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.

[Mithrae]

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.

Your question was an irrelevant, uncivil one-liner, and it has been reported. In all your many posts you have contributed nothing to the thread topic, just your attempts at heckling and cheerleading. You've displayed less purpose and intelligence in your comments than those you are insulting. I would guess that I'm not the only one who finds it quite irritating. Please try to be a little more considerate in the future - if all you've got to offer is ridicule and snide insinuations, rather than anything relevant to the topic, just try to hold it in mkay?

[southern cross]

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.

Your question was an irrelevant, uncivil one-liner, and it has been reported. In all your many posts you have contributed nothing to the thread topic, just your attempts at heckling and cheerleading. You've displayed less purpose and intelligence in your comments than those you are insulting. I would guess that I'm not the only one who finds it quite irritating. Please try to be a little more considerate in the future - if all you've got to offer is ridicule and snide insinuations, rather than anything relevant to the topic, just try to hold it in mkay?

Patently obvious that you didn't understand the perfectly relevant question either, If you had you would not have posted this self absorbed rant. Really if you have nothing to contribute please continue in your normal vein.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 171 by Mithrae]

Yes. The proper course as I understand the rules, would have been to simply report Select's post for violating the 'preaching' guidelines.

[aglassdarkly]

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.

So you're arguing a point based on a passage you think is a lie?

Even if I concede that you're right (which you're not)... you're right, the passage somehow shows the resurrection was a hoax, but the passage is a lie, so your conclusion is about Matthew, not the resurrection.

More importantly, the passage doesn't support your claim that the guards were Jewish temple police. It makes much more sense that the guards were Roman... or at least that Matthew intended on the reader understanding the guards to be Roman.

Now with that said; I have engaged you in a dialog that takes all four Gospels at face value.

Except when they disagree with your theory, right?

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.

No, no. Without our debate, you have denied the accuracy of Matthew... in direct response to me. Let's not be revisionist.

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.

You rely on the "obvious," which is as subjective as it gets. The obvious answer isn't always right. It's not always reliable. And it puts you into a question begging argument.

But even within the framework of being "obvious," your theory fails the smell test. I'd have to believe so many improbable and confusing things to buy your theory... and we're just talking about if the apostles left Jesus' body in the tomb or not. We haven't even got to the good stuff yet.

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.

Neither is the term "Jewish" or "temple police."

Apply your skepticism to your own theory.

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.

1. You don't know that the priests would not have been able to protect the Roman guards.
2. If the guards were Roman, they were sent on a mission for the priests, so they reported back to the priests. Romans officials did not care... you said it yourself.

You're making arguments like you used to be a Roman guard and you know exactly what the proper procedures would have been and how the guards would have reacted. You weren't. And you don't.

Nor would the Jewish priests have had any reason to protect them.

Seriously? They told the guards "if you lie for us, we'll protect you from any fallout." It was a mutually beneficial deal. That's reason to protect them.

You really don't see that?

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.

Your ad hom reveals a weak argument.

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.

Are the ever referred to as soldiers elsewhere?

And you didn't answer the second question: Why would the priests have needed to bride their own guards who would do whatever they asked anyway?

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.

Oh gosh. So you don't think the guards were worried about the Roman officials at all? Then why the bribe? Why the offer of protection?

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.

Religious rules/laws, not their orders.

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.

You've reduced my arguments to an assumption.

Straw man down!

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.

Considering how much criticism you've faced and how many objections have come up, I'm truly surprised that you are declaring victory. You haven't even provided support for your first claim (of many).

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.

I even charted it for you.

1. Jesus died.
2. It's obvious that he didn't come back to life.
Therefore, he didn't come back to life.

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.

Haha.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[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.

I am mighty confused, you disagree that what I provided as your logical argument that the prophetic power of "the word" is evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus?

Then supply your own bloody argument, why is it so damn hard? I even got you started and I've provided one example. What you've quoted from me above is the form your argument needs to be in. That is the standard presentation of a logical argument. Provide one in that form. Remember, concise. Make it concise. You can explain and add more to the argument later, all I want now is the argument in the same form I have shown above.

If the above argument is your argument, then please respond to the rebuttle thereof. I'll quote it for you below.

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.

As premise 2 is acknowledged as true for the sake of argument, I'll leave that as it is.

Premise 1 is essentially the fallacy of composition.

Your appeal to abductive reasoning is inadequate, in this case, to assume that the whole is true because some, or even most, of the parts are true. The reason for this is that the cause of these events is unknown and unknowable. There is no reason to assume that all claims in this book are true just because most of them demonstrably are. The claims are supernatural. If supernatural events are occurring, then the source is unknown, the cause is unknown, the motive is unknown. When there is so much that is not and cannot be known then there exist no reliable reason as to what other supernatural events have occurred.

Unless you believe that some of these things can be known? The book you claim is true even states that these things cannot be known, and logically speaking, nothing can be meaningfully said of the supernatural.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Comment

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.

This is not productive and in violation of the preaching guidelines. Replying to an inane post is not an excuse.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Comment

Your question was an irrelevant, uncivil one-liner, and it has been reported. In all your many posts you have contributed nothing to the thread topic, just your attempts at heckling and cheerleading. You've displayed less purpose and intelligence in your comments than those you are insulting. I would guess that I'm not the only one who finds it quite irritating. Please try to be a little more considerate in the future - if all you've got to offer is ridicule and snide insinuations, rather than anything relevant to the topic, just try to hold it in mkay?

It is best to avoid making personal comments about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[southern cross]

[Replying to post 176 by LiamOS]

OK I've now had two people who are incapable of understanding a very simple question in response to a nonsensical claim of prophecy by whatsis name.
TRY THIS

2 I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian"
brother will fight against brother,

This poster has made the claim that this is a fulfilled prophecy that comes from an all knowing god.
Anyone with children, grandchildren or great grandchildren, as I have, is well aware that brothers fight. That rediculous attempt at prophecy belongs in the nearest cesspit, because that is what it is. Only the terminally bewildered could possibly contend that my question was meaningless.
The thought process is of great benefit to some members of the human race. For the great many others I would suggest an attempt to approach it, even if you are incapable of achieving it.
THAT is the validity for my question. I wasn't aware that I needed to draw pictures with crayon.

[otseng]

Wisest thing you've written so far.

Moderator Comment

There is a place for a little humor, but it should not be at the expense of another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[historia]

Yet still you object and you choose to disparage the author rather than detail your objections to the rather extensive information he has provided.

As a matter of procedure, I think you would have to agree that it is not incumbent upon me (or anyone else) to offer a detailed refutation of every web page or Youtube video linked in these forums.

If you would like to discuss the issues raised by this web page, then please summarize the most salient points here, and I'd be happy to debate them. If, on the other hand, you want to simply point to this work as an authority on the topic, I feel more than justified in dismissing it out of hand on the grounds that the author is not an expert and lacks the necessary credentials to be one.

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."

Yes, this is the author's thesis statement. He is attempting to prove this hypothesis in his article.

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."

There is no contradiction here. My comment is merely an observation of the current state of scholarship. Jones himself notes further down in the article that his thesis runs counter to the majority view of scholars.

The Wikipedia articles on the Gospel of the Hebrews and Jewish Christian Gospels summarize the current scholarship quite well, and, as you can see, reflect my observation.

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

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

Let me see if I understand your line of argumentation here, Tired. You go from quoting one fundamentalist Christian website written by an author with dubious academic credentials, to quoting this guy, who has no academic credentials at all.

If you want to debate the relevant scholarly literature on the Gospel of the Hebrews I'd be more than happy to do so. But let us agree to put aside these silly websites written by amateur historians looking to advance their own religious agendas. They are not helpful.