Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[polonius]

Paul's 1 Cor 15:4 account of Jesus' death does not have his body placed in a tomb. It has Jesus buried. Paul says nothing of Jesus being placed in and rising from a tomb. And Paul says nothing of an Ascension either.

2290 [e] etaphē �τάφη, he was buried;

This word is used for buried throughout the New Testament.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1434 by Clownboat]

No. Scientific studies have shown prayer to the Christian god anyways to be ineffective. For all I know, prayers to Vishnu help, but I will doubt it until shown otherwise.


Quote:
What? Show these studies.

If I were you, I would have just told Claire "Do the research then come up up with your own conclusion."

[Clownboat]

Those Bible verses (and they weren’t all from the Bible btw) are evidence the earliest Christians were persecuted and risked death for their belief. Nothing impossible about that is there Clownboat? Didn’t think so. You ask for evidence, I provide it, you hand wave it aside. Nicely done.

So some Christians were persecuted. Mormons were persecuted too, so what is that suppose to tell us about golden plates, magic glasses and whether or not a dead body of 3 days can get up and walk around? Persecution offers no assurance as to whether a claimed events is historical or not.

The majority of ancient sources we get our history from contain some reference to the supernatural Clownboat. Yes, even the ones for the assassination attribute some supernatural element to the event. How’s your bubble now?

I'll just cut and paste this time: "the majority of history is not made up of impossible claims like so and so rose from the dead after 3 days and ascended up to heaven".

You need to reference ancient sources in order to attempt to make a point. However, this makes the resurrection less likely to be historical fact due to, like you so kindly pointed out, it came from a period of time when man sought the supernatural as explanations for all sorts of things.

What you call your evidence is just that, claims made in a book,...

Claims made by people who were willing to be persecuted and risk death for them.

What does that mean, that 3 day dead bodies can come back to life? Not so fast. Readers, consider what his claim means when applied to Mormons. They were persecuted for their belief, therefore magic plates and magic glasses are a historical fact?

It’s a forgery in Mark’s Gospel yes. And we’ve been over this. The claim that people saw the risen Jesus existed well before Mark’s Gospel found in Paul’s letters. And this is all granting Markan priority and a two source hypothesis. If we assume a two Gospel hypothesis you no longer have an argument.

Hmmm... how would Goose respond to this?
Got it: Assume away!

If you have a cogent argument to make against Mark’s Gospel now is the time to do it. Pointing to well known textural issues with the ending of Mark doesn’t prove anything.

This thread Goose is about whether the resurrection is an historical fact. I find it pertinent that the earliest gospel didn't mention anyone seeing the risen Christ. As far as it proving anything, I never claimed it did.

There is a big difference in these claims and you keep glossing over the fact that one is a forgery and you seem immune to the idea that the entire story of the resurrection and ascension could possible be a made up claim like Mohammed and Joseph Smith claims.

Of course it’s possible they are all made up.

So now let's examine all 3 to check to see if they seem to represent historical fact.
1) Jesus was dead for 3 days and came back to life and ascended to heaven. 500 other dead bodies also got up, roamed the streets and appeared to many.
2) Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse.
3) Joseph Smith was visited by an angel, given magic golden plates and glasses in order to write the book of Mormon.

Are any of these claims likely to be historical fact due to them not seeming reasonable nor possible? We know people get persecuted for all sorts of things, so is persecution enough to think that resurrections and angels delivering magic items are things that actually happened in history? It seems that the only people that disagree with this are people that are followers of some religion making one of these claims. Therefore, belonging to the religion seems to be the real mechanism for belief, not persecution or any justifications due to Caesar possibly being assassinated.

Good to hear! Please explain the logic involved in believing that decomposing bodies can come back to life.

If the best explanation that most powerfully explains the widest set of data is that Jesus rose from the dead then we have good reason to accept it.

Clearly there are many that reject your 'if' scenario as even being reasonable, yet as you say, whether or not the resurrection happened stems from this 'if'.

What I keep noticing is that it is mainly people who are already Christians that believe that a resurrection happens. Just like it is people who are already Muslim that seem to believe that Mohammed made it to heaven on a winged horse. Just like how it is Mormons that seem to think the best explanation is that an angel really visited Joseph Smith.

What mechanism would need to be involved for the liquefied organs to come back to life and would such a mechanism be needed in order for Caesar to be assassinated?

There are proposed mechanisms for the spontaneous return to life after death, “but so far the scientific explanations have been inadequate.� I’m not aware of any current proposed mechanism for a three-day-dead resurrection. Which is understandable since the medical community currently has no adequate explanation for how someone who has been dead for only a few minutes came back to life.

I reject your comparison for it not being a comparison to compare a decomposing body of 3 days to one that has been 'dead' or seemingly dead for only a few minutes. Perhaps you don't know the biological difference between both bodies? They are not equals.

The knowledge we have about biology is vastly incomplete. Once our knowledge of biology is complete come back to me.

This is not an argument for accepting ancient claims that a 3 day dead body came back to life along with 500 other dead bodies.

Hey I don’t personally find your assertion “it’s not impressive� to be impressive. Refute that.

OK. There are those known as 'readers' that read our claims.
When they see someone question a claim, and when they witness the person making said claim not able or not caring to better the argument, well, that goes a ways as to whether or not said persons claims will be found credible or not.

Telling me you don’t like my arguments isn’t a valid counter argument. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out.

You don't have to care if the readers find your arguments impressive or not. I personally do care. So if you claimed that my reasoning was not impressive, I would at least for the sake of the readers address its non impressiveness if I was able.
Again, feel free to continue to make claims not caring if they are found to be good or not by those viewing them.

Well you’ve barely offered any arguments at all aside from your subjective opinions about my arguments not being impressive to you.

The fact that you are arguing for something that is impossible is a pretty good argument. IMO, no amount of 'but some of them were willing to be persecuted for their beliefs" makes the unbelievable believable, or in this case, historical.

If I was trying to make you a believer, but I’m not. By the way can you tell me what constitutes extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence? Or is this just something one says when one doesn’t know what else to say.

Here is why your evidence/claims fail for me:
Do you have evidence that is full of solid reasoning and warrants, not just claims?
Is your evidence resent?
Does it come from qualified sources?
Does it come from unbiased sources?
Is the evidence sufficient to believe that a body decomposing for 3 days along with 500 other bodies got out of their graves and appeared to many?
Is the evidence accurate?
Do the claims come from a trustworthy source, or can mistakes and outright fraud be shown in the source?
I see the answers to these questions to be 'no'. Therefore the 'evidence' is not extraordinary.

Back to arguing what seems impossible to you based upon your very limited observations and understanding of the universe. A completely fallacious form of argumentation proven fallacious by people like Lord Kelvin of the Royal Society who stated, “heavier than air flying machines are impossible.� That was just eight years before the Wright brothers proved him wrong.

Not that you care that this is not impressive, but I see birds and insects flying about me all the time. It's nonsensical to compare something we see every single day with something we have never witnessed to happen.

Please clarify. You find it reasonable to have a body that has been decomposing for 3 days come back to life?

What I personally find reasonable is irrelevant.

Readers, I take this as admission that he does not find it reasonable for decomposing bodies to come back to life. This makes the claims that it happened extraordinary.

Oh look, Smurfs again. Which historians argue for Smurfs then? Name one.

None. Now name a non Christian that argues for the resurrection and ascension being an actual historical event.

There are reasons as to why historians don't argue for Smurfs or resurrections. Now Christians on the other hand who are pot committed to believing in at least one specific resurrection, they are the only people on this planet that I see making such an argument. I'm sure this is unimpressive to Goose though.

Then you should have no problem accepting the assassination. Why the reluctance if whether or not you personally find it “reasonable� is a necessary criterion and you find it reasonable?

Well, because I am not like you it seems. I don't make claims about things being real or not without actually knowing. The most I have ever studied about the assassination of Caesar has been reading about it here on this debate site because Christians often seem to think it is justification for believing in a historical resurrection of a Christ.

The assassination helps us make sure we are treating the evidence for the resurrection properly though.

Followers of a religion making claims and having some of them be persecuted is not reason to believe. See Joseph Smith and the Mormons.

That we aren’t making fallacious inferences from the evidence for the resurrection.

No need. As shown above, the evidence does not qualify as good evidence and the event is extraordinary on top of it all, therefore the evidence needs to be extra good.

Of course you don’t know whether it happened. You can’t know this. I Didn’t ask that. I asked if you believe it happened. You seem to so eager to declare your non-beliefs about the resurrection, why not about a simple historical matter like the assassination?

What part of this are you not understanding? I have studied the resurrection claims about Christ. I have not studied the assassination of Caesar. Since I have not studied the assassination of Caesar, I cannot inform you of my belief. It's the religions people that are all hung up on what people believe. I care to discuss what I know, beliefs too often are wrong.

No I’m not arguing at this point the resurrection to be a historical fact in the sense of knowledge.

In what sense is it an historical fact?

I’ve been quite clear it’s a belief and one that I’ve justified with evidence.

Let's be clear. It is an extraordinary belief and the evidence for it does not qualify as good.

Unless you’d like to provide some kind of historical method for determining what constitutes a “historical fact.� Then I’d be more than happy to run the evidence for the resurrection through that method to see how it fares.

Try these as listed above:
Do you have evidence that is full of solid reasoning and warrants, not just claims?
Is your evidence resent?
Does it come from qualified sources?
Does it come from unbiased sources?
Is the evidence sufficient to believe that a body decomposing for 3 days along with 500 other bodies got out of their graves and appeared to many?
Is the evidence accurate?
Do the claims come from a trustworthy source, or can mistakes and outright fraud be shown in the source?

Please, be more than happy and run your evidence through this mechanism.

Dodge noted and we need a consistency check again. Do you find the claims about Mohammed ascending to heaven on a flying horse to be credible? How about Joseph Smiths golden plates and magical glasses? Are those claims credible?

Once again whether I find them a priori credible is irrelevant. All that would happen is you'd force me to acknowledge the night journey as having strong historical evidence. For some strange reason you think this adequately refutes the evidence for the resurrection. It doesn't.

This can't be done and this has been my point. There is not good evidence for the resurrection, nor is their good evidence that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a horse, nor is there good evidence that Smith was visited by an angel and given magic items.
Therefore, it cannot be said that any of these events are historical events. You can choose to believe, but that is what makes a person a follower of said religion. In no way does it offer assurance that any of these events are actual historical events.

As for Joseph Smith I think there are some valid arguments against the evidence but I actually happen to believe he probably had some kind of supernatural experience.

Hearing this does not surprise me, however, you have no more reason to believe in the supernatural then you do a resurrection. Perhaps the same mechanism is in play for both? Is there anything else that is needed to believe in resurrections beyond being religious? How about the supernatural? Does being religious help people or at least provide motive for people to believe in the supernatural?

It seems in the end that you believe in the resurrection mainly because you are religious and your chosen religion is Christianity and Christianity makes the claim that the resurrection happened. Sure, you attempt to point to evidence, but the evidence is not extraordinary, unlike the claim.

[polonius]

Quote:
The majority of ancient sources we get our history from contain some reference to the supernatural Clownboat. Yes, even the ones for the assassination attribute some supernatural element to the event. How’s your bubble now?

RESPONSE: Oh my! Did I miss something important! Is supernatural Clownboat really
really supernatural?

[Claire Evans]

However, is there anything that can prove that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist?

Wrong question. The correct question is: is there any proof that the holy spirit exists?

Is there anything that can prove that Mohammad didn’t fly to heaven on a winged horse?

It depends on how one seeks for proof. If one is looking for tangible proof, then one mustn't waste their time.

What non-tangible proof would you seek that the story of Mohammad is true?

I'm no talking about Mohammed. I'm referring to the Holy Spirit.

The Quran is “supposedly� a flawless work of art that modern man is “supposedly� unable to duplicate.

Is that sufficient proof to you that Islam is true?

No, but the Bible isn't flawless in itself.

Since this discussion is separate from the debate, I will say resolutely that I am not. Can your mind still be changed now?

My mind is always open to new evidence (or at least I try to be). This allows me to make the best decisions possible. Holding on to a belief of any sort despite evidence showing me how wrong I am would be foolish.

Can you say the same?

If I had no evidence, then yes, it would be foolish to hang onto a belief but this is not part of a debate.

True Satanists don't come with pitchforks metaphorically. They can appear as philanthropists, charity workers, etc. Satan appears in the name of love. How else do you fool the world? If the Vatican didn't preach the gospel of Christ, then how much power would they have other the world?

However, the RCC manages to sneak in little Satanic references mostly unnoticed.

I’m hoping you reread your own paragraph above and notice how ineffective you have painted these satanic RCC leaders.

Something so incompetent is hardly worth any amount of concern. The “Satanic� RCC drives people into the arms of Jesus and God.

Oh the horror! Lol.

Are you saying everyone is driven into the arms of Jesus? They may think so but some actually do not know Jesus. There is a lot of brainwashing involved.

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

No, he is making the point that anything can be misinterpreted. The Quran. The bible.

Do you doubt that people do horrible things in the name of Christianity?

No, he is saying that Islam makes disciples of Muslims like ISIS who kill.

No. You are wrong. Your interpretation is only correct if you ignore the words “it is also possible�.

Why is he even saying possible?

He is being civil and kind, allowing that another interpretation is possible. Possible does not imply consent or agreement.

But what extremist would link what they should to what Jesus did? ISIS contradicts what Jesus did. They behead non believers. It's an antithesis.

Did Jesus have disciples who coerced others to convert by threatening with death?

Yes, people have done horrible things in Christianity but is it what Jesus espoused?

Not the point. He is saying that Matthew’s Gospel could be interpreted a different way. Doesn’t mean that he agrees with it. That is you reading into this quote something that is not there.

How could it possibly be interpreted that way? Surely no Muslim believes that followers of Jesus, like the apostles, threatened non believers with death? It isn't even in the Bible so how Muslims misinterpret it?

Holy Toledo, you have this so bass-ackwards.

He is likening ISIS to things like the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials – all Christian based atrocities. Their inspiration is indeed found within the bible.

He is not saying that ISIS people are motivated by what the Catholic Church did to kill non believers if they didn't convert. He is saying what Jesus and the disciples did inspires people like ISIS.

Acknowledging that passages in the bible can be interpreted to be violent, doesn’t mean you agree that the interpretation is valid.

What Jesus and the apostles did cannot possibly be interpreted as inspiring violence. If you say that ISIS was inspired by the Catholic Church, then that is another matter altogether.

Stop having your answers before you know the questions. It causes you all kinds of problems.

I find it leaves a sour taste in my mouth that I am defending Catholicism. But I don’t like it when blame is wrongly assigned, to anyone.

Here are other things that he spins his own interpretations which is blasphemous. According to the Pope, Jesus sinned:

At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51). This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families. A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience. We know what Jesus did on that occasion. Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him. For this little “escapade�, esus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.

http://novusordowatch.org/2015/12/franc ... us-sinned/

He also said not to fear God's punishment:

"Do not be afraid of the final judgment of God, when the good will be separated from the bad, because Jesus will always be at our side, because we can rely on the intercession and the benevolence of the saints and because God “did not send his Son to condemn, but to save� and “he who believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned,� and in this sense “the judgment has already begun�.

http://novusordowatch.org/2013/12/franc ... -judgment/

He laughs at crucifixion:

"After Bergoglio’s election as “Pope� of the “Catholic Church,� that is, as head of the Modernist Vatican II Sect, an English translation of the book appeared under the title Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words. What most people do not know, however, is that the editors of the English edition have deliberately deleted a number of select passages found in the Spanish original.

One of those missing passages is found on p. 42 of the Spanish edition, where Jorge Bergoglio laughingly relates a story in which a Catholic school principal gets an unruly Jewish boy to behave by telling him that if he doesn’t, he will end up just like this other “Jew� who was crucified:

[“Cardinal� Bergoglio:] It is about a Jewish boy who thrown out of all schools for being unruly until another Jew recommends to the father a “good Catholic school.� And it encourages him that, surely, there [they] are going to straighten [him out]. The father takes the advice. Thus passes the first month and the boy is very well behaved, without warning [surprisingly]. Nor has he behavior problems in the coming months. The father, won by curiosity, goes to the rector to know how he managed this transformation. “It was very simple,� replied the priest. “On the first day I took him by the ear and said pointing to the crucifix, ‘That was a Jew like you, if you misbehave, you will end up the same.'�

In fact, a priest in my church regurgitated this "joke" and I was horrified.


http://novusordowatch.org/2014/03/bergo ... -of-jesus/

…

That doesn't mean they are mediums. That is not in the Bible.

The blame it on wishful thinking. Satanism makes no sense.

It makes a lot of sense when you realize how bad evil is.

I found it comforting to know I could pray to saints when I was a kid. God and Jesus were pretty busy dudes, so I was told.

That's an awful thing to be told. Jesus is always there to answer our prayers.

Each faith has its own interpretation of how this fictitious afterlife works. IMO, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism nor Satanism gets it more right than any other.

Since Christianity and Satanism are diametrically opposed, one has to be more right/wrong than the other.

You presume there is an afterlife. I don’t, so they are all equally wrong, from my perspective.

Okay.

You are defending Catholicism. That's what you have been doing this whole time. You may disregard the teachings as false but there is no way you would consider it being Satanic. I think that would be too much for you to bear.

Lol, once again, you presume to know me better than me. When will you realize that this is a reply made in desperation? In order for your reasoning to be sound, I MUST be in denial, or lying.

You are wrong, it would not be too much for me to bear. I have no interest whatsoever in validating Catholicism. In fact, my wife and I (a Jew) had a secular wedding.

I did not receive the Sacrament of marriage, which is a big deal to Catholics, such is my lack of consideration for RCC beliefs.

As I stated above, I am correcting errors. You are making a lot of them, after all.

You have no interest in validating Catholicism but you say you have to defend Catholicism that left a bitter taste in your mouth. I'm confused. You now say you are a Jew? Don't you mean your wife is a Jew?

Even most ex Catholics will never find fault with the RCC.

Then explain my previous (many many many) posts finding fault with the Catholicism and the RCC?

I said most.

Then, perhaps this is a compliment? I am not like most ex-Catholics? Lol.

Changed my mind now that you felt your needed to defend Catholicism.

Regardless, you still have to account for why I am persistent in telling you that you are wrong.

Because you want to convince yourself you are right.

Please explain to me why Mary is associated with the moon like Isis is?

Because many religions, especially Christianity, borrow from older religions. Similarities are not only common, they should be expected.

Why would they need to borrow the moon symbolism? Isn't is more plausible that they don't intend to depict Mary but rather ISIS? Clearly the Catholic Church is the WHORE OF BABYLON.

http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/the-w ... bylon.html

If you really knew, you wouldn't have abandoned your faith.

I know you must cling to this thought, in order for your world to make sense. But I am telling you that you are wrong. I did know (then) that there was a god. I had no doubts.

Believe me or not. Your call.

-all the best,

Sure, you do what you want and I'll do what I want.

[KenRU]

CE,

Sadly, I fear our discussion is drawing to a close. I had hoped to have even a little give and take, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Such is life.

However, is there anything that can prove that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist?

Wrong question. The correct question is: is there any proof that the holy spirit exists?

Is there anything that can prove that Mohammad didn’t fly to heaven on a winged horse?

It depends on how one seeks for proof. If one is looking for tangible proof, then one mustn't waste their time.

What non-tangible proof would you seek that the story of Mohammad is true?

I'm no talking about Mohammed. I'm referring to the Holy Spirit.

My point is that the evidence that the holy spirit exists is the same as the evidence that Mohammad flew off to heaven.

True Satanists don't come with pitchforks metaphorically. They can appear as philanthropists, charity workers, etc. Satan appears in the name of love. How else do you fool the world? If the Vatican didn't preach the gospel of Christ, then how much power would they have other the world?

However, the RCC manages to sneak in little Satanic references mostly unnoticed.

I’m hoping you reread your own paragraph above and notice how ineffective you have painted these satanic RCC leaders.

Something so incompetent is hardly worth any amount of concern. The “Satanic� RCC drives people into the arms of Jesus and God.

Oh the horror! Lol.

Are you saying everyone is driven into the arms of Jesus? They may think so but some actually do not know Jesus. There is a lot of brainwashing involved.

Of course not everyone. The point, which I think you are purposefully ignoring, is that most Catholics revere Christ and believe in his sacrifice.

Not the outcome you’d expect from a Satanist run organization.

But what extremist would link what they should to what Jesus did? ISIS contradicts what Jesus did. They behead non believers. It's an antithesis.

Like I said, he doesn’t agree with the link. He is just allowing that poor interpretations are possible.

He is not saying that ISIS people are motivated by what the Catholic Church did to kill non believers if they didn't convert. He is saying what Jesus and the disciples did inspires people like ISIS.

No, he is most certainly not. You are seeing what you want to see.

What he is saying is that any document can be misinterpreted. And bad things can arise.

Acknowledging that passages in the bible can be interpreted to be violent, doesn’t mean you agree that the interpretation is valid.

What Jesus and the apostles did cannot possibly be interpreted as inspiring violence.

Unless you know what passage in Matthew he is referring to, you can’t assume this. And even if you did, that doesn’t mean it can’t be interpreted in a different way.

You do acknowledge that not everyone thinks and interprets things like you do, correct?

If you say that ISIS was inspired by the Catholic Church, then that is another matter altogether.

No one said this.

You are defending Catholicism. That's what you have been doing this whole time. You may disregard the teachings as false but there is no way you would consider it being Satanic. I think that would be too much for you to bear.

Lol, once again, you presume to know me better than me. When will you realize that this is a reply made in desperation? In order for your reasoning to be sound, I MUST be in denial, or lying.

You are wrong, it would not be too much for me to bear. I have no interest whatsoever in validating Catholicism. In fact, my wife and I (a Jew) had a secular wedding.

I did not receive the Sacrament of marriage, which is a big deal to Catholics, such is my lack of consideration for RCC beliefs.

As I stated above, I am correcting errors. You are making a lot of them, after all.

You have no interest in validating Catholicism but you say you have to defend Catholicism that left a bitter taste in your mouth. I'm confused.

I’m saying that defending any religion leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

You now say you are a Jew? Don't you mean your wife is a Jew?

My wife is a non-practicing Jew. Sorry, for the confusion.

Regardless, you still have to account for why I am persistent in telling you that you are wrong.

Because you want to convince yourself you are right.

By this logic, I could say the same to you, right?


CE,

If nothing else, you have reminded me how divisive religions can be. I truly hope our exchange has provided you with an alternative viewpoint to consider and not one you'll just dismiss outright.

-all the best

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 1415 by Claire Evans]

Number 2 is far more likely:

"In an interview, Prince Badr revealed that Saudi Arabia is making rapid progress on a moonship. “We hired the very best Arabian engineers,� he said with a broad smile. “Many of them had been working for American spacecraft builders, and they knew many American secrets.�

So because Saudi Arabia is working on spacecraft NOW, you believe Muhammed had spacecraft 1400 years ago? You refuse to consider Clownboat's 1st possibility?
Even using what you say at the start of post 1415, a flying horse could have been imagined simply by looking at birds. Someone could have looked at a bird, noticed it could fly and imagined what it would be like if there were larger birds that men could ride on. Then, somewhere along the line, they transposed wings onto horses.

I said it is merely a possibility. However, the horse theme is not unique to Islam. We have this in the Old Testament:


"2 Kings 2:11: And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, {there appeared} a chariot (7393) of fire, and horses (5483) of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." In 2 Kings 2:11 there appeared:
A chariot of fire. Chariot = 7393
Horses of fire. Horse =5483
And Elijah went up into heaven (the sky) by a whirlwind.



2 Kings 2:11: And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, {there appeared} a chariot (7393) of fire, and horses (5483) of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." In 2 Kings 2:11 there appeared:
A chariot of fire. Chariot = 7393
Horses of fire. Horse =5483
And Elijah went up into heaven (the sky) by a whirlwind.
5483 is the word in Strong's Concordance translated horse. The definition reads, horse - to skip (for joy): a horse (as leaping); also as a swallow (from its rapid flight):--crane, horse.

7393 is equally interesting. Chariot - A vehicle; by implication, a team; by extension, cavalry; by analogy a rider, i.e., the upper millstone:--chariot, (upper) millstone.

A mill stone.

People often claim to have seen objects in the air that:

Have the shape of millstones.
Fly swiftly through the air.
Glow brightly as if they were on fire."

I don't think these can be coincidences.

http://www.firstchurchoftheinternet.org ... louds2.htm

Remarkably he even once hinted at the possibility of weapons on par of the nuclear ones who was working on in previous eras, particularly those of the Ramayana and Mahabharata."

Just because Famous Scientist A says he believes advanced technology was used in the past doesn't mean that advanced technology was used in the past.
You are all too willing to take Famous Scientists or governmental bodies at their word when they state belief in this or that alien but curiously enough whenever someone of the same class says otherwise, you don't believe them.

I think saying it is just one's imagination is a cop-out. There is no reason for people to imagine things when they haven't even heard of the possibility before.
I think you are as guilty as me, then. You won't consider the alien possibility when the clues clearly dovetail.

The claim of the resurrection would not have survived as a metaphor. People needed proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

Would their level of proof or evidence be the same level as a person like myself would demand? You're implying that people back then were hard-core skeptics and that the only reason any of them believed was because the claim was true.

I don't think you demand to see a physical presence of Jesus because you never saw Him die. If you saw someone die and people claimed that person rose from the dead, wouldn't you want to see it for yourself? What can they gain from believing in a resurrection?

That's a misinterpretation. Jesus was specifically specifically to the disciples, not to people in general. When they preached, Jesus promised to give them the power to succeed in their evangelism.

Throw out your holy book then. The entire thing is a set of texts from one person to another person, or group of people. You can hardly claim that some or all of it pertains to people today, if you use this answer.

This is unreasonable. It is people who are perverting the meaning. Jesus was talking to the disciples. Was He promising to give them whatever they wanted especially if it would corrupt them? Would it not corrupt a person to demand there sport side means? That is selfish and insults Jesus.

In other words, you can't close the possibility that they are telling the truth.

Of the many times I have investigated, precisely NONE of them have borne fruit. Including your own religion.

It depends on what you think that fruit should bear.

Do the research yourself. Get in contact with paranormal investigators or something.

Oh, and are all such investigators legit? On the level? Do you have any recommendations?
I find it quite amusing that when someone asks for evidence, your only response is "Do the research. Talk to this vaguely defined group of people"

It's because you don't believe it so maybe someone else can sway you. I give you my research and you reject it. Where do you live? Try and look up paranormal investigators in your area and ask if you can go and join them on an investigation. Paranormal investigators use the scientific approach to try and rule out a logical reason for supposed activity. Once they rule it out, then they consider the paranormal.

Okay, tell me how God would that done it?

Appear to everyone, telepathically beam his message. What does God need with a [strike]starship[/strike] book?

Look at how books have evolved in recent times. Twenty years ago, I had bookshelves holding many paper books. Nowadays, I don't have any. Instead, I have thousands of books on my computing devices. This is because with the technology available to me, it is more efficient and easier to consume or spread knowledge via my Kindle than via paper books. What would I need with paper books?

They still would not believe. People would call it a hallucination, being on drugs, lies, etc. So your analogy isn't really applicable. Take the Pentecost story, for example:

Acts 2:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!� 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?�

13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.�


We believe that it is not the book that proves God's existence. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches, Himself.

Because the gospels were already established before Paul came onto the scene as I mentioned about the early Church.

Evidence please.

How do you think Paul knew about things that are included in the Bible today? For example:

1 Corinthians 11: 23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.� In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.� For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Where were the apostles to correct this if this was just made up by Paul? What made them think Jesus rose from the dead? They didn't know Paul. And you don't think Paul would be challenged on that claim? Paul was a Pharisee. Why would he know go against his Jewish beliefs and then start making things up?

There is no oral tradition that is accurate from start to finish.

That's funny. Others I've talked to on this matter assure me that the Hebrews were able to remember long tracts of oral traditions, that they had great memories.

Yes, they had great memories but it is not impossible to learn by memory errors.

Because they were stored that way. I don't think the followers of Jesus could do that.

Didn't you just up above tell Clownboat that Jesus told his followers that they only had to ask and it would be done? Does this exclude magically preserving papyri?

I would have to say that the disciples believed Jesus would come back in their life time and thus would not have to write it down for posterity. And if there was magically preserved papyri, how would that actually change anything? How can we prove that the disciples wrote it? Who would believe it since they didn't have the means to preserve it and most couldn't write anyway.

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

How is THAT story a metaphor? I've gone through what you've written, and I can't find your methodology as to how you figured it out.

Because Matthew was concerned about OT prophecies:

Here's the explanation of the symbolism. As we know, Matthew was concerned about OT prophecies which the others did not place importance on:

"1. Isaiah 26:19 is part of a prophecy of the restoration of Jerusalem and of Judah, when the impious and the strong cities are brought down, and the humble and godly are lifted up. The people suffer a “small affliction� of God’s “chastening�, like a woman who cries out in labour, before giving birth to salvation (26:17-18 LXX). Then we have a statement about the dead being raised from their tombs (only in LXX) as part of the healing of Israel:

The dead shall rise (anastēsontai), and those in the tombs (mnēmeiois) shall be raised (egerthēsontai), and those in the earth shall rejoice; for the dew from you is healing to them, but the land of the impious will fall. (Is. 26:19 LXX)

and

Therefore, prophesy, and say, This is what the Lord says: Behold, I am opening your tombs and will bring you up out of your tombs and bring you into the land of Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves so that I might bring my people up out of their graves. And I will give my spirit into you, and you shall live, and I will place you upon your own land, and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will act, says the Lord. (Ezek. 37:12-14 NETS)

Final note:

"Finally, I would suggest that Matthew intends his readers to understand that the death and resurrection of Jesus was like—was congruent with—the death and resurrection of those who would be raised from their tombs during a time of crisis, when God would judge and restore his people. The resurrection of the saints certainly points to a final victory over death, but in context its significance is historically constrained: it means, in effect, that Israel will not be defeated by the death and destruction of the coming period of wrath; on the contrary, through this crisis YHWH will establish his people in newness of life. That is the theological frame in which the death and resurrection of Jesus is to be understood."

http://www.postost.net/commentary/resur ... heir-tombs

[polonius]

Posts that run on and on may cause readers to ignore them.

Perhaps, if posters have many points to make, they could do so in separate (but sequential) posts.

I think that this would improve readership.

[Claire Evans]

"When" does not automatically mean "the next thing happening". There is a break in the text when Luke 24:50 appears after a heading, "The Ascension". It's like beginning a new chapter in a book with a heading. It does not mean the new chapter's events are a continuation of the previous one.

I am not a fundamentalist thank you very much!

RESPONSE: Luke 24 is his gospel's last chapter and tells the events of the last day in Christ's earthly life. That day begins with his Resurrection and ends with his Ascension.

Luke 24 doesn't add one sentence of a new chapter and then say nothing more. If Luke would have wanted to, he would have written chapter 25. He didn't. Are you really arguing that Luke just added something that supposedly occurred 40 days later as an afterthought?



However, biblical fundamentalists have to explain away what Luke says in Luke 24, and what Luke(?) contradicts in Acts, so at the very least they have to claim a 40 day delay between the last two sentences in chapter 24. That's very imaginative, but hardly makes any sense, does it?

Comparing it to a chapter was wrong. Rather compare it to dividing accounts into sections. We are not to assume that Luke did not mention the 40 days because he didn't believe it happened then (thus believing the ascension happened shortly after the resurrection) or he forgot to mention it He is merely giving a condensed version without feeling the need to note all the times and circumstances. Yet this is construed to mean he meant ascension was shortly after the resurrection because he gave no timeline.

Instead of thinking that Acts is a contradiction, we should see it has Luke elaborating.

[polonius]

"When" does not automatically mean "the next thing happening". There is a break in the text when Luke 24:50 appears after a heading, "The Ascension". It's like beginning a new chapter in a book with a heading. It does not mean the new chapter's events are a continuation of the previous one.

I am not a fundamentalist thank you very much!

RESPONSE: Luke 24 is his gospel's last chapter and tells the events of the last day in Christ's earthly life. That day begins with his Resurrection and ends with his Ascension.

Luke 24 doesn't add one sentence of a new chapter and then say nothing more. If Luke would have wanted to, he would have written chapter 25. He didn't. Are you really arguing that Luke just added something that supposedly occurred 40 days later as an afterthought?



However, biblical fundamentalists have to explain away what Luke says in Luke 24, and what Luke(?) contradicts in Acts, so at the very least they have to claim a 40 day delay between the last two sentences in chapter 24. That's very imaginative, but hardly makes any sense, does it?

Comparing it to a chapter was wrong. Rather compare it to dividing accounts into sections. We are not to assume that Luke did not mention the 40 days because he didn't believe it happened then (thus believing the ascension happened shortly after the resurrection) or he forgot to mention it He is merely giving a condensed version without feeling the need to note all the times and circumstances. Yet this is construed to mean he meant ascension was shortly after the resurrection because he gave no timeline.

Instead of thinking that Acts is a contradiction, we should see it has Luke elaborating.

RESPONSE: (Lukes?) changing the same day to 40 days is a lot more than "elaborating." It's called "contradicting."