. The authors of Paul might have been referring simply to those believers who are still alive at the time of the writing. Jesus is reputed to have said that people can expect a second coming in their own life time, so that fits the Bible, too.

And there is a lively debate about what Jesus was supposed to have meant by THAT.

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (NAS, Luke 21:32-33)

I wonder why the words "THIS GENERATION" can possibly be taken to mean "THAT FUTURE GENERATION".

Because in my world, THIS does not mean THAT. I can't help it if the Bible authors have Jesus talking so vaguely about such important issues. It's almost as if they really didn't WANT clarity. Oh well, I merely speculate.. and we know that speculation is... inconclusive.

So when Paul speaks about the "WE" who are still " alive and ... left" at the time of the resurrection there is no reason to limit the application exclusively to century christians rather than spirit anointed christians of later eras.

The word "we" is indeed, very vague.

Who are the "we"? ... completely open to interpretation, as you have demonstrated. I would think that whoever wrote Paul and used the phrase "we who are still alive", the WE here is those who were still alive at the time that Paul was written. The term "future" isn't used. I think that the authors of Paul knew the word very well, and that's why they avoided it.

And the authors of Paul also say nothing to indicate that these events were to take place after they were all still living at the time the passages were written, but precisely WHILE they were all still living. It seems that the authors of Paul went out of their WAY to make the point that you want to dispute.

I think it's great for the apologists with all kinds of different biases to confirm that the Bible is so very very vague. It means that more kinds of theologies can be created to fit whatever the believers desire. If the Bible was a bit more clear, we wouldn't have thousands of different opinions on what it means.

Thanks for your particular interpretation, it's interesting. It may also be right. It may not be, and that's my criticism. It just may not be even though you offer a great argument. And that's because we do not have what I would like to call:

A TIME MACHINE

But as your particular interpretation is based on opinion and confirmation bias, we will have to put it on the stack with all the other particular interpretations that people insist is the "truth". The stack is very high, and bewildering in scope and variety.

It would be nice if we could go back in time, talk to the Bible authors and ask them point blank all of these questions we argue about. But... alas, no time machine. So, we can and do speculate, and that's fair.

We all have opinions. But we should always remember that our SPECULATIONS .. aren't facts. You make a very good case, but it's speculation. We really do not know what the "we" actually DOES mean.

and don't forget there BC.........that Revelations spends the first chapters warning all the major churches of that time what is soon to take place and the riot act that follows so they can take appropriate measures....and now its 2,000 years later and those churches are long gone and still nothing happen.........why would John spend all that effort reading the riot act to those churches if he didn't think Christ's return was eminent?

What a death nail that is into the "blessed hope" of Christ's return huh?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 109 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Not only that the sources of all these claimed "eyewitnesses" are from the followers of this faith..........not from a non biased objective observer of the event.

It would be like only taking the testimony of only UFO abductees that the alien abductions happen and never using any other source of research other than those with the confirmation bias that this happens.

In other words Christians in ancient times claiming extraordinary claims of the supernatural in which their very faith rests upon is confirmation bias of the highest order.

Listen to Amway people try to recruit you into their downstream about how you can achieve financial independence................confirmation bias by those having a vested interest in what they are testifying.

Its all the same lack of credibility when it comes to a resurrection claim coming from the followers of that claim........I heard it and I believe it........ because I want and need it to be true.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 109 by Tired of the Nonsense]


If you believe the flat earth society and the Christian message can be compared, then I really do not know how to help you out, because it does not compare.

You continue to talk about the most, "natural and probable explanation" as if this means the "most probable, and natural explanation" wins out. However, the flat earth society position actually works against you!

You see, before we had all the knowledge we have today, the most "probable and natural explanation" to the naked eye was that the earth was flat. To the naked eye, the sun certainly seems to be revolving around the earth. Therefore most people at the time, worked from the most, "probable and natural" position. But as we now know, the most, "probable and natural" explanation was in error. What this actually means is the most, "natural and probable" explanation could blind those who believe in it, to what reality actually is.

Those who worked from the position the earth was flat, failed to consider there may be other factors involved they could not see, which means they were blind to the reality. This is why we should all, no matter what position we take, keep in mind the possibility of our error. If we do not, we could make the same errors, as the flat earthers.

You continue to claim that I make assertions when I am not making any assertions at all, rather I am examining assertions made by others, along with the evidence. You see, whether you like it or not, we do have evidence of the claims made, one of which is the Biblical writings themselves. Now of course you attempt to explain these writings away, and you must. The reason why you must is because these writings are evidence. If the Biblical writings were not evidence, then there would be no need in attempting to explain them away.

As we look at the Biblical evidence, it has to be admitted that the writers, whom ever they were, had no knowledge of the Book we now call the Bible, which means they were not writing material for inclusion into the canonical Bible. A great example of this would be the two letters attributed to Luke. This author is clearly writing to a friend, he gives his reason for writing, and also the way in which he attained his information, one of which was "careful investigation." There is also very good internal evidence in the second letter, when compared to the writings attributed to Paul, that this author was in fact along with Paul during Paul's missionary journeys all the way up until Paul's house arrest, which means this author claims to have been an eyewitness to extraordinary events. The point is, the Biblical writers did not collude together in order to write things that would one day end up in the book we now call the Bible, rather they were simply living their lives, and these letters are the by product of their lives. These letters happened to be saved, and it was not until much later that they were included into what we now know as the New Testament.

Another mistake you make, is that you seem to assume that I do not understand the improbability of a corpse coming back to life. But you see, I not only understand the improbabilities, I also understand that it is impossible! This impossibility is what makes these claims extraordinary. It is beyond argument that at least Paul made extraordinary claims within his lifetime. As I have also mentioned, the evidence is over whelming that Luke was indeed the author of both the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts. This means Luke would have wrote his letters during his lifetime.

All of the above is evidence, and we have not even gotten into how these men were able to tie the death, and Resurrection of Jesus into the Old Testament, which of course was written hundreds, and even thousands of years before.

The point to all of this is, I understand you and others who may take your view, have used reason, and that you have reasons for your beliefs. However, for you to suggest that it is not possible for someone to use reason to come to believe the Christian message, is beyond an unreasonable position.

As far as the authorship of 2 Peter, that is really not the point. This may be my fault because I am usually careful to qualify by saying something like, "the author of 2 Peter," which I did not do in this case, but my point was to address your concerns about these reports being, myths, fables, etc. No matter who the author was, it is clearly his concern in the passage I cited, to ensure his readers, the events he is speaking of were not "cleverly invented stories" like some of the other religious beliefs at the time, but rather they were based on eyewitness testimony. No matter who the author, he was either reporting the truth, or lying! It cannot be said, "he was simply reporting what he had been told."

This is all over explained on both sides of the discussion here.............the simple fact remains that whatever was written in ancient manuscripts can have a life of their own without any intent of that happening......

Look information exchange between individual even eyewitnesses can be faulty and embellished without malice or ill intent.....and we may not know what happened but have never seen anything like a body 3 days dead getting up again at any time in human history that we can document so you can't assume that is what happened...........

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

I have to say I have made a huge post that I would like to share and I guess paul did alittle in this

"That they said (in boast) "We have killed Christ Jesus the
son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not,
nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and
those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain)
knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they
killed him not:--" (Koran, Su 4:157).

this is the view of quran now I will give a chain of evidence from the bible

In any event, if there is any division between a Muslim and a Christian on the grounds of
dogma, belief, ethics or morality, then the cause of such conflict could be traced to an utterance of Paul found in his books of Corinthians, Phillipians, Galatians, Thessolanians, etc., in the Bible.
As against the teaching of the Master (Jesus) that salvation only comes through keeping of
the commandments (Mathew 19:16-17), Paul nails the law and the commandments to the
cross (Colossians 2:14)1, and claims that salvation can only be obtained through the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ:-

"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and
your faith is also vain."
(1 Corinthians 15:14)

According to St. Paul, there is nothing that Christianity can offer mankind, other than the
blood and gore of Jesus. If Jesus did NOT die, and he was NOT resurrected from the dead,
then there can be NO salvation in Christianity! "For all your good deeds", says the
Christian dogmatist, "are like filthy rags" - (Isaiah 64:6).

I will call up your witnesses and cross examine them to discover the truth or falsity of the matter

The amazing thing about the Christians' sworn affidavits (writings attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is that not a single one of them is duly attested. Not a single one bears the signature, mark or thumb-print of its author in the so-called originals. They now boast of being in possession of over 5000 "originals" of which no two "originals" are identical.

The translators of the
"New International Version" have unceremoniously expunged the "According to's" from the four Gospels in their latest translation. Of the alleged Gospel writers, viz., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it can be categorically stated that 50% were not even the elected Twelve Disciples of Jesus .

"All his disciples forsook him and fled" - (Mark 14:50).

"Does all mean all in your language ?"
..........................................

On the eve of the Passover Feast, Jesus and his twelve disciples are seated around a huge table with their host - the "beloved disciple", whose name also happened to be JOHN. There were at least 14 men at the table (count them if you wish)



The furtive looks and the suspicious behaviour of Judas had revealed everything to Jesus (pbuh). He did not need the Holy Ghost to interpret the misgivings in Judas's mind. At the Table in the Upper-room where Jesus and his disciples were having that "Last Supper", Jesus dismissed Judas with the words:
". . . What thou doest, do quickly."
(John 13:27)

Jesus will not be a sitting-duck for a clandestine arrest by the Jews. He prepares his disciples for the impending showdown. Discreetly, so as not to frighten his disciples, he introduces the subject of defence. Gently he begins:
"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing."
Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!"
(Luke 22:35-36)
The situation and the circumstance have changed and as with any wise and able general, the strategy must also change. The disciples were already armed. They had some foresight. They had not left Galilee with bare knuckles. They responded:
". . . Lord, behold, here are two SWORDS." And he said unto them, "It is enough".
(Luke 22:38)
If this was a preparation for war, then why should two swords be "enough"? The reason is that Jesus was not contemplating a battle against the legions of Rome. Since his "friend" Judas was in league with the Temple authorities, he was expecting a clandestine, underhand attempt by the Jewish oligarchy to seize him. It would be a question of Jews against Jews. In such a battle against the Jewish temple servants and the riff-raff of the town, he would prevail. Of that he was sure. He had with him Peter (the Rock) and John and James (the sons of Thunder) together with the other eight, each vying with one another to go to prison for him; to die for him.1 These were all Galilians. They had a reputation of Zealotism, terrorism, and repeated insurrections against the Romans.

He leads his disciples , in the middle of the night, to Gethsemane. Gethsemane - an olive press - a courtyard built of stone walls some 5 miles out of town then he placed eight of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding them:

". . . Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder."
(Matthew 26:36 )

The question that would bug any thinker is: "Why did they all go to Gethsemane? To pray?
Could they not have prayed in the upper-room? Could they not have gone to the Temple of Solomon, a stone's throw from where they were, if prayer is all that they wanted to do? ..

They went to the Garden so that they might be in a better position to defend themselves!
"And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. . . Then saith he unto them. . . tarry ye here and watch with me."
(Matthew 26:37-38 )

To make an inner line of defence - he had put eight at the Gate, and, now these zealous Zealots (the fighting Irishmen of their day), armed with SWORDS, to "wait and watch" - " TO KEEP GUARD! "
". . . and began to be sorrowful and very depressed. Then saith he unto them, 'my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death' . . ."
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face (Exactly as the Muslim does in Salaat), and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt'." (This is the quality of a good Muslim who submits his will to the will of God).
(Matthew 26:37-39)

"And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was,
as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
(Luke 22:44)

Strange as it may sound, after every outpouring of prayer, Jesus Christ found his disciples asleep at their post. Again and again he bewailed: "What could ye not watch with me for one hour?" - (Matthew 26:40). "And again he (Jesus) went away, and prayed, and spoke the same words. And when he returned, he found them sleep again . . ." - (Mark 14:39-40).
"neither knew they what to answer him", - (Mark 14:40).
The Christian scholars in their translations of the Bible. They have changed the words "Roman soldiers" to simply "soldiers" and from the word soldiers to now "band of men" and "the guard".
"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN1 and officers from the chief
priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and
weapons."
(John 18:3)
Only one of the disciples of Christ had the presence of mind to ask:
". . . Master, shall we smite them with the sword?"
(Luke 22:49)
But before Jesus could attempt a reply, the impetuous Peter struck out with his sword and cut off the right ear of one of the enemy. ". . . Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that TAKE THE SWORD shall PERISH WITH THE SWORD."
(Matthew 26:52)
Jesus had sense enough to realize that against trained and well-equipped Roman soldiers it would be suicidal for his sleepy warriors to offer even a pretense of resistance

"AND THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM, AND FLED."
(Mark 14:50)

Professor Momerie succinctly sums up the "Disciples" and their response to the Master:
"HIS IMMEDIATE DISCIPLES WERE ALWAYS MISUNDERSTANDING HIM AND HIS WORKS. WANTING HIM TO DECLARE HIMSELF KING OF THE JEWS: WANTING HIM TO CALL DOWN FIRE FROM HEAVEN, WANTING TO SIT ON HIS RIGHT HAND AND ON HIS LEFT HAND IN HIS KINGDOM; WANTING HIM TO SHOW THEM THE FATHER, TO MAKE GOD VISIBLE TO THEIR BODILY EYES: WANTING HIM TO DO, AND WANTING TO DO THEMSELVES, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIS GREAT PLAN. THIS WAS HOW THEY TREATED HIM UNTIL THE END. AND WHEN THAT CAME, THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM, AND FLED."

The Jews could not get even two to agree1 in their allegations! "But neither did their
witness agree together" - (Mark 14:59). His argument was so potent that an officer
standing by was provoked to strike him in silence. Did that intimidate Jesus? No! Instead, he protested further:
". . . if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if well, why smitest thou me?"
(John 18:23)
The victim was slipping out from between their fingers. It was now or never. Legally they could not incriminate him. Direct intervention was necessary. The High Priest interjects with a side thrust. Tell us then:
". . . Art thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am . . ."
(Mark 14:61-62)
The High Priest was exultant. He felt that his rapier thrust had ripped open the defence of Jesus. To dramatise his contrived victory, he began renting his clothes. "What need have we for any further witnesses? And they all condemned
him to be guilty of death." - (Mark 14:63-64).
In the morning they took their victim to Pontius Pilate, because, as they said: "It is not lawful for us (Jews) to put any man to death". - (John 18:31).
". . . We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king."
(Luke 23:2)

Jesus was led "to the slaughter like a lamb, like a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" - (Isaiah 53:7).

"Crucify him, crucify him!". "Pilate took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man." - (Matthew 27:24).
You are culpable for this unjust crime. And he handed Jesus over to be crucified.

ORIGINS OF CRUCIFIXION :-
Crucifixion was the common mode of eliminating political prisoners, murderers and
insurgents. Long before the birth of Jesus, the Phoenicians had experimented with various methods to get rid of their anti-social characters. They had tried hanging, impaling, stoning, drowning, etc. But all these were too quick in their effects; the culprits expired too soon for their liking. So they invented the crucifixion, a system which produced a slow L-I-N-G-E-R-IN-G death.

TWO METHODS OF CRUCIFIXION
The Romans borrowed and perfected the system. They developed a crucifixion for fast death and disposal, and another for a slow death and disposal.
The Christian Masters1 are confused in their paintings of the gruesome scene. They portray the two robbers2 who were simultaneously crucified with Jesus, his "crossmates", one on his right hand and the other on his left hand, as undergoing the FAST method, whereas Jesus himself is painted as undergoing a S-L-O-W process.
The Romans never combined these two different methods. They were never confused, as the Christian artists were, with the fast and the slow methods. The Old Masters have painted hybrid crosses (mixture) of the "fast" and "slow" methods in their drawings of Jesus' bodily supports on the cross - i.e. with Saddle or without
Saddle either nails or leather thongs to bind the arms to the crossbar; and, either platforms to support the feet, or spikes
Contrary to common belief, Jesus was not nailed to the cross, but bound, if at all, like the other two. In the light of the knowledge available, we must regard the "Doubting Thomas" episode as a flagrant "gospel fabrication", similar to the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery.
The Jews were in extreme haste to have Jesus done away with. Remember the midnight trial? Early in the morning, they dragged him to Pilate. From Pilate to Herod. From Herod back to Pilate. According to a boisterous American (another "born-again") there were "SIX" trials within twelve hours.
According to the Gospel writers, the Jews and the Romans managed to have Jesus on the cross by the 6th hour, that is by 12 noon; and by the 9th hour1, that is, by 3 o'clock he had given up the ghost - " he had died (?) "
Strange people, these Jews! As much as they were in a hurry to mount
Jesus on the cross, no sooner had they succeeded, they were once more agitated to bring him down. Can you imagine why? Their religious scruples - the Sabbath! They were warned in the "fifth Book of Moses":
"His body (any crucified person) shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day, (for he that is hanged is accursed of God), that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
(Deuteronomy 21:23)
To appease the religious scruples of the Jews (or for any other reason) if it became necessary to expedite death on the cross, the executioners resorted to the "cruri-fragium", a club like horror with which the legs were broken. The victim expired by suffocation within the hour. This was the fast method.
.............................................

This drawing is an attempt at a more accurate representation of the "execution" of Jesus. To check his ideas the artist Charles Pickard, actually maneuvered himself into this position.
.............................................

"Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was HEARD in that he feared."
(Hebrews 5:7)

(a) An assurance from Heaven.
(b) Pilate finds him, not guilty!
(c) His wife shown a dream in which she is told that no harm should
come to Jesus.
(d) Legs not broken!
(e) In a hurry to bring him down from the cross.

The fourth above: "and they brake not his legs", we are told was in fulfilment of a
prophecy:

"He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken."
(Psalm 34:20)

If the bones of a victim were to be protected from harm, then they could only be of benefit if the person was ALIVE! For a person, already dead, intact bones mean nothing. Whether they are sawed into pieces, or smashed into smithereens, it will not make any difference to the resurrected body, the spirit or the ghost. But for living persons on the cross (like the "crossmates" of Jesus), the breaking of the legs made all the difference between life and death.
Their reason was that they "SAW that he was dead already, they brake not his legs". - (John 19:33)
"SAW" is a very simple word. We may yet ask, what did they see? Could it be the fulfilment of the words of Christ: "seeing, ye shall see and shall not perceive" - (Matthew 13:14).
When John says that the soldiers "saw", he means that they surmised. For no modern-day stethoscope was used to verify death; nor did anyone touch his body or feel his pulse before concluding that "he was dead already". I see in the word "saw" another step in God's plan of rescue.
GOD inspires the soldiers to think that the victim is "dead already" so as not to break his legs, but at the same time inspires another to lance him on the side1 with a spear, and . . .
". . . FORTHWITH came there out blood and water."
(John 19:34)

Dean Farrar, in his "Life of Christ", says on page 421, that "JESUS WAS ON THE CROSS
FOR ONLY THREE HOURS - WHEN TAKEN DOWN".

"Pilate marvelled if he were already dead, and calling to him the
centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead."
(Mark 15:44)

He knew from experience that normally no man would die within 3 hours on the cross, unless the "crurifragium" was resorted to, which was not done in the case of Jesus; unlike in that of his "crossmates", who were given the treatment because
they were still ALIVE!
Why he marvels ?!

It stands to reason, that if a man faces a firing squad, and shots are fired into his body, and he dies, there would be nothing to "marvel" about. If a person is taken to the gallows and is hanged, and he dies, there is nothing to "marvel" about.
His "secret" disciples, Joseph of Arimathe'a and Nicodemus, would never have been heard of had it not been for Jesus' ordeal. And they were the only persons to handle the body of Jesus, with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary(s)2 as the only
spectators. To satisfy the religious scruples of the Jews - the burial bath, the anointing and the shrouding- would well-nigh have taken more than two hours. If there were any signs of life in the limpbody, no one was foolish enough to shout to the retreating curiosity mongers: "He is ALIVE! He is ALIVE! They knew that the Jews would then make doubly sure that that life was snuffed out.

We must not suppose that Jesus was buried 6 feet underground. The sepulchre was a big,airy chamber and not a grave. Jim Bishop (a Christian authority of note), in his book "TheDay Christ Died", gives the dimensions as 5 feet wide by 7 feet high by 15 feet deep, with a ledge or ledges inside

(a) The tomb within easy reach.
(b) Helping hands of his "secret" disciples.
(c) His "crossmates" still alive.
(d) His legs not broken, whereas those of his "crossmates" were!
(e) Quick and easy permission granted by Pilate to obtain the body of Jesus.

with all of those 5 points any one can suspect the death of jesus

"Now the NEXT day . . . the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said . . . Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest . . . the LAST error shall be worse than the FIRST."
(Matthew 27:62-64)

What was the FIRST "error" that the Jews made in wanting to eliminate Jesus? The first was that they had permitted Jesus to be brought down from the cross without breaking his legs, under the false assumption that he had died. The LAST would be to allow the "secret" disciples of Jesus to render help to the wounded man, by NOT sealing off the tomb. But in the meantime, they made another mistake by approaching Pilate the "NEXT" day which was TOO LATE!

It was Sunday morning, the FIRST day of the week, according to Hebrew calculations, with Saturday the Sabbath as the seventh, when Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9 and John 20:1) visited the tomb of Jesus.
The question arises: "Why did she go there?" "TO ANOINT HIM", Mark 16:1 tells us. The Hebrew word for anoint is "masaha", which means to rub, to massage, to anoint.

The second
question is: "Do Jews massage dead bodies after 3 days?" The answer is "No!" "Do the Christians massage dead bodies after 3 days?" The answer is again, "No!" Do the Muslims (who are the nearest to the Jews in their ceremonial laws) massage dead bodies after 3 days? And the answer is again, "No!" Then why should a Jewess want to massage a dead, decaying body after 3 days?
In 3 days time, the body would be fermenting from within - the body cells
would be breaking up and decomposing. If anyone rubs such a decaying body, it will fall to pieces. Does the rubbing make sense? No!

It would, however, make sense if she was looking for a LIVE person. You see, she was about the only person besides Joseph of Arimathe'a and Nicodemus who had given the final rites to the body of Jesus. If she had seen any sign of life in the limp body of Jesus when he was taken down from the cross, she was not going to shout, "HE IS ALIVE!" She returns after 2 nights and a day, when the Jewish Sabbath had passed, to take care of Jesus.

She was sorely amazed to find on arrival, that somebody had already removed the stone and, on peeping into the tomb, she finds that the winding sheets (shroud) were folded up inside. More questions arise? "Why was the stone removed?" Because for a resurrected body, one which had conquered death, it was not necessary for the stone to be removed for it to get out, nor was it necessary for the winding sheets to be unwound for it to move. Because, for a spiritualised body: "STONE WALLS DO NOT A PRISON MAKE, NOR IRON BARS A CAGE."The removal of the stone and the unwinding of the winding sheets was the need of a physically resuscitated body, not that of a resurrected1 body! The empty tomb was an anti-climax to what she had expected! So the hysterical woman (Jesus had had to cast out of her "seven devils" - Mark 16:9) breaks down and sobs. Jesus was all the while watching her from the vicinity - not from heaven, but from earth. This burial vault (tomb) was a privately-owned property belonging to Joseph of Arimathe'a (a very rich, influential Jew), who could afford to carve out of rock the big roomy chamber Around this tomb was his vegetable garden. Please do not try to tell me that this Jew was so generous that he was planting vegetables 5 miles out of town, for other people's goats and sheep to graze upon. Surely, he must also have built gardeners' quarters for his laborers and his own country home for himself and his family to relax during the week-ends?

Jesus is there! He is watching this woman. He knows who she is, and he knows why she is there. He approaches her from behind, and finds her crying. So he asks her:
"Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? - (John 20:15).
knows that this woman is looking for him, and she is disappointed on not finding him; hence the weeping. But he also knows that because of his heavy disguise she would not be able to recognize him. So metaphorically speaking he is pulling her leg. In describing this incident John, referring to Mary Magdalene, says: "She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him". Now why should she suppose that he is a ardener? Do resurrected persons look like "gardeners"? No!! Then why does she suppose him to be a gardener? Because he is disguised as a GARDENER! Why is he disguised as a gardener? Because he is afraid of the Jews! Why is he afraid of the Jews? Because he did not die and did not conquer death! If he had died, and if he had conquered death, then he would not be afraid anymore. Why not?
Because a resurrected body cannot die twice! Who says so? The Bible says so. Where? In the
Book of Hebrews 9:27. It says:
". . . it is ordained unto all men ONCE to die, and after that the
judgement."

"Sir, if you have taken HIM hence, tell me where have you laid HIM . . .
(John 20:15)

She is not looking for a corpse, for "it". She is looking for a LIVE person, for "HIM". And further, she wants to know as to "where have you 'LAID' him?" (i.e. To rest, to relax, to recuperate!) NOT, "where have you BURIED him?"

"So that I might take HIM away."
(John 20:15)

Take HIM away, where? What would she want with a dead (?), decomposing body? She could only bury it. carrying a corpse of at least a hundred and sixty
pounds. That weight plus another 100 pounds of medicants (according to John 19:39) would make a neat load of 260 pounds. Carrying would be one thing, but burying? She would have to dump it in a hole! Does it make any sense?
"M-A-R-Y!" Only the one word! But it was enough. This one word, "Mary!" did what all
the exchange of words failed to do. It enabled Mary to recognise her Master. Everyone hashis or her unique and peculiar way of calling one's nearest and dearest. It was not the mere utterance of the word "Mary", but its deliberate intonation which made her respond: "Master! Master!". Mad with happiness, she lunges forward to grab her Master, to pay reverence. Jesus says :

"Touch me not!"
(John 20:17)

because it would hurt. Though he appears normal to all intents and purposes, he had, nevertheless, been through a violent, physical and emotional ordeal. It would be excruciatingly painful if he allowed her any enthusiastic contact. Jesus continues:

"For I am not yet ASCENDED unto my Father."
(John 20:17)

He is, in fact, telling her that he is not RESURRECTED from the DEAD. In the language of the Jew, in the idiom of the Jew, he is saying: "I AM NOT DEAD YET!" - He is saying: "I AM ALIVE!"
"And they (the disciples), when they heard that he was ALIVE, and had
been seen by her (Mary Magdalene), they BELIEVED NOT."
(Mark 16:11)
after meeting 2 of his disciples
"And it came to pass, as he sat EATING with them, he took bread and
blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them."
(Luke 24:30)

By the manner in which he brake bread (meaning the way he blessed it), "their eyes were opened". Did they walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus with closed eyes? No! We are being told that the disciples recognized him only at that juncture. Luke continues with his story, that when they recognized him .

"And they went and told it unto the residue (of the disciples), NEITHER
BELEIVED they them."
(Mark 16:13)

The problem is that they are confronted with evidence that Jesus is ALIVE! Not resurrected (i.e. not spiritualised), but evidence that he is the same physical Jesus, flesh and bones as any one of them! - Eating food! In disguise - but not a spirit and not a ghost. This is what they could not believe. If they were told that Mary had seen the ghost of Jesus, they would have believed. If the above two had told the rest that they too had seen the ghost of Jesus, they would certainly have believed that. They were a people who had seen spirits going into pigs and stampeding two thousand of them to destruction - (Mark 5:13). They had seen spirits going into trees and drying them up from their very roots overnight - (Mark 11:20). They had seen "seven devils" coming out of Mary Magdalene - (Mark 16:9). All this was quite natural to their age. Spirits, ghosts and devils! They could accept that which was believable at that time and age. But a LIVE Jesus? A physical Jesus? One who had escaped the stings of death - (Acts 2:24)? This was too heavy for them-
(Matthew 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; and Luke 12:28).

(a) Mary Magdalene testifies that Jesus is
ALIVE.1
(b) The disciples from Emmaus testify that
he is ALIVE!
(c) Angels said that Jesus was ALIVE!
(Luke 24:23).
(d) Two men that stood by told the women
"why seek ye the living among the
dead?" That he is ALIVE! (Luke 24:4-5).

The two from Emmaus, "rose . . . and returned to Jerusalem, and found the ELEVEN
gathered together, and those who were with them - (Luke 24:33).
can you count now ?
................................................
"Peace be unto you", he cried; but his little lambs "were terrified!"
(Luke 24:36-37)

Remember at the break of dawn that very morning, a lone woman, Mary Magdalene, was
mad with glee on recognising him around the tomb. And she had to be stopped in her stride
from embracing him. But these ten heroes who were rattling sabres in this very room were now petrified on recognising their Master. Why was there opposite reactions between the men and the woman? - Men terrified, woman not afraid? The reason is that the woman was an eye-witness to all the happenings around calvary, whereas the men were nowhere in sight. Therefore the woman went to the tomb with the intention of meeting a LIVE Jesus, and her joy on meeting him. But the ten were not witnesses to the happenings, hence their supposition about seeing a ghost. They were physically and emotionally on the verge of breaking down. Luke succinctly describes their condition:
"But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they had seen
a spirit."
(Luke 24:37)
After the due greetings of "Shaloam", Jesus begins calming the disciples' fear for taking him to be a ghost. He says:
"Behold (have a look at) my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (I am
the same fellow, man!): handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and
bones, as you see me have. . . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."
(Luke 24:39-40)

What was the man trying to prove? That he had been resurrected from the dead? - That he was a spirit? - What has the demonstration of hands and feet to do with resurrection? "It is I MYSELF!" Can't you see, you fools!? "For a SPIRIT . . . " - any spirit, has "NO flesh and bones, as YOU see ME have!". This is an axiomatic, self-evident truth. You do not have to convince anybody, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or Agnostic. Everyone will acknowledge without any proof that A SPIRIT HAS NO FLESH AND BONES!

"Have you here any meat", i.e. anything to eat? "And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, and he took it, and DID EAT before them." To prove what? That he is RESURRECTED? Why does he not then say so instead of proving everything to the contrary? Presenting his physical body for examination, eating and masticating "broiled fish and honeycomb". Is all this an act, a pretence, a make-believe, another "leela" as the Hindus might say? "No!" Said Schleliermacher a hundred-and-sixty-five years ago. Albert Schweizer in his book, "In Quest of the Historical Jesus", page 64 quotes him:-

"IF CHRIST HAD ONLY EATEN TO SHOW THAT HE COULD EAT, WHILE HE REALLY
HAD NO NEED OF NOURISHMENT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PRETENCE -
SOMETHING DOCETIC."

..............................................

". . . An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign (miracle), and
there shall no sign (miracle) be given to it, but the sign (miracle) of the
prophet, Jonah."
(Matthew 12:39)

The question arises that, when they threw Jonah overboard, was he dead or was he alive? To make it easy for you to get the right answer, let me help you by suggesting that Jonah had volunteered; when he said:
". . . Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm for you; for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you."
(Jonah 1:12)

When a man volunteers, one does not have to strangle him before throwing him; one does
not have to spear him before throwing him; one does not have to twist his arms or legs
before throwing him. Everyone agrees that that is so.
Now once more the question: Was Jonah dead or alive when he was thrown into the raging sea? We get a unanimous reply - that he was ALIVE! The storm subsides, perhaps it was a coincidence. A fish comes and swallows him. Was he dead or alive? And again everyone says ALIVE! From the fishes belly he prays to God for help. Do dead men pray? "No!" So he was . . . ALIVE! On the third day the fish vomits him onto the seashore - dead or alive? And the reply again is ALIVE! It is a miracle of miracles! The Jews say that he was ALIVE! The Christians say that he was ALIVE! And the Muslims say that he was ALIVE! Little wonder that Jesus chose the "SIGN" (miracle) of Jonah as his only "SIGN" (miracle):
Something on which the followers of three major religions are agreed.

1. When you throw a man into a raging sea, he ought to die.
Because Jonah did not die, therefore, it is a MIRACLE!
2. A fish comes and gobbles the man; he ought to die. He did not
die, therefore, it is now a double MIRACLE!
3. Because of heat and suffocation in the whale's belly for three
days and three nights, he ought to die. He did not die,
therefore, it is now a miracle of MIRACLES!

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be . . ." - (Matthew 12:40). How was Jonah in the whale's belly for three days and three nights - Dead or Alive? The Muslims, the Christians and the Jews again give a unanimous verdict of A-L-I-V-E! How was Jesus in the tomb, for the same period of time - Dead or Alive? Over a thousand million Christians, of every church or Denomination give a unanimous verdict of D-E-A-D! Is that like Jonah or un-like Jonah in your language?

none of the 27 Books of the New Testament record the time of his exit from the tomb. Not a single writer of these 27 "tomes" was an eyewitness to his alleged "resurrection". The only ones who could have told us, authoritatively, a word or two on the subject, have been utterly silenced.
Jesus said that he would be in the tomb for THREE days and THREE nights,
whereas the Christians say that he was in the tomb for only ONE day and TWO
nights. " explain ? "

Conclusion :
1. JESUS WAS RELUCTANT TO DIE!
He had worked out a strategy of defence to repel the Jews. Because he wanted
to remain ALIVE!
2. HE BESEECHED GOD FOR HELP.
With strong crying and tears for God Almighty to keep him ALIVE!
3. GOD "HEARD" HIS PRAYERS
Which means that God accepted his prayers to keep him ALIVE!
4. AN ANGEL OF GOD CAME TO STRENGTHEN HIM:
In the hope and belief that God will save him ALIVE!
5. PILATE FINDS JESUS NOT GUILTY!
Good reason to keep Jesus ALIVE!
6. PILATE'S WIFE SHOWN A DREAM IN WHICH SHE WAS TOLD THAT -
"No harm should come to this just man." In other words that he should be
saved ALIVE!
7. SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE CROSS FOR ONLY THREE HOURS.
According to the system in vogue, no man could die by crucifixion in so short a
time which means that even if he was fastened to the cross - he was ALIVE!
8. THE OTHER TWO - HIS "CROSSMATES" ON THEIR RESPECTIVE CROSSES
WERE ALIVE.
So Jesus too, for the same period of time must be ALIVE!
9. ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA UNDER ARTICLE "CROSS" - COLUMN 960:
Says that when the spear was thrust - Jesus was ALIVE!
10. "FORTHWITH" CAME THERE OUT BLOOD AND WATER:
"Forthwith" means straightaway, immediately which was a sure sign that Jesus
was ALIVE!
11. LEGS NOT BROKEN - AS A FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY.
"Legs" can be of any use only if Jesus was ALIVE!
12. THUNDERSTORM, EARTHQUAKE, AND DARKENING OF THE SUN ALL
WITHIN 3 HOURS!
To disperse the sadistic mob to enable his "secret disciples" to help, keep him
ALIVE!
13. JEWS DOUBTED HIS DEATH:
They suspected that he had escaped death on the cross - that he was ALIVE!
14. PILATE "MARVELS" TO HEAR THAT JESUS WAS DEAD.
He knew from experience that no man can die so soon by crucifixion. He
suspected that Jesus was ALIVE!
15. BIG ROOMY CHAMBER:
Close at hand, and big and airy for willing hands to come to the rescue.
Providence was out to keep Jesus ALIVE!
16. STONE AND "WINDING SHEETS" HAD TO BE REMOVED:
Only necessary if Jesus was ALIVE!
17. REPORT ON WINDING SHEETS.
German Scientists who carried out experiments on the "Shroud of Turin"
said that the heart of Jesus had not stopped functioning - that he was ALIVE!
18. EVER IN DISGUISE!
Disguise not necessary if Jesus was "resurrected". Only necessary if he was
ALIVE!
19. FORBADE MARY MAGDALENE TO TOUCH HIM.
"Touch me not" for this reason that it would hurt; because he was ALIVE!
20. "NOT YET ASCENDED UNTO MY FATHER"
In the language of the Jews, in the idiom of the Jews, he was saying, "I am not
dead yet", in other words, "I am ALIVE!"
21. MARY MAGDALENE NOT AFRAID ON RECOGNISING JESUS.
Because she had seen signs of life before. She was looking for a Jesus who
was ALIVE!
22. DISCIPLES PETRIFIED ON SEEING JESUS IN THE UPPER-ROOM.
All their knowledge about the "crucifixion" was from hearsay, therefore, they
could not believe that Jesus was ALIVE!
23. ATE FOOD AGAIN AND AGAIN IN HIS POST "CRUCIFIXION"
APPEARANCES.
Food only necessary if he was ALIVE!
24. NEVER SHOWED HIMSELF TO HIS ENEMIES.
Because he had escaped death by the "skin of his teeth". He was ALIVE!
25. TOOK ONLY SHORT TRIPS.
Because he was not resurrected, not spiritualised, but ALIVE!
26. TESTIMONY OF MEN AROUND THE TOMB:
"Why seek ye the living among the dead?" - (Luke 24:4-5): That he is not
dead, but ALIVE!
27. TESTIMONY OF ANGELS:
". . . angels who had said that he was ALIVE!" - Luke 24:23. Did not say,
"resurrected" but the actual word uttered by the angels was "ALIVE!"
28. MARY MAGDALENE TESTIFIES -
". . . they heard that he was ALIVE, and had been seen by her, they believed
not." - (Mark 16:11): Mary did not vouch for a spook, or ghost or spirit of
Jesus but a LIVE Jesus. What they could not believe was that the Master was
ALIVE!
29. DR. PRIMROSE TESTIFIES:
That the "water and the blood", when Jesus was lanced on the side, was on
account of an upset in the nervous vessels because of the scourging by staves.
Which was a sure sign that Jesus was ALIVE!
30. JESUS HAD HIMSELF FORETOLD THAT HIS MIRACLE WILL BE THE
MIRACLE OF JONAH!
According to the Book of Jonah, Jonah was ALIVE, when we expected him to
be DEAD; similarly when we expect Jesus to be DEAD, he should be ALIVE!

I know its huge post but this is all I have got so far hope it helps

[KenRU]

But the ones that would be willing to drink, if shown the water, what about them? They’re not worth a second thought, just because they want to make sure the water is not stagnant?

Why can others believe and not need miracles? Why should someone thing they should be entitled to it. If makes me think that they don't want to make the effort to know Jesus and just have Him fall into their laps.

This happened all the time in the OT and even in the NT. Is there a reason that god found it ok then, but not now?

Besides, you do admit that people’s knowledge and thought processes vary, right?

What one person may find credible, another may not.

Surely, god knows this.

Someone in posterity seeing wonderfully preserved documents would not do the same.

Correct, it would not have the same effect as having seen a miracle. But even one saved soul is a good thing, right?

It is completely unnecessary.

All souls should be saved. By any means necessary. Isn’t that the point of this?

I'm going to ask you, do you really believe that magically preserved documents would lead atheists to Jesus?

It would have for me. If you could show me that it is miraculous that the documents that should have withered away centuries ago are not despite all known physical laws, then yes.

How would you know that it is due to Jesus that those documents were preserved magically?

Um, are you arguing that another deity may have magically preserved documents about Jesus? That doesn’t seem to make sense.

Many people would do anything not to believe in Jesus so they would just say it is a hoax or it was done by a magician.

I’ve already said that this would not have happened in my case. God should know that.

Truly, you don't need these things to believe. Why must you behave like a doubting Thomas?

I am a product of my education, background and biology. As a Catholic, I began to lose faith. Just about any sign would have kept me locked in. None ever came.

If there was a benevolent god, then I would have thought he might have made a little effort (as he has done in The Book) to keep me “saved�.

And, glad you asked, because here is the kicker. When I was a practicing Catholic, it would have, without a doubt, caused me to not leave the faith.

And that is my point.

Catholic? Oh dear. I don't think you had much of a desire to know Jesus.

Well now. Who is judging whom? Lol!

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

It takes time to see how He works in one's life. Why not put in the effort inside of wanting to take shortcuts like seeing miracles?

I did put in an effort, as a Catholic. Now, I know better. No effort needed. It is all a fiction. However, the point was, I was making an effort. You see, if you want to invalidate Catholicism as a valid religion, I can easily say they can level the same charge at you, then all we are left with is, “Who is the True Christian�? And is there a real answer to that question?

The idea of submitting to God and doing His will is not appealing to most. It can mean the world will shun you.

I don’t know about the shunning part (I wouldn’t condone that), but if this is true, then he is dropping the ball if he really wants to keep people in his congregation.

I was a prime candidate that he let slip through his ethereal fingers.

Then Jesus would have to pretend all is pie in the sky for believers. It is not so. He lost many followers on the way but He couldn't pretend. Many people don't like the truth, so they just turn away. Should Jesus twist the truth around to gain followers?

You seem to be dodging somewhat my point. But yes, if every soul is important, yes.

But I’ll move on. What truth do you speak of? And, how does one know it is the truth?

That is not the same as seeing Jesus in person doing the miracles. It was the apostles who performed miracles in the name of Jesus that earned converts.

To me, this is irrelevant. Having seen a miracle, more people are inclined to believe in god and Jesus. This seems un-debatable to me. Think of how many souls and converts Christianity could gain now if a couple of widely publicized miracles would happen on prime time TV, or YouTube?

No one's faith could then be exercised. The Pharisees took the same approach as you did and Jesus did not take the bait.

Well then, you have a dilemma. I was a believer and lost my faith. But I can guarantee you that I would not have left the faith had I seen a miracle.

Was my soul not worthy of a little help from the Holy Spirit? Or a miracle? It was not like a light switch, suddenly switched off. It was a gradual decline in faith. Any time, along that path of disbelief could have come a visit from the holy spirit, or having witnessed a divine action, I could have been swayed back into the flock, so to speak.

But you have a self of entitlement then.

I didn’t then. Surely god would have known that?

You may not have consciously thought so but, subconsciously, I believe very much so.

See what you did there? You claim to know what was in my subconscious (knowing very little of me) better than I do. That shows a bias for your preexisting answer. In my case, the bias would have been to stay in the faith I was brought up in. Nearly any reasonable excuse probably would have kept me there.

So, you can (in good faith) believe me when I tell you there was no sense of entitlement. There was only faith (in god, Jesus and my parents), an inquisitive mind and eventually higher education.

So, can you consider the possibility that your assumption is wrong?

Also, just to play this through, does a sense of entitlement really mean (to god) that I now leave the faith and end up in hell (or at least not in heaven)? Does that seem benevolent to you?

We cannot always understand what God is doing.

That is a bigger problem for you then you admit, for if this is the case, how is god indistinguishable from chance?

I’m curious if you could respond to this point for me.

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.

I'm left to wonder why miracle during the time of the OT and NT was a good thing then, but is a bad idea now. Why would this be the case?

It's not a bad idea. It's just that it is not needed now because the Holy Spirit is available to everyone.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is not enough though. Christianity is, after all, on the decline. Especially in the US. So, maybe a few miracles are in order than?

You assume miracles would do the trick.

It would have for me, without a doubt.

You have a me, me, me attitude which I don't like.

Um, we are talking about me, aren’t we? This seems like you are purposely avoiding the subject.

I am telling you my scenario. I’m curious as to your explanation as to why god allowed a soul, primed and ready to be a good Catholic boy, to slip into the “evil� realm (according to the bible) of atheism.

How can we talk about my story, and I not refer to myself?

After all, people aren't witnessing miracles by Jesus now. Christianity is on the decline because of a global agenda. Christianity is an enemy to those who control the world and it needs to be exterminated. Read this:

https://janegaffin.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... istianity/

Like I said, seems those miracles are needed now more than ever.

If miracles didn't make everyone believe back in Jesus' say, don't think it would be different now.

We’re going in circles. No, maybe not everyone, but some did. So there is a measure of success for saving souls by utilizing miracles. This is a fact, according to the bible. Miracles will save/bring back some.

Then Jesus would be obliged to give miracles to all of us, not just you or one other person.

An omnipotent god would know who needs that extra push, and who wouldn’t, correct?

Then they are not persisting with their faith if they need an "extra push". No one can demand God for anything.

Then why was it necessary at all, in the bible (OT and NT) for the use of any miracles? He set the precedent didn’t he?

And, I am not demanding anything. I am asking why.

It seems as if you don't want to make any effort to know Jesus by changing one's life. Instead you want easy answers by demanding miracles.

Sure, you could say that, if you ignore the 1st 20+ years of my life as a practicing Catholic.

How about we don’t make that assumption?

I make that assumption because nothing Jesus did, which you believed once, was good enough for you.

Just as what Mohammad did once was equally not a good motivator to make me join Islam.

Being a practicing Christian can mean nothing. It doesn't necessarily make on a believer.

Again, I was a believer. I realize I can’t make you believe me. So, if you don’t believe me when I say I was a practicing BELIEVING Catholic then there is no point in us continuing this conversation.

-all the best

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 968 by mms20102]

The question is not "What does the Bible say?" we can all read that for ourselves. The question is , "Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?" Historical facts are not determined by quotes from scripture.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 968 by mms20102]

The question is not "What does the Bible say?" we can all read that for ourselves. The question is , "Is the Resurrection really a historical fact, or not?" Historical facts are not determined by quotes from scripture.

RESPONSE:

Thank you. You have succinctly summed up a great number of posts!

If asked "How do you know the Bible is divinely inspired," some readers might argue "Because it says it is."

Another example is the old preacher who when asked "How to you know God exists" replied "Because it says so in the Bible."

[This is known as circular reasoning].

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 970 by H.sapiens]

historical facts can be obtained from the scriptures just like any historical book more over taking facts from the bible would be more reliable since the bible is actually the stories written about Jesus himself otherwise what book of history could say more about it better than the bible ?

[mms20102]

[Replying to post 971 by polonius.advice]

If asked "How do you know the Bible is divinely inspired," some readers might argue "Because it says it is."

How you know that historians tell the truth ? how you know that any one say the truth ?

If you reject the whole bible then you need to reject every historian and if you accept the whole bible then you will accept contradictions so its fair to treat the bible like any historic book and debate its contents

[polonius]

mms 20102 claimed:

If you reject the whole bible then you need to reject every historian and if you accept the whole bible then you will accept contradictions so its fair to treat the bible like any historic book and debate its contents

QUESTIONS:

>If you reject the whole bible then you need to reject every historian<

Why?

> if you accept the whole bible then you will accept contradictions <

Is God responsible for these contradictions?

>>so its fair to treat the bible like any historic book and debate its contents<<

Does your conclusion logically follow from your premises?