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.

[meshak]

wow,

I am so impressed with all your comments.

I am glad I am not a non-believer. I am not intelligent enough to be one.

No wonder I follow Jesus. He gives me a peace. He gives me no such burden to assert myself. You guys give me a headache.

just my two cents.

carry on:)

[southern cross]

wow,

I am so impressed with all your comments.

I am glad I am not a non-believer. I am not intelligent enough to be one.

No wonder I follow Jesus. He gives me a peace. He gives me no such burden to assert myself. You guys give me a headache.

just my two cents.

carry on:)

WOW, how unintentionally true can you get.
Thanks for that?

[historia]

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.

Catholics like to claim that the linage of their faith stretches back to Jesus himself.

I suppose that's true, but I don't see the "Catholic" church as forming in the first century either.

There were, without question, different sects of Christianity almost from the start of the movement, of which (proto-) orthodox Christianity was just one; and at times perhaps not even the majority.

The Orthodox rose to a position of power in the 4th Century, as you pointed out, but had "formed" into a recognizable community long before that. There still existed competing (mostly Gnostic) forms of Christianity even after the 4th Century.

Anyway, I think we're just using these terms differently and don't fundamentally disagree.

[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.

http://hebrewgospel.com/Gospel%20of%20Hebrews.php
Matthews Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews

The historical literary evidence shows that the Gospel of the Hebrews was a middle second century document written in Aramaic based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and filled with additions, deletions, and changes to the text to reflect Jewish and Gnostic beliefs. It was probably created by the Ebionites, a Jewish Gnostic sect.

First, let me just say that it is completely unnecessary for you to cut-and-paste an entire document into the thread when you supply the link itself. But thank you for pointing to the source of your argument.

Second, why should I (or anyone else here) accept the scholarship of Ron Jones, the author of this work, over and against the majority view of scholars? Jones is not a recognized expert in the field, and has advanced degrees from BIOLA, a fundamentalist Christian institution of little to no repute.

Third, what about that document did you actually find convincing? It seems to me that it consists of little more than quotations from the Early Church Fathers, and makes no sustained argument for believing that (a) the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, or (b) that the Gospel of the Hebrews directly descends from that supposed Hebrew text.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

First, let me just say that it is completely unnecessary for you to cut-and-paste an entire document into the thread when you supply the link itself. But thank you for pointing to the source of your argument.

Second, why should I (or anyone else here) accept the scholarship of Ron Jones, the author of this work, over and against the majority view of scholars?

Normally I would agree with you. That much information would normally be unnecessary overkill, posted just to show off. In this case however it seemed to me that the sheer volume of information which covered this topic so thoroughly made it important enough to post the entire thing. Yet still you object and you choose to disparage the author rather than detail your objections to the rather extensive information he has provided. But then of course the very first sentence of Ron Jones' article states: "The historical literary evidence shows that the Gospel of the Hebrews was a middle second century document written in Aramaic based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and filled with additions, deletions, and changes to the text to reflect Jewish and Gnostic beliefs." Which contradicts your earlier statement: "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."

Well then, allow me to try again, with another source.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews:
The Synoptic Solution
By James Scott Trimm

Even the most conservative of scholars have given a very early date to the composition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict Josh McDowell (p. 38) assigns GH a date of A.D. 65-100. The book certainly had to have existed before the time of Hegesippus (c. 180 C.E.) who Eusebius tells us made use of GH in his writings (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22:8). Ignatious (98 C.E.) quotes from GH in his letter to the Smyraneans (3:1-2 (1:9-12 some editions)). Although Ignatious does not identify his quote as coming from GH, Jerome (4th Century) does later cite GH as the source (Of Illustrious Men 16). GH (in differing versions) was used by both Nazarenes and Ebionites. Since neither group would have been likely to adopt the others book after they split from each other around 70 C.E., it appears that GH in its original form must have originated prior to that time.

There has been much debate about the original language of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius refers to GH as the Gospel that is spread abroad among the Jews in the Hebrew tongue (Theophina 4:12 on Mt. 10:34-36) and the Gospel [written] in Hebrew letters (ibid on Mt. 25:14f). Jerome refers to GH as written in the Chaldee and Syrian language but in Hebrew letters (Against Pelagius III.2) but seems to refer to the same document in another passage as in the Hebrew language and letters (Of Illustrious Men 3). In context however Jerome seems to say that GH was originally written in the Hebrew language and letters but that the copy in the library at Caesarea is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language but in Hebrew letters (i.e. Aramaic). Thus Schonfield is correct in writing:

The original language of the Gospel was Hebrew. It has generally been assumed on insufficient grounds that this Hebrew was in fact Aramaic (commonly called Hebrew).
(According to the Hebrews p. 241).
http://www.wnae.org/gthebrews.htm

Was the Gospel of the Hebrews in fact the document referred to by Papias as having been written by the apostle Matthew in the Hebrew language? Well that has been the subject of much debate. Conservative Christian scholars resoundingly deny it, of course.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 160 by Filthy Tugboat]

Ah, so the argument you are using is this:

1. If the Bible is demonstrably correct on most of it's claims/prophecies, then it must be correct on all of it's claims/prophecies.
2. The Bible is demonstrably correct on most of it's claims/prophecies.
3. The Bible is therefore correct on all of it's claims/prophecies.
4. The Bible claimed/prophesized that Jesus would resurrect from the dead.
5. The claim/prophecy of Jesus' resurrection is true according to premise 2 and the rule in premise 1.

1) The Word is correct on all. The Bible is a mirror of the Word. Abductions says something is true if causes can be found and narrowed from all possibility. Logic and reason sees what is evident and names the axiom. Probability removes all doubt.

2) The Word is correct on all. The Bible is a mirror of the Word. I make no assumptions that are not verified by history, archaeology, science, physics, linguistics and human nature. All follow the same law and the Bible must adhere to that law or it is false. The scribes rightly divided truth as it was hermetically sealed in symbol. The seeds are there. All they need is water to grow.

3) This has yet to be seen. We can see the future coming, but until it is past, we cannot connect the dots. Based on past fulfillment, probability continues to narrow by the law of inverse squares.

4) It prophesied that death would be swallowed up in victory. Again, we still die. The sign of Jonah is all you get. The rock (Peter) will be rolled away. The moneychanger's financial tables have already been turned. The peacemakers have no rest. The Masons have rejected the Chief Cornerstone. The experts in the law are in league with Daddy Warbucks (War profiteer / Masons) and we have evidence of all of these characters in league with darkness.

Isaiah 28

18 Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
19 As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through.
The understanding of this message
will bring sheer terror.
20 The bed is too short to stretch out on,
the blanket too narrow to wrap around you.

Too fat to even get any rest from all of their riches. They have no peace.

Enoch said it this way:

16.2 And now to the Watchers, who sent you to petition on their behalf,
who were formerly in Heaven:

16.3 "You were in Heaven but its secrets had not yet been revealed to you;
and a worthless mystery you knew. This you made known to women, in
the hardness of your hearts. And through this mystery the women and the
men cause evil to increase on the Earth."

16.4 Say to them therefore: "You will not have peace."



5) No, I used the seven rules of Hillel to rightly divide truth from the symbols.


.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 159 by southern cross]

We are all children of God if we desire adoption by faith. We are children of God until we are no longer children. We are in the image God created and see from the image only.

1 Corinthians 13

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The Father loves us. God is love.

[SelectThis!]

wow,

I am so impressed with all your comments.

I am glad I am not a non-believer. I am not intelligent enough to be one.

No wonder I follow Jesus. He gives me a peace. He gives me no such burden to assert myself. You guys give me a headache.

just my two cents.

carry on:)

WOW, how unintentionally true can you get.
Thanks for that?

I gave you a few tokes and said, "Keep up the good work." What I meant by that is from the facts in this thread. Evident truth will rise in the heart. Give it time. If it hits good soil, it grows. This is the nature of truth. It rises and ignorance sinks. Truth is a spiral upward and counterfeit knowledge can only spiral downward. Which direction have your thoughts taken you?

From the evidence presented, what do you really think?


.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 137 by SelectThis!]

Woolyman, do you know any other language?
I simply don't understand rabbiting on.
I'm sorry, but I am ignorant and only understand English. Could you perhaps write your posts in that language? Thanks.

If you have no faith in my intent, you will likely ignore what is said. If you knew what I was saying, you would know my intent. The gap between is simply paying attention to the process of denying ignorance. No one can know truth by ignoring it. The slave finds the emerald among the pegmatite.

With that said, consider the evidence I have presented. Simply read each post with no bias or condescension in the heart. Allow it to speak. If it rises in the heart, we are reading something waking our soul. If it falls, we are reading something contradicting the heart. What does our souls know in all of this? Metacognition is knowing what you know. The soul has the Word written on it. Simply allow it to wake by rising above emotion.

In the world of psychology, this is known as intellect over emotion. If intellect rules, then emotion is in check. If emotion rules, then intellect is moved out of the way. Impenetrability is the state in which two objects cannot occupy the same space. The stronger will move the weaker. In this case, rely on intellect and not emotion. Light reveals what it hits. Overcoming is the point Christ demonstrated by dying. I trust this victory over death for the very reasons I outline. I have tried to show that it is impossible to deny. There is power in the Word.

This is the way any person rises in the world. What we do not overcome will then overcome us. Until we gain strength over emotion, it robs us of reward that could have been ours. The more we open ourselves to opportunity, the more it become available. Truth is an opportunity to rise and is only available from faith. It only takes a spark to start a fire.

The evidence in this thread, when true, will rise above the error. Intellect is the key and that takes patience and attention.


.

[southern cross]

[Replying to post 159 by southern cross]

We are all children of God if we desire adoption by faith. We are children of God until we are no longer children. We are in the image God created and see from the image only.

1 Corinthians 13

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The Father loves us. God is love.

Wait, I'm sure there are non sequiturs you haven't used yet. If you consider that an answer to my question, it's no wonder you can find all of your answers in an old book, written by who knows.