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.

[aglassdarkly]

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.

IF we had agreed to exclude Gospel Matthew from the discussion based on the obvious tendencies of it's author to fabricate his claims, which you of course would never have agree to in the first place, then the remaining three Gospels are unanimous on a crucial point; the tomb was already open and empty at first light when the women went out to do honor to the body of Jesus. The obvious conclusion therefore is that someone living moved the body, and NOT that the body returned to life and left on it's own.

You use a lot of words to get back to your premise (which is also your conclusion [which is a logical fallacy {as I've noted multiple times, but you've consistently ignored}]): "duh, guys, it's obvious!"

Obvious doesn't mean correct.

First, let's consider the word "obvious." What does it mean, exactly?

ob-vi-ous [ob-vee-uhs] adjective
1.easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident: an obvious advantage.
2.lacking in subtlety.
3.Obsolete . being or standing in the way.

So the meaning of the word "obvious" is, well, pretty obvious. It means to recognize something clearly. What the Gospels present clearly is a story of a group of supporters of a man who has been cruelly executed gaining control of the man's corpse, and then taking the corpse to a specific location, in this case a crypt or sepulchre, to be washed and prepared. Sometime later the sepulchre is secured by a group of armed guards, but ultimately the sepulchre later proves to be empty. The obvious conclusion therefore is that the sepulchre was already empty when it was secured by the guards because those in possession of the body had already moved it somewhere else.

There you go again, using a lot of words just to restate your conclusion (which is also your premise)... it's "obvious."

I can agree with you that the Gospel accounts are clear: three days after Jesus died, the tomb he was (you'd say "supposedly") buried in was empty. But the issue we are debating is whether that means there was never a body in there or if Jesus came back to life and escaped. All you have to say is: it's obvious.

Well, it's not. It may be obvious to you if you are assuming that resurrection is impossible. But that makes your argument circular.

You see, I keep trying to get you to describe exactly what happened in the couple days leading up to Jesus' death and the days that followed. But all I get from you is references to Matthew (which you don't believe) and accounts from the other Gospels (which you might not believe). I want you to explain those four days at the tomb... what you think happened, not what the Bible says. I want to understand your theory. Were there guards? Did the apostles plan to trick everyone? Did the apostles roll the stone to close the tomb the day Jesus died? Or did they leave it open? If they closed it, who opened it? Were people going to visit the tomb in the days following Jesus' death? Or did no one care? Did the women see an angel? I want to know what you think happened so we can accurately evaluate if it is the "obvious" alternative.

But regarding Mark, Luke, and John, here's what I'd have to believe to buy your theory:
Jesus' friends prepared his body at the tomb, then openly loaded it (and 100 pounds of expensive fragrances) into a cart and wheeled it out of town on a day people were forbidden from working (which would have been conspicuous), but for some reason everyone thought the body was left in the tomb, and after three days the tomb was found open with no body and everyone freaked out thinking Jesus had come back to life!

Do you conceive of all of those many thousands of people standing as still as statues because it was a holy day? Or would they naturally have been moving about according to their needs as living breathing people tend to do as a matter of course? In what way would the group with the body of Jesus in a cart or wagon moving about in the crowd be any more conspicuous then any other group of people moving about in the crowd with carts loaded with their own traveling possessions and provisions?

Interestingly, when I argue:
A
B
C
D
E
And these arguments/observations are not contingent upon each other, but they all give independent support to the proposition: X...

And all you do is say:
No, B is wrong...

You've done very little to the argument. If I want, I can concede B and still have the combined strength of A, C, D, and E.

But I won't concede it. It would be noteworthy if a band of guys was guiding a Myrrh-laden cart from the tombs out of the city and on the road to Galilee.

But hey, I just want to point out that we are using facts and reason and logic and critical thinking to have this discussion, aren't we?

In post 182
But there ARE historical accounts to guide me. Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote:

"A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately
sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by
beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune
takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it,
whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones
and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive
to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not
allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would
dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen
into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The
optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same
punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the
proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next
squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this
penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that
the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept." (The
Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military
System, sec. 37).

A Roman guard would have had no hope of being protected by a group of Jewish priests for the crime of sleeping on guard duty, and that is simply an obvious fact.

You think that's a good argument?

Yep! (argument provided above). As arguments go that's a pretty good one.

Yikes! Like I said, it doesn't even support your conclusion. All it says is: Roman soldiers get punished.

You're using the writing of a historian who lived 200 years before the events of this debate. I wonder how much things change in 200 years... But that's not even important because this guy doesn't say anything in support of your position. The Roman officials DID NOT CARE ABOUT THE TOMB OR THE BODY OR ANY OF IT. You made that point. The soldiers were on loan to the priests. That's why they reported back to the priests in Matthew. The priests were reassuring the soldiers that if they lied about what happened at the tomb, they wouldn't be in trouble with their bosses. Plus, they might have been lying about being able to protect them. That would explain the bribe. And they probably would have been punished equally for coming up with a "giant-white-angel-did-it" story.

The modern American Uniform Code of Military Justice became effective in 1951, but military rules for the conduct of military personal dates back 238 years to 1775 and the Second Continental Congress. The crime of dereliction of duty is and always has been considered a major offence.

And American military punishments haven't changed since 1775? Is that what you're claiming? Or are you saying that the military hasn't changed it's procedures since 1775? Or are you simply pointing out that the military was established in 1775 and we still have a military, and some of the crimes are the same, so it's probably mostly the same across the board?

Plus, this information doesn't do anything for your argument!

Sleeping on guard duty is considered to be a very serious crime in any army because it has the potential of putting the entire force in jeopardy of being taken by surprise while defences are down and being destroyed in detail. This was certainly true of the Roman army 2,000 years ago (or 2,200 years ago for that matter). As the evidence I provided clearly establishes.

Your "evidence" doesn't say anything about punishment for sleeping. Your "evidence" doesn't say anything about rules and procedures for Roman soldiers in Jerusalem around 30AD.

Priest: Hey hey, don't go telling people about that angel stuff.
Guard: Up yours pal, that's what happened.
Priest: Is that what happened... now (throws bag of money)?
Guard: We could get in serious trouble for telling people we fell asleep on the job.
Priest: We won't complain, and you know your bosses don't care, but if it comes up we'll vouch for you.
Guard: I dunno.
Priest: Okay go tell everyone an angel did it and we'll call you liars and make a big fuss about it and your bosses WILL care.
Guard: What angel?

You are absolutely RIGHT! This makes no sense at all, does it? Especially if as you contend, that the guards were Roman soldiers, and all the priests had to do was insist that Pilate execute them for dereliction of duty and then explain to the Jewish nation that the Roman guards had been bribed by the disciples of Jesus and had been executed for their offence.

Yeah, that would have made a lot of sense... we're talking about Matthew's account, so you think it makes sense for the guards to run to the priests saying "bright light... angel... rock moved... earthquake... women... tomb is empty," and the priests' best course of action would have been to report them to Roman officials, insist they they die for getting beat by an angel and an earthquake, and then turn around and tell everyone the apostles bribed the guards?

And you don't think Roman officials would have had something to say about the angel and the earthquake story (which the priests wanted to be a secret)? You don't think the Roman officials would have made their execution public, including their far-fetched story (which was exactly what the priests didn't want)? You don't think the Roman officials would have clarified the issue when the priests started telling everyone the Roman guards took bribes from the apostles (ruining their story)?

Or do you think the priests would have told the Roman officials some kind of lie to get the guards killed? "They took money and let the body go!" And you don't think that would have caused an investigation (which is exactly what the priests would not have wanted)? And you don't think the Roman officials would have believed their contingent of guards over priests with motivation to fabricate a story?

This, however, makes sense:

Priest: Hey hey, don't go telling people about that angel stuff.
Guard: Up yours pal, that's what happened.
Priest: Is that what happened... now (throws bag of money)?
Guard: We could get in serious trouble for telling people we fell asleep on the job.
Priest: We won't complain, and you know your bosses don't care, but if it comes up we'll vouch for you.
Guard: I dunno.
Priest: Okay go tell everyone an angel did it and we'll call you liars and make a big fuss about it and your bosses WILL care.
Guard: What angel?

It's hard for me to believe that after all the discussion we've had, you think I'm dodging your questions. Your questions don't advance the debate.

After all the discussion we have had you STILL have not answered the questions.

As I said, your questions don't advance the debate. I have addressed your arguments, because when it comes to reason, fact, and logic... only arguments matter. I have made the choice to contribute meaningful responses.

[assisigirl]

TOTN, you dismiss a contemporary story based on fact by a recognised source and you settle instead for what you think is the basis of truth within the Gospel. Ok, its time to move on.

One big question: Why would the disciples do this, we need motive? There is none.

Its not as if they were on the gravy train following Jesus, its not as if they had a cunning plan, for the most part they sounded like Hobbits from the Shires, and its not as if Jesus left explicit instructions. Do you concede your point or must you pursue???

(Something freakish happened here is my guess, ie the story of Josephus was hijacked by the Gospel writers or a body in a coma revived itself within the tomb??
You just need a little weirdness for this story to work, is there a doctor in the house. You have to admit the Josephus coincidence is amazing as is the fact that both stories talk about a triple crucifixion with a survivor. TOTN: What are the odds on that. It is millions, TOTN, do you not get that?)

[neptune1bond]

True, but it must still be considered very unlikely. As with all ancient events which don't involve cities or kings, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is rather weak. It seems that you yourself don't actually profess belief in his resurrection, but merely point out that we can't automatically dismiss it as impossible. Nevertheless it's only reasonable to believe it if the strength of the evidence outweighs the (un)likelihood of the event.

So for instance if a stranger in a mall told me that the toilets I was going to were closed for cleaning, I'd probably believe him; but if two family members told me that they had witnessed a man who'd been dead for over a day raised back to life then disappearing into the clouds, I'd be curious but still rather sceptical. I'd want more evidence, but their story would mean that it just cannot be found. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is much weaker than the testimony of two people I know and respect. We can guess that Mark might plausibly have been written by Peter's interpretor, though not himself a witness of the alleged events, and that John might plausibly have been written by Jesus' favourite disciple. But we can't even be sure about those points, and we don't know what kind of people Mark and John were - though we do know that their stories contradict each other on several key points (number of women, number of angels, how soon they told the disciples...).

In order to reasonably believe in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of that evidence we would need to suppose that the event was weird, but not all that amazing after all.

A Christian apologist can try to stack the odds in their favour a bit more, by arguing that Jesus was a remarkable case because his mission and death were prophecied beforehand (Daniel 9, Isaiah 53 etc) so we should expect remarkable things of him; and by suggesting that the conversion of Jesus' brother James, and the martyrdoms of Peter, and of John's brother James, and of Jesus' brother James himself all give extra credibility to their testimony. It is possible to see how someone for whom that event is considered a centrepiece of their faith could persuade themselves that it is reasonable to believe. Maybe it's not completely unreasonable.

But the evidence is surely far too weak to lead even the most open-minded non-believers to anything more than vague speculation (one way or the other).

I don't expect any atheist to simply renounce his personal opinions or belief on a subject based on nothing except the fact that I feel that I have shown that there is a possibility that it could be true. I'm really not trying to convert anyone to this cause. I personally don't believe that it happened, so it definitely would be pretty ridiculous to expect you to.

My point is simply this. Every great idea in the past was greatly ridiculed by the vast majority of people before it gained any acceptance and was eventually accepted by the general public as fact. Look at everything from the radio, to the automobile, to gravity, the telephone, light bulb, airplane, evolution, and even the personal computer that we are typing on now. The science and knowledge of how the world works at the creation of each of these ideas believed such things to be impossible and most people laughed at the the originators of these ideas, probably saying that these things were "unlikely at best and most likely downright stupid." To them and the world they lived in the idea of people flying through the air or communicating instantaneously over vast distances was the stuff made of,"fairy farts and pixie dust." If these great inventors had not chosen to believe in the "highly unlikely" then we wouldn't have these wonderful inventions and the great knowledge that comes with it. The truth is that a great many things came out of "crackpot ideas" that are now just accepted as obvious truth or fact. If anyone from those past eras were transported instantaneously into our time, they would probably have a heart attack and die just from the shock of what is suddenly "possible", even though it was always reality and we just didn't know it yet.

So, if I can show a thing to at the very least be possible, even if highly unlikely, then I feel like history has already proven that we have no reason to ridicule someone for choosing to believe it and that maybe there might be future great benefit. I personally feel that I don't have any right to even dismiss ideas that seem downright impossible, personally. People in this very forum probably believed that revival after clinical death could not and would not ever happen and was the stuff of "fantasy zombie stories and Santa Claus and whatnot." But, in actuality scientists are doing that very thing right now and it's probably only a matter of time before they develop the technology much further. In fact, a great many things we are developing or have already created were actually featured in some past science fiction novel or movie.

Look at the holographic stage that I've already provided a link to. Also, look at this video where they show a hologram that can be "felt".



Not that long ago, I would've considered this to be crazy science fiction crap. I think we all remember that it wasn't that long ago that star trek showed a "holographic room" called the "holodek" and everyone said,"wouldn't it be nice?" Maybe some day you'll be able to sit on a hologram, taste a hologram, breathe a hologram, even be sustained nutritionally by a hologram, be a hologram yourself, who knows!? People are sometimes really incapable of imagining the past eras where the ideas of the things that we use every day now were so ridiculous as to be "absolute nonsense".

For all we know, future scientists may find a way to recreate the entire resurrection, in it's entirety, and the people in this future time might consider it to be "obvious" or "quite commonplace" like television or airplanes. Maybe the time will come where resurrections are performed in every hospital around the world and, who knows, it might have been inspired entirely by the story of Jesus and an attempt to prove or disprove the possibility. Maybe every household will eventually have "do it yourself, Jesus brand" emergency resurrection kits.

*Insert bouncy commercial music here" "Yes, you too can protect your loved ones from accidental or sudden death with one of our patented kits and it's so easy and simple to use. Patty says,"I came home to find Bill dead from a heart attack, but with the simple application of the anal suppository and the electrode inserted into the left nostril, I was able to keep him alive until the paramedics came." Bill says,"Yes, it hurt like a *****, the suppositories are the size of horse pills and I still have a twitch in my right eye and an involuntary reflex that acts like tourettes, but I'm really glad to be alive. Thank you *Jesus brand* resurrection kits, I don't know what we would've done without you!" These kits come in black, chartreuse, stainless steel, and even Hello Kitty designs to fit in with any household. order yours today!"

God may come out to be an alien just trying to help humans, "get started"; Maybe we're just some cosmic experiment or intergalactic zoo; Maybe some alien race came across monkeys on this planet and said,"Hey, you wanna have a little fun? Let me show you something cool"; Maybe amino acids came together and eventually evolved over millions of years; Maybe something completely different happened; Or maybe all of these things are distinct possibilities and some aspect of all of them played a part. The truth is that the truth is the truth whether you or I find it likely or not and it isn't that uncommon for truth to be stranger than fiction. So atheists will always say "why?" and I will always say "why not" and some other theists will always say "just because" but the truth is that none of us, not even scientists, have the smallest clue, and until we do, I choose to be tolerant and accepting of all the "possibilities."

[Danmark]

True, but it must still be considered very unlikely. As with all ancient events which don't involve cities or kings, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is rather weak. It seems that you yourself don't actually profess belief in his resurrection, but merely point out that we can't automatically dismiss it as impossible. Nevertheless it's only reasonable to believe it if the strength of the evidence outweighs the (un)likelihood of the event.

So for instance if a stranger in a mall told me that the toilets I was going to were closed for cleaning, I'd probably believe him; but if two family members told me that they had witnessed a man who'd been dead for over a day raised back to life then disappearing into the clouds, I'd be curious but still rather sceptical. I'd want more evidence, but their story would mean that it just cannot be found. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is much weaker than the testimony of two people I know and respect. We can guess that Mark might plausibly have been written by Peter's interpretor, though not himself a witness of the alleged events, and that John might plausibly have been written by Jesus' favourite disciple. But we can't even be sure about those points, and we don't know what kind of people Mark and John were - though we do know that their stories contradict each other on several key points (number of women, number of angels, how soon they told the disciples...).

In order to reasonably believe in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of that evidence we would need to suppose that the event was weird, but not all that amazing after all.

A Christian apologist can try to stack the odds in their favour a bit more, by arguing that Jesus was a remarkable case because his mission and death were prophecied beforehand (Daniel 9, Isaiah 53 etc) so we should expect remarkable things of him; and by suggesting that the conversion of Jesus' brother James, and the martyrdoms of Peter, and of John's brother James, and of Jesus' brother James himself all give extra credibility to their testimony. It is possible to see how someone for whom that event is considered a centrepiece of their faith could persuade themselves that it is reasonable to believe. Maybe it's not completely unreasonable.

But the evidence is surely far too weak to lead even the most open-minded non-believers to anything more than vague speculation (one way or the other).

I don't expect any atheist to simply renounce his personal opinions or belief on a subject based on nothing except the fact that I feel that I have shown that there is a possibility that it could be true. I'm really not trying to convert anyone to this cause. I personally don't believe that it happened, so it definitely would be pretty ridiculous to expect you to.

My point is simply this. Every great idea in the past was greatly ridiculed by the vast majority of people before it gained any acceptance and was eventually accepted by the general public as fact. . . .

Excellent point. My favorite example is Semmelweis who had the audacious idea of having physicians scrub their hands clean in a carbolic acid solution after doing pathology examinations and before delivering babies.
BUT, don't you think 2000 years has been enough time for people to recognize the improbability [at least] of the resurrection?

[neptune1bond]

Because you have no idea if 121 minutes is possible. You also fail to realize that these dogs are being tended to by humans. If you cannot reproduce a catheter in which god could use, then you have nothing. You have fanciful, imaginary ideas. Your basing your ideology on an invisible, imaginary catheter. It is wishful thinking at best.

You're partially right in that I cannot know with an absolute certainty if 121 minutes is the reality. But there is no logical reason to believe that if these dogs can be brought to clinical death and then revived at all that they cannot be revived after 121 minutes, 6 hours, 5 days, or longer. It is a valid, end even likely, hypothesis given the evidence. Can you show me a reason to accept it as an impossibility? If, not then we cannot tell believers in Jesus' resurrection that it didn't or couldn't happen, only that we don't like the idea or find it unlikely at best. And as long as it is one of the distinct "possibilities", a person has the right to believe in it whether we like it or not. There are plenty of cases were the "unlikely" possibility turns out to be the only reality and the "likely" possibilities are false. In cases were this happened, if someone hadn't believed in the "unlikely" we never probably would've found out the truth. Look at my last post in response to Mithrae for a multitude of examples.

Btw, I don't know what your difficulty is with the catheter. Maybe you keep referring to it as "invisible" because you think that it might be seen by the people around Jesus? If that is the case, then I was intending in my original post about this to imply that the wormhole would be opened directly into his veins, not an inch from the outside of his skin or something. There is no reason for it to be "invisible". Maybe that will clear up the misunderstanding, if not, then please elaborate on your problem with the catheter.

It is not even close to being plausible if you cannot show how. I could say that magic fairy farts are life preservation molecules which can keep people from decomposing. My claim is just as possible as yours.

I actually did show how using modern science and technology that we at least know to be possible. Scientists have reason to believe that all the things that I mentioned are at least possible. If you asked any of the scientists on the dog study whether or not they believe longer times to be possible, I'm sure they would say that it is. We don't actually have wormholes of the magnitude or precision that I described either, but the theories prove it to be possible at the least. As far as decomposition goes, I already handled this is my original post on this thread, but here is the article again:

http://gumc.georgetown.edu/news/stories/259901.html

Even if we can't do all of these things right now, science has even shown all of these things to be a distinct possibility at the very least. This is real science with real theories and real experiments, a little far removed from "magic" or "fairy farts". You can say everything you like about it being "unlikely" (I don't believe in the resurrection myself), but you have no case if you want to say that it is impossible or try to compare real science to "fairy farts".

I have proven the revival after clinical death to be a reality and the extended time to be a possibility. I have shown that holographs and worm holes can and possibly do exist in some form or another. I have shown that cells can be preserved indefinitely without decomposing. So, considering that I have shown the key facets of my scenario to be at least "possible", if not scientific fact, by modern science, then if you want to make any case about fairy farts being just as possible you will have to show an article proving at least the theoretical possibility of magic, fairies and the properties of their farts, or something similar as shown by respected scientist or scientific institutions. Otherwise your comparison has failed.

[neptune1bond]

Excellent point. My favorite example is Semmelweis who had the audacious idea of having physicians scrub their hands clean in a carbolic acid solution after doing pathology examinations and before delivering babies.
BUT, don't you think 2000 years has been enough time for people to recognize the improbability [at least] of the resurrection?

Mankind has probably told stories of people flying through the air since the dawn of their existence, but even though some people might have considered it a possibility, it wasn't until the late 1800s to the early 1900s that the Wright brothers created their airplane and proved it once and for all to be, not just a theoretical possibility, but a reality. That's a pretty long time if you ask me. And mankind took the relatively short time of seconds and minutes that the Wright brothers were able to stay in the air and extended it to hour-long trips across oceans and around the world.

I personally consider the resurrection of a dead human being to be a far greater trick than even flying, so no, I do not think that any amount of time necessarily proves the improbability of anything.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was only a hundred or if it was ten thousand years before mankind developed the technology to develop something akin to a teleporter, but the idea of being in one place and then instantaneously being in another is a pretty old idea too. But I personally believe that it might happen some day based on the human race's history of progression and amazing discovery.

[Danmark]

Excellent point. My favorite example is Semmelweis who had the audacious idea of having physicians scrub their hands clean in a carbolic acid solution after doing pathology examinations and before delivering babies.
BUT, don't you think 2000 years has been enough time for people to recognize the improbability [at least] of the resurrection?

Mankind has probably told stories of people flying through the air since the dawn of their existence, but even though some people might have considered it a possibility, it wasn't until the late 1800s to the early 1900s that the Wright brothers created their airplane and proved it once and for all to be, not just a theoretical possibility, but a reality. That's a pretty long time if you ask me. And mankind took the relatively short time of seconds and minutes that the Wright brothers were able to stay in the air and extended it to hour-long trips across oceans and around the world.

I personally consider the resurrection of a dead human being to be a far greater trick than even flying, so no, I do not think that any amount of time necessarily proves the improbability of anything.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was only a hundred or if it was ten thousand years before mankind developed the technology to develop something akin to a teleporter, but the idea of being in one place and then instantaneously being in another is a pretty old idea too. But I personally believe that it might happen some day based on the human race's history of progression and amazing discovery.

Yes it took seconds after the Wright brothers flight for people to realize human, powered flight was a reality. It's been 2000 years and the scientific community still does not accept that people can be dead, buried for 3 days, then rise from the dead and float up into the clouds.

Let's review: seconds to comprehend reality; but 2000 years has not been enough to establish the fantasy of the resurrection and ascension by the scientific community.

[neptune1bond]

Yes it took seconds after the Wright brothers flight for people to realize human, powered flight was a reality. It's been 2000 years and the scientific community still does not accept that people can be dead, buried for 3 days, then rise from the dead and float up into the clouds.

Let's review: seconds to comprehend reality; but 2000 years has not been enough to establish the fantasy of the resurrection and ascension by the scientific community.

I don't think that you understood my point. The idea of people flying through the air has been around in some form or another since before Jesus was even born. If you go back to the first introduction of the idea of flying, it is FAR older than 2000 years. The Wright brothers didn't come up with the first inkling of the idea and then prove it seconds later. If it took longer than 2000 years (not seconds) to prove flying was reality, then why would you think that the technology to resurrect someone would actually be SHORTER in coming?

[Danmark]

Yes it took seconds after the Wright brothers flight for people to realize human, powered flight was a reality. It's been 2000 years and the scientific community still does not accept that people can be dead, buried for 3 days, then rise from the dead and float up into the clouds.

Let's review: seconds to comprehend reality; but 2000 years has not been enough to establish the fantasy of the resurrection and ascension by the scientific community.

I don't think that you understood my point. The idea of people flying through the air has been around in some form or another since before Jesus was even born. If you go back to the first introduction of the idea of flying, it is FAR older than 2000 years. The Wright brothers didn't come up with the first inkling of the idea and then prove it seconds later. If it took longer than 2000 years (not seconds) to prove flying was reality, then why would you think that the technology to resurrect someone would actually be SHORTER in coming?

I understand your point, but I think you fail to distinguish between ideas and reality. The 'idea' of flight has been around a long time. The reality of human, powered flight a little over a Century. This does not compare to 2000 years to accept a false 'reality' of a 'resurrection.'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

TOTN, you dismiss a contemporary story based on fact by a recognised source and you settle instead for what you think is the basis of truth within the Gospel. Ok, its time to move on.

What contemporary source did I dismiss? Apparently I missed dismissing it.

One big question: Why would the disciples do this, we need motive? There is none.

I suppose you WOULD think so, as long as you ask the question and then immediately answer it yourself. If you are asking ME however, then I have an answer. Being a "holy man" has always been a lucrative position, if one is good enough at it. Certainly there are plenty of holy men today who do EXTREMELY well at it. And the followers of Jesus seemed to have managed to make a comfortable living for themselves as well.

Acts 4:
[34] "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet."

Compared to their backbreaking and often deadly former jobs prior to meeting Jesus, like fishing, or even more dangerous, tax collection, (few sailors or fishermen could swim, and tax collectors were widely vilified and despised) wandering about telling stories of Jesus and living off of the largess of their audience must have seemed like an extended vacation to many of the apostles. Did they grow wealthy? Hard to say. But simply making a living would have been preferable to the dangerous and backbreaking occupations that had once performed. And this ability to wander about telling stories and being supported seems to have continued on for some years. Acts 12 depicts Peter's escape from prison, after which "he departed, and went into another place." (Acts 12:17). In other words, he took a powder. He left for his own safety. The other apostles follow suit at this point as well.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible - New Testament
Acts of the Apostles 12 (Chapter XII Study)
(8.) "Peter had nothing more to do for the present than to shift for his own safety, which he did accordingly: He departed, and went into another place more obscure, and therefore more safe. He knew the town very well, and knew where to find a place that would be a shelter to him. Note, Even the Christian law of self-denial and suffering for Christ has not abrogated and repealed the natural law of self-preservation, and care for our own safety, as far as God gives an opportunity of providing for it by lawful means." http://st-takla.org/bible/commentary/en ... /ch12.html

The other apostles disappear from Acts almost entirely at this point, and Acts becomes almost exclusively the story of Paul. Then Acts 12:23 depicts the Death of Herod Agrippa, which occurred in 44 AD. For fourteen years or so the apostles managed to make a comfortable living traveling about telling stories of Jesus, with only relatively minor interference from the Jewish authorities. Then in chapter 12 Herod gets rough, James the brother of John is executed, and Peter is briefly imprisoned and the apostles scattered, most mainly disappearing from scripture entirely.