Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Danmark]

Most Christians do not take what is obvious as unquestioned, but constantly seek to verify what is believed. Most believers are highly skeptical, yet we are not alone in our seeking. We have help, which is not available to the person who denies God. The assurance comes from the evident nature of what is shown, but is guided by the Creator of the process. On all levels, the Bible continues to show us the error in our own lower axioms of reality, physics, human nature and YES, current events, and raises us to new levels. ..
.

That is certainly not my experience. Just the opposite. My experience includes approximately 30 years as a Bible believing evangelical. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles were all devout. My grandfather was a minister and evangelist. All my friends were Christians. We attended a college church where many of the congregation were Christian scholars. I was taught to read the Bible, but to not accept things blindly; that I should question things and be demanding of my faith.

But I think my parents' instruction in that regard was unusual. THE source for truth was the Bible. I was not taught, nor did I seek out, outside sources that were unbiased. Most of the Christians I met were much less challenging of their faith than I was, and I was not nearly critical enough until my 20's.

Christians, many, not all, read 'outside' sources like the non scholarly types: McDowell, Strobel, Hal Lindsay, and their ilk.

I was never exposed to someone like Paul Ehrman or others who used a truly academic or historical critical approach. And when I met Christians outside our small evangelical denomination, they appeared to not be nearly as familiar with the Bible as we were.

The skepticism you refer to that I have witnessed over and over is very gentle sort that does not deserve the word. It is usually of the soft objection or question, knowing the easy pat answer to refute the 'inquiry.'

[SelectThis!]

Most Christians do not take what is obvious as unquestioned, but constantly seek to verify what is believed. Most believers are highly skeptical, yet we are not alone in our seeking. We have help, which is not available to the person who denies God. The assurance comes from the evident nature of what is shown, but is guided by the Creator of the process. On all levels, the Bible continues to show us the error in our own lower axioms of reality, physics, human nature and YES, current events, and raises us to new levels. ..
.

That is certainly not my experience. Just the opposite. My experience includes approximately 30 years as a Bible believing evangelical. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles were all devout. My grandfather was a minister and evangelist. All my friends were Christians. We attended a college church where many of the congregation were Christian scholars. I was taught to read the Bible, but to not accept things blindly; that I should question things and be demanding of my faith.

But I think my parents' instruction in that regard was unusual. THE source for truth was the Bible. I was not taught, nor did I seek out, outside sources that were unbiased. Most of the Christians I met were much less challenging of their faith than I was, and I was not nearly critical enough until my 20's.

Christians, many, not all, read 'outside' sources like the non scholarly types: McDowell, Strobel, Hal Lindsay, and their ilk.

I was never exposed to someone like Paul Ehrman or others who used a truly academic or historical critical approach. And when I met Christians outside our small evangelical denomination, they appeared to not be nearly as familiar with the Bible as we were.

The skepticism you refer to that I have witnessed over and over is very gentle sort that does not deserve the word. It is usually of the soft objection or question, knowing the easy pat answer to refute the 'inquiry.'

Let's look into the future a few years and it becomes obvious we enter into a time of tribulation, a clear antichrist reveals himself, the government required you to receive a mark to identify your Carbon footprint as a tracking method for your wealth. In this world, do you change your reasoning of scripture, or do you go on blindly believing you are correct in skepticism?

For the person who does not question their faith, but instead takes it like a child, I would suggest to you that they see much more than you give them credit for. The most intelligent among us are grounded in their faith, not by intellect of reason or science, but by the virtue of what faith produces in their lives and families. Virtue is a bridge that opens the eyes to God's kingdom of patience, joy and love for family. In this kingdom, the facts of creation are evident. No confirmation, beyond what is evident, is needed.

As our world is moved closer and closer to those evident prophetic events, even the staunchest critic will bend a kneed down. If not, evidence of truth is not the problem. All along, it was their hardened heart to God and not the evidence that is so abundantly provided. Light reveals what it hits. This has nothing to do with what can be verified on our end. It represents what God can verify about us on His end. It's not about what we do, but what has been done for us. The same sun that melts wax also hardens clay. Water softens clay and allows it to be molded. We light the fire we burn by or we use that light on the path to assist others. Both lights allow eyes to see.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

So I think you're claiming the guard/guards told to keep watch at the tomb was Jewish.
1. I don't see anything in the record that says "the watch" was Jewish or consisted of "temple police." Can you support your claim?

Why, yes I certainly can. I did it already, but I can continue to do it until it becomes clear to you.

Matthew 27:
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Pilate tells the priests to "go on your way." "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure." Who sealed the stone? THE PRIESTS, sealed the stone. Not with Roman official seals, which they had no authority to set, but with their own official seals. Who set the guard? THE PRIESTS! Very specifically it tells us that the priests set the watch. The Jewish authorities had no authority to set ROMAN seals. They set the seals, and they set the guard. It's right there specifically, in the words of the text.

2. Would it have been appropriate for the priests to have their Jewish bodyguards work on the Sabbath?

It wasn't appropriate for the chief priests of the nation to be in a place as inherently unclean as a graveyard on a high holy day. And yet there they were, at least according to Matthew. The job of the Temple Police was to guard the temple and follow the orders of the chief priests. They didn't take a day off from that obligation each and every week.

3. And would it have been appropriate for Jewish "temple police" to place the Roman seal on the tomb?

No, it WOULD NOT! Which is why the text specifically tells us that THE PRIESTS set the seal. And because it would not have been appropriate for the Jewish priests to set a Roman seal, THEN CLEARLY THE SEAL WAS NOT ROMAN!

Additionally, Pilate doesn't say "you already have a watch," so "you have a watch" sounds like he was granting their request.

The priests asked Pilate to make the sepulchre "sure," and indeed Pilate grants their request. "YOU HAVE A WATCH," he tells them. "Go ahead and make it as sure as you can." It's almost as if Pilate is taunting the priests.

Your argument sound like just another example of confirmation bias.

I do have a bias against stories that end with a corpse coming back to life and then flying away, admittedly .

Also, did Josh McDowell provide any arguments or scholarly sources to support his claim that 30 Roman Centurions were guarding the tomb? If so, it would be appropriate for you to address the arguments/sources instead of dismissing them without cause.

Josh McDowell's "everything but the kitchen sink " approach to historical analysis, by which he attempts to quote as support for Christian claims every Christian whom he agrees with who has ever taken a breath for the last 2,000 years, is the reason why McDowell is so widely considered to be a joke. The book is not historical analysis at all. It's not even religious analysis in truth. It's simply a declaration of personal dogma.

Right, they're already doing what they shouldn't do, but we should assume that they definitely wouldn't do this other thing they shouldn't do.

Although being in a graveyard was an unclean situation, it could rather quickly be rectified by a simple Mikvah, essentially an all over water immersion bath.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mikveh
"Mikveh is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikveh", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" " generally, a collection of water."

"Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a Zav, require "living water,"[4] such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah

Being exposed to a human corpse on the other hand was a very different kettle of fish. This required the priests to undergo extensive ritual cleansing, which involved finding a perfect red heifer, burning it, and then bathing with the ashes. This ritual could take days to perform.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ritual purification
"Tumat HaMet ("The impurity of death"), coming into contact with a human corpse, is considered the ultimate impurity, one which cannot be purified through the waters of the mikvah. Tumat HaMet required purification through sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah, the Red Heifer. However the law is inactive, since neither the Temple in Jerusalem nor the red heifer is currently in existence, though without the latter a Jew is forbidden to ascend to the site of the former. All are currently assumed to possess the impurity of death.[7] However, someone who is a Kohen, one of the priestly class, is not allowed to intentionally come into contact with a dead body, nor approach too closely to graves within a Jewish cemetery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_purification

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
The priests certainly had every right and authority to break their own seals, did they not?

Sure. But answer the question. Is that what happened?

Well let's look at what the Gospels tell us.

Mark.16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

THE TOMB WAS ALREADY OPEN WHEN THE WOMEN GOT THERE.

Luke.24
[1] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

THE TOMB WAS ALREADY OPEN WHEN THE WOMEN GOT THERE.

John.20
[1] The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

THE TOMB WAS ALREADY OPEN WHEN THE WOMEN GOT THERE.

Matthew 28
[1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
[2] And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
[3] His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
[4] And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
[6] He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

THE WOMEN WENT OUT TO THE TOMB AND, BEHOLD, DOWN CAME AN ANGEL AND ROLLED AWAY THE STONE.

Well gee, which version should we believe, Matthew's, OR EVERY ONE ELSE'S!

Ships passing in the night. You said the purpose of the herbs was obviously to hide the stink of death while they secretly transported the body to Galilee... so the herbs prove their intentions to sneak the body away. I noted that they would need those herbs to cover the smell even if they were planning on moving the body very publicly (therefore, the herbs don't prove sneakiness, like you claim).

Your response about the four Gospels and the empty tomb has nothing to do with the argument you quoted. It's just a reassertion of your conclusion. It doesn't help the debate.

100 pounds of aromatic herbs is CONSISTENT with the need to suppress the odor of decay for an extended period of time. Such a need is CONSISTENT with the problem of the transportation of a corpse that could take a week or so to accomplish. 100 pounds of aromatic herbs is not consistent with any such need if the body is simply to be left alone in a tomb to undergo the natural process of decay.

Your response doesn't mitigate or refute my argument... at all. I gave you three other reasons for the herbs and ointments. The fact is: all three are likely. While Myrrh wasn't common, it was probably brought out of respect for Jesus AND contributed to the embalming process with the other elements.

Given the overwhelming rarity and cost of myrrh, it could not possibly have been commonly and routinely used in an "embalming process." In fact such an embalming process would have been counter productive to the common practice of collecting and re-burying the bones of the deceased once the natural decaying process had taken place.

Haha. For a man who miraculously fed thousands of people, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, was brought into Jerusalem on a donkey in obvious fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Messiah, and whose death caused an earthquake, eclipse, and tore the veil in the temple, you're assuming nobody cared or paid attention to the body of Jesus or his apostles after his crucifixion.
Today, when policemen die in the line of duty, we get news coverage of their funeral. When a former TV star dies of a drug overdose, we hear about the death and funeral details for a week.

Mark 14
[43] And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
[44] And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
[45] And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
[46] And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

Today with a TV in every home we are intimately familiar with the likeness of even the most minor of celebrities. That was hardly the case 2,000 years ago however. While Jesus himself "might" have been well known by reputation, he was personally so poorly known as to require him to be identified before he could be arrested. How hard do you suppose it was to generally recognize the apostles would it have been to the authorities? Or even the public at large?

When a friend dies, we rush to be with the family as they mourn. But you think Jesus died and everyone stopped caring? Jesus was hated by the crowd and loved by his followers. No one was as polarizing as Jesus. But you think everyone left the apostles in isolation that night?

If I am correct then those who cared about Jesus took the extraordinary step of transporting his body, a trip of a weeks time or so, back to his home for burial. That requires considerable devotion. If the authorities had been interested in the apostles they had every opportunity to take them when they arrested Jesus. But they weren't interested in the apostles. Also, as we know from the appearance of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, Jesus had "secret" followers. As many as 120 total followers, according to Acts 1:15. What were the motivations and intentions of each of these individuals. What were they all doing, and exactly who was keeping track of their doings?

No one was with the sneaky apostles as they prepared the body? We know that people recognized the apostles (they sure pointed Peter out). It was a big deal in Jerusalem. But nobody cared once Jesus died? No other disciples cared about the body or the tomb? No priests cared? No Romans cared? No one watched the apostles prepare the body and put it in the tomb? No one saw what they were doing? Everyone assumed the body was in the tomb because... that's where someone said they put it? And as they moved this Myrrh-laden wagon out of the city, no one was saying "Hey why are the apostles of Jesus taking a wagon full of Myrrh out of the city?" Do you think the people in Jerusalem were imperceptive or stupid? It's clear that people were worried about his prophecy that he would rise from the dead. But everyone mysteriously stopped caring and left them alone that night?

Someone thought they recognized Peter as one of the companions of Jesus, but he denied it and continued on his way. And no, the Romans didn't care. The Roman governor gave the body of Jesus to his followers to do with as they saw fit. The city of Jerusalem was filled with many thousands of strangers. A million according to Josephus, although that is undoubtedly a vast overstatement. Did the apostles directly accompany the vehicle which contained the body of Jesus back to Galilee? Who among Jesus' various heretofore "secret" disciples may have also been involved? And who was there that would have had the ability to find these anonymous individuals leading a completely nondescript wagon or cart once they had blended into the throng of thousands? It would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack without knowing what the needle looked like.

It takes more imagination and creativity to try and make your version of the story make sense.

Actually it takes a bit of time considering all of the details and factors involved, rather then simply subscribing to the popular mythological version. It also helps to have read the material in it's entirety, which I have done. And I paid attention.

I'm so confused right now. Do you actually think the apostles were openly taking the body from Jerusalem to Galilee? In your conspiracy theory, did the apostles take the body to Galilee with the full knowledge of the public, or were they hiding the body?

I would suppose that the body would have been covered with personal provisions for the trip. It seems like the obvious thing to do.

If they were hiding the body: that's being sneaky.
The disciples were busy, quietly, conducting their own business. I'm certain that you conduct your own business everyday without being especially sneaky about it and yet the general pubic is entirely unaware of what you are doing. Why should they be?

Not everything we do is everyone else's business, is it! Don't you generally make an attempt to keep your personal business to yourself? There is nothing suspicious or sneaky in keeping one's business to one's self. Everyone does it routinely.

.

You added information to the quote which was inaccurate. Your "assumption" wasn't about the emptiness of the tomb.

Explain this.

It sounds like you'll accept what Matthew says about the death and preparation, but only when it supports your theory. Because Matthew 27: 59-60 says, "When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed."

Matthew says they put the body in the tomb, closed it, and left. But I guess you don't believe that part, right? And if they never pretended to put the body in the tomb, why did everyone think the body was in the tomb?

The body was taken to the tomb as a matter of open record. Beyond that the preparations of the body was entirely a private matter. Everyone was busily preparing for the holy day recall, which called for much ritual cleansing, and NOT for hanging around in a graveyard. The tomb later proved to be empty. Matthew claims that the tomb was empty because the corpse came back to life. As a matter of logic, reason and critical thinking however, not to mention all experience with the dead, it is overwhelmingly more likely that a missing corpse and empty grave are the result of actions taken by the living, rather then actions taken by the corpse. For the claim that a grave is empty as a result of actions taken by the corpse to even BEGIN to attain a level of probability, it would need be incumbent to first establish that the missing corpse could NOT POSSIBLY be the result of actions taken by the living. Yet as I have shown, even giving all due consideration to Matthew's guard at the tomb story, it's perfectly clear that the disciples of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have taken the body elsewhere. They are the natural obvious suspects. Exactly where they may have taken the body isn't even especially important, other than as a matter of curiosity. Yet even that evidence is present. That the disciples moved the body of Jesus and later spread the false rumor of his return from the dead is not only perfectly plausible, it's the obvious conclusion. That the corpse of Jesus returned to life and flew away HAS NO PLAUSIBILITY AT ALL, as a matter of logic, reason, or critical thinking. It's superstitious make believe, and nothing more.

As the quintessential skeptic, do you subscribe to the theory of the most elaborate and successful conspiracy in history?

I think the story of the resurrected corpse of Jesus which ultimately flies away is based on lies and a fabrications in just the same way I think the origin of Mormonism is based on lies and fabrications. That didn't stop people from believing in both however.

Is the obvious answer always true?

Not always, but, yes, as a rule the obvious answer tends to be the correct answer. The impossible, as a matter of all observation and experience, is never true however.

Matthew 27:64 does not verify, as you claimed, that the disciples stole the body or that they spread a "rumor" that Jesus rose from the dead. And it wouldn't make sense for Matthew to explain how they fooled everyone while still trying to fool people.

The Gospel of Matthew goes way out of it's way in fact to justify the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Critical analysis however just does not support the conclusion that anything so impossible or absurd as a flying reanimated corpse actually occurred.

If you're entire argument is based on "obviousness" then you can just keep reasserting your conclusion and saying "it's obvious". There's no debate there.

This is as close to an honest assessment as you have come, so far.

But there's nothing in Matthew 27:64 that verifies your claim.

The entire Acts of the Apostles serves to verify Matthew 27:64.

What makes more sense, using your reason and logic: your interpretation stretches the truth into conspiracy-theory-land OR no one associated with the story believed it to be anything other than the truth?

My conclusion verifies the suspicions of the priests as stated in Matt. 27:64. It is simply the logical and obvious conclusion.

So... you don't believe Matthew's account or you mostly believe it, except for all the stuff that doesn't fit your theory?

It's very clear that the author of Gospel Matthew was not especially conflicted over whether is claims happened to be true or not. But the details contained in Matthew, most specifically the story of the guard at the tomb, being there, must first be dealt with. Even taking Gospel Matthew at face value it's still clear that the disciples had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body. Without taking Gospel Matthew into account, the conclusion that the disciples were responsible for the false rumor of the risen Christ is simply overwhelmingly obvious. As it was to the individual who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Which prompted him to invent the whole guard at the tomb story in the first place. These problems are completely and painfully obvious to anyone who has not been subjected to a lifetime of rigorous programming so effective as to cause them to uncritically accept a story of a flying reanimated corpse without criticism. The version you were raised on is the product of 2,000 years of popular Christian mythology. The ability to think critically IS NOT the best friend of your religious convictions. Consider just how much you have already learned from this discussion and then understand that the way you consider you Christian beliefs has already been permanently altered from what it use to be. The point being that things simply are not as cut and dried as most Christians have been trained to suppose that they are.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Aglassdarkly replied to your comments in post 97.

Thank you for the heads up.

[Danmark]

Most Christians do not take what is obvious as unquestioned, but constantly seek to verify what is believed. Most believers are highly skeptical, yet we are not alone in our seeking. We have help, which is not available to the person who denies God. The assurance comes from the evident nature of what is shown, but is guided by the Creator of the process. On all levels, the Bible continues to show us the error in our own lower axioms of reality, physics, human nature and YES, current events, and raises us to new levels. ..
.

That is certainly not my experience. Just the opposite. My experience includes approximately 30 years as a Bible believing evangelical. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles were all devout. My grandfather was a minister and evangelist. All my friends were Christians. We attended a college church where many of the congregation were Christian scholars. I was taught to read the Bible, but to not accept things blindly; that I should question things and be demanding of my faith.

But I think my parents' instruction in that regard was unusual. THE source for truth was the Bible. I was not taught, nor did I seek out, outside sources that were unbiased. Most of the Christians I met were much less challenging of their faith than I was, and I was not nearly critical enough until my 20's.

Christians, many, not all, read 'outside' sources like the non scholarly types: McDowell, Strobel, Hal Lindsay, and their ilk.

I was never exposed to someone like Paul Ehrman or others who used a truly academic or historical critical approach. And when I met Christians outside our small evangelical denomination, they appeared to not be nearly as familiar with the Bible as we were.

The skepticism you refer to that I have witnessed over and over is very gentle sort that does not deserve the word. It is usually of the soft objection or question, knowing the easy pat answer to refute the 'inquiry.'

Let's look into the future a few years and it becomes obvious we enter into a time of tribulation, a clear antichrist reveals himself, the government required you to receive a mark to identify your Carbon footprint as a tracking method for your wealth. In this world, do you change your reasoning of scripture, or do you go on blindly believing you are correct in skepticism?

For the person who does not question their faith, but instead takes it like a child, I would suggest to you that they see much more than you give them credit for. The most intelligent among us are grounded in their faith, not by intellect of reason or science, but by the virtue of what faith produces in their lives and families. Virtue is a bridge that opens the eyes to God's kingdom of patience, joy and love for family. In this kingdom, the facts of creation are evident. No confirmation, beyond what is evident, is needed.

As our world is moved closer and closer to those evident prophetic events, even the staunchest critic will bend a kneed down. If not, evidence of truth is not the problem. All along, it was their hardened heart to God and not the evidence that is so abundantly provided. Light reveals what it hits. This has nothing to do with what can be verified on our end. It represents what God can verify about us on His end. It's not about what we do, but what has been done for us. The same sun that melts wax also hardens clay. Water softens clay and allows it to be molded. We light the fire we burn by or we use that light on the path to assist others. Both lights allow eyes to see.

To paraphrase James 4:5, Do you suppose it was in vain that I told you my personal history with the church? I was a lay missionary. I used to teach a high school Sunday school class of missionaries's kids in Japan. I was a baccalaureate speaker in a room full of the kids' parents. I taught a class using Hal Lindsay's THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH, I am ashamed to say. The world was absolutely, positively going to come to an end in 1988.

Making this speculative argument, which BTW has been made every year since about 100 CE, is less than weak. And it certainly is not original. My good Christian father warned me about this nonsense 50 years ago, telling me stories of all the faithful sitting on their house tops waiting for the rapture or whatever. Even when I was a born again, 'spirit filled' believer I did not use THAT argument. I would have been embarrassed to. It is an appeal to fear and sheer speculation. It is in short, not a rational argument; not an argument that should be advanced by gentle persons.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 115 by Danmark]

Making this speculative argument, which BTW has been made every year since about 100 CE, is less than weak. And it certainly is not original. My good Christian father warned me about this nonsense 50 years ago, telling me stories of all the faithful sitting on their house tops waiting for the rapture or whatever. Even when I was a born again, 'spirit filled' believer I did not use THAT argument. I would have been embarrassed to. It is an appeal to fear and sheer speculation. It is in short, not a rational argument; not an argument that should be advanced by gentle persons.

The rapture comes for every living person at death. Crossing the Jordan into the promised land requires wandering in the wilderness. Judgment comes when we die. You must be born again. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. We are in an image. As such, the image you see is not you.

Matthew 18

10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

The story we know for this age leads to the next. The next sees salvation after 1000 years. Anyone who missed the timeline before was simply caught in the cycle of birth and death waiting for the Lord to return. Who is the Lord?

1 Corinthians 10

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

The body of Christ is the Church (Body of believers). The head is Christ. What is the timeline?

Epistle of Barnabas 15:4

Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end."

2 Days -Adam to Abraham 2000 Years of Age 1 (FATHER)
2 Days -Abraham to Jesus 2000 Years of Age 2 (SON)
2 Days -Jesus to Today 2000 Years of Age 3 (HOLY SPIRIT)
1 Day -Day of Rest (Day of the Lord) 1000 years (SALVATION)
-------
7 Days (7000 years - Approximately 6000 have passed)

Lower axioms of truth create contradiction and paradox. You are founding your skepticism on these lower reasonings of scripture. To clarify the rapture, judgment and so on, we must see that we are looping through time. Here is a key to how the priest pays the penalty of the one he judges.

Hebrews 7

6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. Hummmm. How is this possible? You must be born again.

Isaiah 26

19 But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise"
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy"
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.
20 Go, my people, enter your rooms
and shut the doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until his wrath has passed by.
21 See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling
to punish the people of the earth for their sins.
The earth will disclose the blood shed on it;
the earth will conceal its slain no longer.

Again, higher truth reveals our contradiction and resolves our paradox produced by lower reasoning. We are not left to reason this out over one life. We are able to see forward as we loop forward. Of course, ignorance plays a part in our anagnorisis and peripeteia. Discovery and sudden realization are part of all Greek tragedies. The Hebrew knowledge is concrete and the Greek is abstract. Just like the two halves of our mind, the two must become one.

Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

If you wonder why I never answer your questions and comments with challenges to your own words, it's because a higher axiom of truth resolves the error in your reasoning. God does the same, only he follows this pattern.

1 Corinthians 10

10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

What is a cloud? Cloud is the word nephel". It also derives the word Nephilim, a cloud of evil spirits covering the people. This usage was shown in the book of Enoch 1 to describe the Evil Beings that corrupted Mankind. The cloud was the same as the one in Jude 1 and Enoch to describe Jesus coming in the clouds with an army of angels to rescue mankind.

Your ancestors ( you from the past ) were ALL under the cloud as they pass through the sea (Nations). They were all baptized into Moses (Shepherd of the wilderness leading the flock) in the confusion (Wool pulled over the eyes) and the sea (nations of the Earth). Spiritual food is knowledge. Spiritual drink is what satisfies the mind in the wilderness away from truth. Return to the concepts of Greek tragedy and discovery as it relates to realization. What is the rock? Giving, the character of Christ. What does it mean for the Dew being scattered across the wilderness? The sun rises and evaporates and distills the dew. Return to Isaiah 26 above.

19 But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise"
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy"
your dew is like the dew of the morning;

You are looking at this from a temporal mind in one age of history. What is God trying to show you as you he scatters you in the wilderness? Patience is a virtue. Knowledge is not temporal, it is universal. Reason and rationality, when founded on lower axioms of truth, will see contradiction and paradox. Higher reasoning sees above and below, right and left, forward and back.

You must be born again. Judgment comes at the moment you die, when you wake from this sleep back where you started.

Jude 1

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling"these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Why is the timing right for the event horizon of fire? Because water puts out fire and one age of 2000 years is given for the water to bring the father back to the son and the son back to the father.

Malachi 4

5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.

John 1

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

John the Baptist was immersing souls in the water so they could rise to new life. Who was he in the OT, as his own forefather?

1 Kings 17

17 Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe[a] in Gilead, said to Ahab, As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.

He was Elijah and he was the one in control of the Dew. Later, we read this picture of involution and evolution (Baptism). Zarephath means refinery.

17 Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. 18 She said to Elijah, What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?

19 Give me your son, Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. 20 Then he cried out to the Lord, Lord my God, have you brought tragedy even on this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die? 21 Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the Lord, Lord my God, let this boys life return to him!

22 The Lord heard Elijahs cry, and the boys life returned to him, and he lived. 23 Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, Look, your son is alive!

24 Then the woman said to Elijah, Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the Lord from your mouth is the truth.

A clear picture of baptism for the express purpose of fleeing the coming wrath of fire on the unbelieving and wicked. Do you have a higher axiom of truth to look back at your skepticism by a new light? Have I shown you solid food rather than milk of a babe? Patience is a virtue and our own judgment should hold off before we live our lives fully. Thankfully, God has a long-suffering patience with us that requires that you must be born again. One life is not nearly enough for the loaf of bread to fully bake from the fire.

Genesis 40

40 Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master, the king of Egypt. 2 Pharaoh was angry with his two officials, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, 3 and put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the same prison where Joseph was confined. 4 The captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, and he attended them.

After they had been in custody for some time, 5 each of the two men"the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were being held in prison"had a dream the same night, and each dream had a meaning of its own.

Who is in custody and darkness? Those who fell in Jude 1. Who is in prison to our sins for three days (3000 years)? Who rises again to defeat evil and crush the head of Satan? The heel. Who is the Heel of the loaf of bread? Who bears the cup? Who bakes the bread? Who is the heel of that bread?

1 Corinthians 15

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

You must become the image to bear it. Christ is the Shepherd. The wool is pulled over our eyes and then sheered off season after season. That wool is washed white as snow, then given back as a new Robe (Body) and Crown (Mind). You must be born again and judgment comes at the end of each cycle. What you bind on Earth is bound in heaven. You create the material that Christ uses to weave your new robe. God loves Jacob and hates Esau. Jacob was a farmer and gave from what he produces. Esau was a hunter and could only take from God's gifts.

The secret to this is held in this video from the show LOST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SPqImu_kz8

What is he weaving? Who is the man in black? Esau. Who is Jacob? Why the fish? Why are they discussing a ship of souls coming to the island in the sea? What do they say to each other? How does this relate to the Angel of Light and the Angel of Darkness? Why did Jacob bring them to the Island. Why is Esau trapped on the Island? What was the conclusion to the last episode of the story?

Again, I am showing you the higher axiom. Ignorance is IGNOREance of truth. Truth is hidden, both in your heart and in the world. The mirror shows you how to make the choice.

"Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite." PtahHotep, 5th Dynasty Egypt (Likely Joseph).




.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Those who begin with the belief that there is a God capable of acting in a miraculous manner and that Jesus is Lord find the evidence in favor of Jesus resurrection compelling.

This is all so true. Also, probably the main reason believers tend to indoctrinate their children. If they don't, they wont begin with the belief that there is a god and like you just said, will not be likely to find evidence in favor of Jesus's resurrection as compelling.

So far, no one has been able to say a word against my evidence. As a matter of fact, it has been ignored for the most part. The reason for this is because it cannot be argued. All of what has been debated on the subject of the resurrection from the past event perspective has been founded on linguistic assumption and what amounts to slander against the ones relating the events of history. How do we verify the events as accurate?

Why should anyone bother responding to your evidence. Even if it is all true, it still has no bearing on the topic. I have asked four times now. Provide a concise argument that shows how your "facts," if true, support the conclusion that a man named Jesus resurrected from the dead. Four times. And you are yet to comply. Which leaves me the opinion that your "facts" simply do not relate to the topic at hand.

Given your "facts" are off topic, nobody needs to acknowledge them. Nobody needs to evaluate them. They can be safely ignored because even if they are true, it doesn't mean anything other than that, they are true. Jesus still didn't resurrect from the dead.

So here's a fifth challenge. Provide a concise argument that shows how your evidence and "facts" support the conclusion that a man named Jesus resurrected from the dead. Emphasis on the word concise. Do it in list format, just title the premises and the conclusion, you can further explain the premises and the conclusion after you're provided the dot point version of the argument. I just want something, as yet you've not been able or bothered to show how what you say relates to the OP.

[Mithrae]

It sounds like you'll accept what Matthew says about the death and preparation, but only when it supports your theory. Because Matthew 27: 59-60 says, "When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed."

Matthew says they put the body in the tomb, closed it, and left. But I guess you don't believe that part, right? And if they never pretended to put the body in the tomb, why did everyone think the body was in the tomb?

The body was taken to the tomb as a matter of open record. Beyond that the preparations of the body was entirely a private matter. Everyone was busily preparing for the holy day recall, which called for much ritual cleansing, and NOT for hanging around in a graveyard. The tomb later proved to be empty. Matthew claims that the tomb was empty because the corpse came back to life. As a matter of logic, reason and critical thinking however, not to mention all experience with the dead, it is overwhelmingly more likely that a missing corpse and empty grave are the result of actions taken by the living, rather then actions taken by the corpse. . . .

As I commented in post 100, "perhaps they really did witness something which defies normal expectations. It depends to no small extent on one's philosophical views whether the last is considered even remotely plausible.."

Honestly Tired, what are you trying to prove here? Aglass showed beyond any reasonable doubt that according to Matthew, Joseph left Jesus' body in his sealed tomb. I'd like to think that I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that according to both Mark and Matthew Jesus' own mother went to that tomb on Sunday morning.

Your argument can't be that the gospel accounts actually show what 'really' happened. You're bending over backwards, picking and choosing bits and pieces of different gospels to try and make even a remotely plausible case there. Your argument, in it's entirety, is that "it is overwhelmingly more likely that a missing corpse and empty grave are the result of actions taken by the living, rather then actions taken by the corpse."

I agree. But what's with all these attempts to argue that Matthew - perhaps the least reliable of all gospels! - inadvertently shows the real truth of the matter? You don't believe 'flying reanimated corpses' are worth believing... and to make that point, you are giving blatantly inconsistent credibility to some specific parts of the story of the most obviously unreliable gospel of the four!

C'mon man. Resurrections are unlikely, and the evidence is too weak to believe it. You don't need to present yourself as arbitrarily denying a couple of specific gospel claims to point that out

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 115 by Danmark]

Making this speculative argument, which BTW has been made every year since about 100 CE, is less than weak. And it certainly is not original. My good Christian father warned me about this nonsense 50 years ago, telling me stories of all the faithful sitting on their house tops waiting for the rapture or whatever. Even when I was a born again, 'spirit filled' believer I did not use THAT argument. I would have been embarrassed to. It is an appeal to fear and sheer speculation. It is in short, not a rational argument; not an argument that should be advanced by gentle persons.

The rapture comes for every living person at death. Crossing the Jordan into the promised land requires wandering in the wilderness. Judgment comes when we die. You must be born again. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. We are in an image. As such, the image you see is not you
.... [Bible verses and preaching redacted, skimmed, but not read]
.

Nothing but bible verses and bald assertions. Your response ignored my arguments and launched into a scripture reading laced with snippets of a sermon. No other response required.

[aglassdarkly]

SelectThis!

I am forced to dismiss your work here as 'divine' nonsense.
Ooberman had a creature, I forget its name but if you were to draw your 'conclusion' I would know what it would look like thanks to Ooberman and his, 'Swingingdiddytingy'.

To tie the fracas in the temple with economic collapse is the equivalent of posthumously handing the patent on the stealth bomber to Da Vinci, no sorry, give it to Daedulus.

SelectThis! Yours is a strange meccano set of connections that might be the result of reading the bible and watching Sky News at the same time. Put the pieces back in the box and start again. Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'

I give you 10 solid facts about our day and age in a mirror against what Christ said would happen. Logically, this should not be possible unless what Christ and the Bible both say is accurate. Further, we can verify that universal truths are firmly followed, giving us a higher probability that what is said is above human wisdom. It is no wonder you are floundering on this with incredulity. There is no other way to deflect such a reflection.


.

Can you? Or, are you taking vague references, and retorfitting it into the current situation?? Are those '10 solid facts' actually solid facts, or are the very much symbolic?

I have seen claims like that before, and yet, when those 'solid facts' are examined, they aren't solid at all, but a lot of twisting and interpreting going on to shoe horn statements into place.

This sounds like guilt-by-association mixed with some hasty generalizations and a serious lack of argument or analysis.