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.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 117 by Filthy Tugboat]

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.

Premise and Conclusion - I followed the rules and revealed what is most evident, one rule at a time. You made assumptions based on breaking the rules.

The argument against Jesus raising from the dead rests on assumptions and misplaced concreteness. I can make this claim since you are using a reasoning framework that has no foundation from particularization and context. Let's use the seven rules to see which of our versions make the cut. If you use the word of God to make assumptions on your own reasoning, you need to use the WHOLE word. See rule 7.

Seven Rules - http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/hillel.htm - hermeneutics (Hermes / Enoch the first scribe of God). His rules, not mine. The Word of God is hermetically sealed.

1. The Kal vahomer rule says that what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case.

In nature, we know that the rules that govern the natural world can be verified from top to bottom. What apples in a lesser case always applies in a greater case since nature is governed by laws that apply top to bottom.

Your argument is founded on your assumptions without context to our present world to know for sure. What you are doing is assuming your reasoning is the only cause. In reality, Abductive reasoning would imply that many causes could be the result of what you are narrowing to one cause (The perceived lies of the Disciples).

With my argument, the greater case applies to all lesser cases that follow in the world. The words of Christ have a reflection in both the first century and the foreshadowed centuries to come. What was said is what has and is happening. Further, we can revers to ages before the first century to know that Isaiah gave us the very year of 1948, which I showed with perfect math, as the ending date for Israel's captivity. We know they returned to the land and we know Isaiah predicted it in the 8th century BC and we know that Jesus said it would happen. In this case, I have used Abductive reasoning with the witnesses to back up the cause.

I win with Rule I.

2) G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expresions)

An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or root " i.e., where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both.

With this rule, we looked into the physics of creation and verified that the NT stated that our reality was an image, created form what is hidden, constructed from Word (information) and light. We further demonstrated that a Voxel and a particle are one in the same, engaged by collapsing wave function, and illuminated to our senses by light. This is the nature of a hologram and we live in such a created environment of illusion. Science backs me up 100% and the Text backs up the very thing I just described. Particle physics is the study of the laws that govern collapsing wave function, information and light, the very thing John 1 says we are constructed from. Both rule 1 and rule 2 apply to this. Further, I have shown may other examples of the same descriptions that are artifacts-out-of-place.

My evidence is centered on showing the probability of these words having power to speak of topics that mankind had yet to learn. Based on this, we start to see that Christ was more than a mere man.

3) 3. Binyan ab mikathub echad (Building up a "family" from a single text)

A principle is found in several passages: A consideration found in one of them applies to all.

All of what the Bible says is then seen in history, both past, present and future. This one rule is something that we can verify from scripture. It is unified front to back. Christ revealed to us how these considerations in the words of the Bible would apply as motive for his Resurrection. Again, we have evidence that the Bible is founded on absolute truths. Why? The macrocosm and microcosm is founded on the laws of physics and mathematics. For God to use the same design in His own word reveals a divine inspiration. These are not assumptions, they are fact. Isaiah's prediction of the 1948 dates shows this accuracy with evidence.

Again, we are narrowing probability to such a degree that it becomes obvious that Christ is what he claimed.

4) 4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building up a "family" from two or more texts)

A principle is established by relating two texts together: The principle can then be applied to other passages. i.e:

You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length, of weight, or quantity. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have; I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:35-36)

Again, we are founded on laws. Those laws are encoded in the parables and proverbs of the Bible. Jesus showed his direct connection to all three. His life, science and natural law match. Faith (Consciousness collapsing wave function of what is indeterminate to determined.) Hope (Unity from Chaos / What choice we collapse determines the state of matter. What is our hope for an outcome?). Love (Overunity from Chaos - The unifying principle (153 - Vesica Pisces)). Love is surplus. Hate creates debt. Good creates surplus. Evil creates debt. Again, the highest truths are shown as the foundation. These are principles relating to both the text and Jesus word about creation. Again, my first evidence was the moneychangers. Debt is the cause of a correction to the wave function by God.

5) 5. Kelal uferat (The general and the particular)

A general principle may be restricted by a particularization of it in another verse " or, conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle. A Tenach example: Genesis 1:27 makes the general statement that God created man. Genesis 2:7, 21 particularizes this by giving the details of the creation of Adam and Chava (Eve). Other examples would be verses detailing with how to perform sacrifices or how to keep the feasts. In the Gospels, the principle of divorce being allowed for "uncleanliness," is particularized to mean for sexual immorality only.

As we dig deeper and deeper into reality and its mirror, the Bible, we see that the Bible is a harmonious parable of all of creation. Jesus exemplified this and showed higher reasoning over that of mankind. His Words transcend every particularization we can outline.

If we take your assumptions, paradox and contradiction are amplified instead of resolved. If we have faith, hope and love from trust of the words, they resolve those paradoxes and contradictions leaving nothing behind.

6) 6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (Analogy made from another passage)

Two passages may seem to conflict until compared with a third, which has points of general though not necessarily verbal similarity.

Again, this is another witness to how truth is resolved. When we see a contradiction or paradox in the Bible, say with science, the third perspective resolves the paradox. I have shown this many times by revealing aspects of the Bible that have not been previously seen. Baptism is a good example and foundation to our immersion into the waters of life. Again, science backs me up on it all as a perfect witness to what the Bible has said all along. Christ revealed a higher truth to our reality and peeled back the veil that covers us in ignorance. It's clear for anyone who bothers to compare the two versions of creation.

Again, probability tells us this should not be possible from a mere man. This is because Christ is no mere mortal, yet he choose to be a paradox to divinity by lowering himself to be our kinsman. Unity follows from chaos by positive connections. Love covers sin. Unity covers Chaos. Science sees evolution and the Bible reveals how we rise to new life from the water.

7) 7. Davar hilmad me'anino (Explanation obtained from context)

The total context, not just the isolated statement must be considered for an accurate exegesis. An example would be Romans 14:1, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Yeshua that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." Paul is not abrogating the kosher laws, but pointing out to gentile believers in the congregation at Rome (within his larger context of Romans) that: 1) things are unclean not of themselves but because God said they are unclean, and 2) they must remember the higher principle, that their "freedom to eat what is unclean" is secondary to the salvation of unsaved Jews who are observing their behavior, as they are looking for "gentiles coming into the faith of Israel" to be acting in an "appropriate manner" as a truth test of Pauls ministry (and Yeshuas Messiahship).

AND FINALLY. TOTAL Context MUST be considered with any particularization. Christ IS the Word. He must, then, reflect it ALL.

Your assumptions try to deny that he does not reflect the TOTAL context of HIS Word compared to nature. I have shown you that your assumptions are misplaced concreteness. Jesus lived, died and rose again, just like we all do in the waters of baptism. What is different about his resurrection? He defeated the need to wash, rinse and repeat. One time for all. The sign of Jonah is the ONLY evidence for this you get and I have shown what that sign is. It's happening all around and starts with Christ running the moneychangers out of the temple. Their financial tables are debt (evidence of thieves) and the peacemakers have no rest (N. Korea / Iran / Russia and so on as evidence of this). Why? Their money is worthless. Stealing robs us of value. Giving creates surplus. Unity and love are the highest universal truths and Christ showed it clearly to us in John 21 with the parable of the fish and Peter feeding the sheep. Peter is Rome. Jonah is 3000 years to raise the temple. The Masons reject the Cornerstone (Giving). Did the Masons build our temple of Babylon? Clearly, their symbols are urinated all over the Federal Reserve and institutions across the world. The are the NWO (Beast that rises from the sea).

Christ holds the upper ground and proves himself true by context and our own history. Like it or not, this resolves the paradox you create with your unfounded assumption. Rules matter.

That is as concise as it gets. Truth is not simple. Faith does not make things easy, it makes them possible. Again, evidence.



.

[historia]

The work that is believed to have been the actual Gospel written by the actual apostle Matthew, now presumed to have been the work written in Aramaic known as "The Gospel of the Hebrews" disappeared about the forth century.

As I understand it, the majority scholarly opinion on the Gospel of the Hebrews is that it was likely an early or mid-second century work originally written in Greek. It was almost certainly not written by the apostle Matthew.

Only fragments of it survive. How exactly did THAT happen?

The Gospel of the Hebrews appears to have been popular among various Jewish Christian sects, which were rivals to early (proto-) orthodox Christianity. It doesn't appear to have been widely used (if at all) by orthodox Christian churches. And so it would not have been copied and preserved in the same way as the canonical gospels. Like many other early heterodox Christian texts, its transmission was likely, and quite understandably, neglected.

The other Gospels were lovingly copied numerous times and yet "The Gospel of the Hebrew" disappeared at just about the time of the formation of the Catholic church. Is the fledgling Catholic church behind this entire switcheroo?

I don't think of the "Catholic" church as "forming" in the fourth century. And copies of the Gospel of the Hebrews were apparently still known as late as the 9th Century. But, those issues aside, I see no reason to invent a conspiracy here.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 142 by historia]

As I understand it, the majority scholarly opinion on the Gospel of the Hebrews is that it was likely an early or mid-second century work originally written in Greek. It was almost certainly not written by the apostle Matthew.

The Shem Tob Matthew is in Hebrew and predates the translations. As new evidence for this emerges, it resolves our previous ideas of the book. Again, assumptions create paradox until resolved by knowledge that was excluded from our view.

[historia]

The Shem Tob Matthew is in Hebrew and predates the translations.

I assume you mean the 14th Century Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Matthew. What do you mean that it "predates the translations"?

As new evidence for this emerges, it resolves our previous ideas of the book. Again, assumptions create paradox until resolved by knowledge that was excluded from our view.

It seems to me that Shem Tov Matthew tells us nothing about the composition of the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of the Hebrews, the (side) topic we are discussing here. But, by all means, feel free to explain yourself further.

[SelectThis!]

The Shem Tob Matthew is in Hebrew and predates the translations.

I assume you mean the 14th Century Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Matthew. What do you mean that it "predates the translations"?

As new evidence for this emerges, it resolves our previous ideas of the book. Again, assumptions create paradox until resolved by knowledge that was excluded from our view.

It seems to me that Shem Tov Matthew tells us nothing about the composition of the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of the Hebrews, the (side) topic we are discussing here. But, by all means, feel free to explain yourself further.

All manuscripts are copies, but the Shem Tov was a copy from an earlier Hebrew copy using YHWH instead of a substitute. This is a strong clue that the use of the tetragrammaton was due to the original copy it came from rather than the other languages we have come to know as the origin of the document. There are other copies of Hebrew Matthews as well. My comments were to show that we have more evidence for a Hebrew origin of the language and a much older writing of the document itself.

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).

It matters because the original assertion that the gospels did not originate early in the first century is an assumption.


.

[SelectThis!]

Double post

[SelectThis!]

[Danmark]

Wisest thing you've written so far.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Your conspiracy theory includes bad analogies too, I see.

But let me ask (because I'm curious), do you believe Matthew 28:11 is true?

I have to ask because you've been fairly inconsistent with Matthew's account.

Matthew 28:11 depicts the guards reporting the the people who told them to guard the tomb... the priests. Even if they were Roman guards, they would have reported to the priests because, as you said, the Romans didn't care.

Matthew 28:
[11] Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

Since you've asked; I think Matthew's account of the guard at the tomb is a fabrication from start to finish. Now with that said; I have engaged you in a dialog that takes all four Gospels at face value. My discussion with you has been completely consistent. The inconsistency you are referring to is the result of comments I have made to others in response to their specific inquiries about the viability of Gospel Matthew. My discussion with you has been with the intention of establishing that, regardless of the story of the guard at the tomb, the disciples of Jesus are the obvious suspects for moving the body of Jesus and spreading the rumor of his resurrection from the dead. The disciples of Jesus took possession of his body on Friday, the day prior to Passover Sabbath, were the last individuals to be clearly in control of the body, and had clear means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the corpse. The story of the guard at the tomb does not change that. Even if the story of the guard is a complete fabrication, we can still see, from details provided by the other Gospels, that once the body of Jesus had been fully prepped there is nothing to prevent Joseph or other of the disciples from loading the body of Jesus onto a cart or wagon and leaving, closing the tomb behind them. The obvious place to transport a body for burial is to the home of the deceased, which happens to be the very place the eleven remaining apostles journeyed to immediately after the crucifixion, according to both Gospels Matthew and Mark.

Matthew 28:11 depicts the guards reporting the the people who told them to guard the tomb... the priests. Even if they were Roman guards, they would have reported to the priests because, as you said, the Romans didn't care.

And you will notice, once again, as with every other instance in which the tomb guards are mentioned, the term "Roman" is no where used in conjunction with the guards. The guard reported to their superiors for instruction. Well of course they did! It was the obvious and in fact only course of action for Jewish guards to take. Roman guards would have had no reason to go to the Jewish priests at all, since Jewish priests had no power to, or hope of, protecting them. Nor would the Jewish priests have had any reason to protect them. The idea of Roman guards taking money to opening brag of sleeping on guard duty is pitiful in conception as it is laughable. Money has no value to a dead man. The author of Gospel Matthew never intended for the guard at the tomb to be understood to have been Roman. If he had, he certainly would have made it clear. A Roman guard protecting the grave of a convicted crucified criminal would have been hugely significant news at the time. Surely the author of Gospel Matthew would have made an effort to be very clear on that point, if that was the point he was trying to make. It does not really matter to the point I was trying to make however, which is that the obvious solution to the question of the empty tomb is that the body had already been removed when the guards, WHATEVER their identity, took possession of it. Your tenacious insistence on holding on to the idea of a Roman guard is an excellent example of the power and strength of both your lifetime of religious indoctrination and Christian mythology in action.

If the guards were Jewish "Temple Police," why does Matthew 28:12 refer to them as "soldiers?" If they were temple police, why did the priests have to bribe them (they were already doing all kinds of no-no's and it was their job to do what the priests say)?

Although officially priests, the Temple Police were an intensively trained and well regimented fighting force, whose vow to God was to protect the temple from desecration by non Jews with their lives. Which, in 70 AD, is exactly what they did. They never numbered more than 300 or so at any one time, and so were not any real threat to the Roman legions. And in fact the priests often used them to keep the peace, which actually made their existence useful to the Romans.

And why would the temple police have feared the apathetic Roman officials for sleeping on the job (a job the Romans didn't care about)?

What did the priests ask Pilate to do? (Matt.27:64) "Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day." And Pilate gave that command as requested. He commanded them to go out and make the tomb as sure as they could. His command, his order, had therefore been violated, according to the account in Gospel Matthew. The guard had failed in their duty. But as you point out, Pilate was apathetic about the entire affair. The priests would have had every reason to suppose they could mollify him if those responsible for failing to protect the tomb were the priests own men. They would have had no hope at all of protecting Roman guards however. Pilate himself would have had no say in protecting Roman guards for the crime of dereliction of duty and openly boasting of sleeping while on guard duty.

It was part of the bribe. "Tell everyone they stole the body and we'll pay you and protect you."

If the guard were Roman, then the far better plan would have been to have had the guard charged with taking a bribe from the disciples and then have them all executed. "The Roman guards took money from the disciples in exchange for the body of Jesus, and the Roman guards were executed for their betrayal," makes a far better explanation to the Jewish nation for the empty tomb, then the story that the disciples had somehow managed to move the great stone and steal body while the guards were all asleep. It would even have saved money. What Jewish person could resist THAT sort of a deal if they had the option?

But if they were Roman, and the priests suspected the body might not be in the tomb, they would have had the Romans check. If they were Roman, your theory falls apart from the beginning.

Enough with the imaginary Roman guard at the tomb already. No one opened the tomb. CHECK THE RECORD. Check Matthew as thoroughly as you wish. That information is simply not there. You have to assume it into existence.

So they're okay with not following the rules. Then why not have them check the tomb?

Never once have I accused the guard of not following orders. I have said that charging the Jewish high priests with being in a graveyard on a high holy day was scandalous charge, but it was an offence which could have been easily rectified by a quick all over Mikveh bath and a change of clothes. Opening a tomb on a high holy day would have been like a blast of spiritual hazmat; a far, far greater, almost unthinkable offence. One which even the author of Gospel Matthew does not suggest occurred.

I'd like to move on, so I can see what else your theory includes, but I want to be sure we're done here: Do you agree that Matthew 27:64 does not verify that the disciples stole the body or that they intentionally spread a "rumor" that Jesus rose from the dead?

You would like to move on, but you don't want to give an inch in the process. Because you have always assumed that the commonly portrayed Christian mythological story of the tomb being guarded by Roman soldiers is true and you would prefer not to give it up. The more you fight for it however, the more it exposes to one and all the fact the that your religious views are based on groundless assumptions and unfounded assertions. And so I have been content to be patient and have allowed you to make my case for me. I am now content that I have fully established my point. But continue on if you wish. It's your look of desperation and you can do as you want.

Your position is circular, so I don't blame you for dressing it up as a theory you found by being smarter than everyone else and looking very closely at the Gospel accounts. You are trying to validate and support your second premise, but it's just not there... at least not yet.

I don't believe that you fully understand the question of what is circular reasoning and what is not. Which is common. At no point have I EVER declared myself to be "smarter than everyone else" however. The problem you are now running into, presumably for the first time in your life, is that the standard Christian mythological story of the origin of Christianity does not stand up to actual facts, reason, logic or critical analysis. It's not that I am smarter then you. Your problem is that you are attempting to defend a position which falls entirely apart when it is subjected to the actual facts, reason, logic and critical analysis. I chose sides better. Of course I have felt free to consider both sides of the question evenly for most of my life. You are essentially stuck with defending what your mommy and daddy have told you was true your whole life. Of course they went through the same process.

[SelectThis!]

Wisest thing you've written so far.

Speaking of nothing, you remind me of another evidence of the nature of a hologram. Atoms are mostly empty space. The electron creates the negative charge that repels with force giving the illusion of mass. Impenetrability says that two objects cannot occupy the same space. What did Lewis Carroll says about nothing?

Alice in Wonderland (Through the Looking Glass)

You'll need to read my solution to the Riddle of Humpty Dumpty to know.

http://teacherlingo.com/blogs/superiore ... olved.aspx

Man sat on the wall of choice when he was vulnerable like an egg on a wall.

Man took knowledge and used it before he was ready (before the egg hatched), and had a great fall (from Gods grace). If he had just waited, he would have become his potential by hatching.

All of the Kings tools (technology) and all of the Kings men Alchemists/Scientists/Mathematicians) could not put man back in his place of glory again.

What did Humpty say?

The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

Read the solution in the link. Word is reflected in all of our works, including children's stories. Especially stories for children (of God). That's what we are.