Is Jesus or Rumour effective today?

[marco]

Many claim that Christ still has a direct influence on them today. They are perhaps influenced by John 6:37, He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. But he led those that followed him into torture and death; he could not save himself, and found no words to defend himself against the charges brought. He advocated tolerance and peace then lost his temper in the temple. He did not write anything that can be analysed, but leaving it to those that didn't know him he entrusted himself to rumour.


Is it Christ who has influence today, or the multi-national religions that built churches on his bones?

And is the personal Christ who whispers in the night nothing more than the sober voice of conscience and hope? Does it matter?

[Overcomer]

ttruscott wrote:

His fruit is the man born blind now able to see.

Love it! Such a simple statement that says it all. Blessings to you, ttruscott! O.

[Tcg]

HIS fruit is the largest Church ever to exist outside of the whole total of all other religions and pagans dedicated to being against Him.

It's a good thing Jesus is no longer around. He'd be appalled to find that his fruit has grown into the path to destruction.

• Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

I'm glad to be one of the few that are on the narrow road.



Tcg

[marco]

You must prove HE made up fables or it is a straw horse that won't drink.

I am referring to his parables which set moral examples in the same way as fables do. One never hears Christ referring, as normal people would, to his own experience. He seems to have been remarkably devoid of past experience on which he could build a story.

HIS fruit is the largest Church ever to exist outside of the whole total of all other religions and pagans dedicated to being against Him.

His fruit is the man born blind now able to see.

And in another place we might disparage the RC Church, but it is useful to "make up the numbers." If we are told that Mrs. Wison made a blind man see in Birmingham, we would assume the blind man wasn't really blind, or Mrs. Wilson was playing tricks. His fruit is therefore of doubtful goodness.

[marco]

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

Calling people sheep is not complimentary but since he regarded his disciples are rather weak-minded, then perhaps sheep is the mot juste. However, he has failed to sustain his metaphor when he talks of somebody "plucking " sheep out of his hand. Jesus had big hands, then. The Son of God could surely have devised a better metaphor.

Christians have never lived for this life but for the life to come.

So too with Muslim warriors. The difference is that they KNOW what to expect whereas Jesus simply said eye hath not seen nor ear heard. Hope is a virtue.

"the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

One assumes Christ was attempting poetry here. Stars do not "fall from the sky" in any good astronomical sense, but Jesus was a joiner not an astronomer. I think we can smile at the cloud vision. Christ was a dreamer.

This is the reason why Christianity is hated by many because of its exclusivity.

I think other religions have a good conceit of themselves too.

Jesus did not come to bring peace but a sword.

He will find a sword inadequate against a Kalashnikov.

In fact the very reason Jesus came was to provide a way for God's anger would not burn against man because of man's sin.

But he was not articulate enough to express this clearly.

Jesus had to die because He was the propitiation: Romans 3:24-25

I always believed the fall Paul suffered did something to his head. The above sentence is meaningless.

Others have claimed to be the Messiah but nothing have come of their claims because they were killed and their movement came to nothing.

Muhammad claimed he was a prophet from God and he's done pretty well, in many areas replacing Jesus. Islam has been left alone, as advised, and it's spread remarkably. It won't be long before it overtakes Christianity. But maybe before then Jesus will come along with his scimitar.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

And the "fantasy world continues!"

The Biblical being is corporeal, since he offers - idiotically - to show his hind quarters to Moses by flying around. I submit that this is arrant nonsense - the small details of "proof" I leave to you.

That is because you have no proof, and all you can rely upon is your imagination, and opinion. And again, your opinion, (nothing to do with fact) is noted!

As to getting you to "stop believing", I have said many times that your belief is based on trust, on faith, not on mathematical precision.

And here is the "fantasy world." The thing is, I have acknowledged that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe concerning these events. Your problem is, you do not seem to understand that we are in the same boat, in that what you happen to believe concerning the reports in the NT, are "not on mathematical precision." It is sort of strange how one can see where others are, and not realize they are in the same exact position? I guess that is where, "fantasy world" comes into play?

Okay you're convinced by Luke writing to the invented Theophilus (Mister God Lover).

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! You are certainly on a wild "fantasy" ride, my friend!

You make this statement as if it is known fact that Theophilus was "invented." Next, you are not the one who came up with this idea, rather you have heard it said that the name, "Theophilus" means "lover of God" and someone else came up with the idea that Luke may have been addressing a larger audience and using the name "Theophilus" to address those who are lovers of God, instead of one particular individual, and you simply run with it because it fits inside your fantasies.

The fact of the matter is, this is simply a shot in the dark, because there is no evidence whatsoever, that Theophilus would not have been an individual, other than the meaning of the name, which is no evidence at all.

Moreover, it can pretty much be demonstrated that Theophilus would have indeed been an individual, but the real question would be, why would anyone even be concerned as to whether Theophilus would have been an individual? Allow me to explain.

It is because, these folks understand that if Luke was indeed writing to a particular individual, whom he was truly concerned about getting this information to, then Luke, cannot be accused of writing promotional propaganda in order to spread an agenda.

In other words, the evidence is overwhelming that Luke traveled along with Paul for a number of years, and actually would have witnessed much that he wrote about, and after all these travels with Paul, and Paul finding himself under arrest, Luke sits down to write not one, but two long a detailed letters to a friend, concerning the things he claims to have investigated carefully, along with the things he witnessed himself, all out of concern for a friend knowing the truth about the matter.

Therefore, those who are opposed are desperate to come up with a way in which to get rid of the idea that Theophilus would have been an individual, because they understand that it does not bode very well for their case. This would be the only reason to be concerned about this, and it certainly demonstrates one who is desperate.

I don't think reason is going to destroy faith which, after all, can move mountains, in biblical terms.

The problem is the fact that it has been me who has used, reason, logic, fact, and evidence, while all you have to offer is an opinion. Therefore, what I happened to believe is not based on faith, but rather upon, reason, logic, facts, and evidence. So where does that leave you?

What I am saying is a fact! You will not find where I state opinions as if they were fact, while I continue to point out where you do this, time, after time. So then, who is it that is really dealing with the facts as they are, as opposed to the one who is operating upon faith?

Communism they say started with a spark, "eeskra" in Russian. Rumours of Christ started with a few guys who were impressed; then bigger actors took over. Communism and Christianity grew in the same fashion. The natives of South America heard about Christianity from Spanish soldiers and priests. Steel, not Paul or Luke, persuaded them.

And again, even if what you say were true, none of it would have a thing in the world to do with a resurrection taking place or not, and it would also not have a thing to do with demonstrating that there would be no reason to believe that there was indeed a resurrection.

I have described them as nonentities; superstitious and perhaps gullible.

Which is an opinion, without a shred of reason, logic, facts, or evidence to back it up!

The spread of Christianity was due to people more powerful, who took the spark and made it into something THEY wanted.

My friend, you act as if these "powerful people" reached back into time, and pulled up this long dead religion. This is not how it happened in the least.

However, none of this matters, because it would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there was a resurrection, and if there would be reason to believe there was.

Well the Resurrection tale probably started later.

Allow me to take you out of this "fantasy world" for just a moment. It can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, that the two letters to Theophilus was written well within the lifetime of the Apostles, and that the author would have known the Apostles first hand, and would have also known the claims they were making. And guess what? That's right, he reports a resurrection.

Moreover, we know for certain that Paul mentions the resurrection, and even if he did not witness the initial events himself, this would demonstrate, that the resurrection tale did not start, later. This is either, "fantasy land", or desperation.

Obviously to spread the rumours a few good stories had to be used, true or false, and the Resurrection is a great attraction.

Right! Because, most anyone would believe that.

Muhammad used the magnet of virgins in heaven. Same sales patter.

Again, would you like to compare the evidence which supports the resurrection, as opposed to the evidence which would support Islam? Well, of course not, because you would no longer be able to throw out the comparison!

[marco]

And here is the "fantasy world." The thing is, I have acknowledged that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe concerning these events.

That's an unfortunate situation to be in. On the other and I can say that I do NOT believe in cherubs occupying a tomb that a corpse has just vacated to walk to Galilee. I think it is REASONABLE to have this view. Fantasy as I have said before, is the acceptance of angels and risen corpses.

Next, you are not the one who came up with this idea, rather you have heard it said that the name, "Theophilus" means "lover of God" and someone else came up with the idea that Luke may have been addressing a larger audience and using the name "Theophilus" to address those who are lovers of God, instead of one particular individual, and you simply run with it because it fits inside your fantasies.

At 16 I was perfectly capable, from my classical education, of deducing the meaning of Theophilus. It isn't rocket science. The figure of speech where a name is used to signify a quality (A Daniel come to judgment is used in The Merchant of Venice) is called antonomasia. I think for myself and have enough education to make judgments on the resurrection tale. Of course it is reasonable to suppose Luke is addressing those who respect God. But yes, some wonderful real entity called Theophilus may have stepped onto the Biblical stage then vanished. It would appear that when a sensible view is adopted, then this involves fantasy, whereas believing ANYTHING Paul says is going by "facts".

In other words, the evidence is overwhelming that Luke traveled along with Paul for a number of years,

Fascinating and irrelevant.

it certainly demonstrates one who is desperate.

I am amused that people think cherubs hop into empty sepulchres. I don't care how Luke was duped or why God decided to call Saul Paul rather than Polly. The deductions you make about these characters are quite honestly farcical, but they are your sincere opinions, so amen to that.

The problem is the fact that it has been me who has used, reason, logic, fact, and evidence,

Well there is no evidence you have made rational deductions other than your saying you have MANY reasons for coming to your opinion. Your demonstrations have failed; there is no reason to throw out science and believe that a corpse walked to town.

That's right, he reports a resurrection.

And had Luke reported a dragon, would that by your logic have been truth? Just because somebody reports somebody else's view on somebody rising up doesn't make it true. What an amazing thing to say!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

That's an unfortunate situation to be in.

And as I have clearly demonstrated, you are in the same boat. In other words, it is a fact that we have the accounts recorded in the NT. It would also be a fact, there is a reason for this. It is a fact that you hold an opinion on what is recorded by these authors, and you demonstrate this by the amount of time you spend on this site. And, it is also a fact, that, you cannot demonstrate what it is you believe concerning these events.

Ergo, we are in the same boat, with the only difference being, one of us acknowledges this fact, while the other has some sort of "fantasy" that their opinions equal fact.

On the other and I can say that I do NOT believe in cherubs occupying a tomb that a corpse has just vacated to walk to Galilee.

WOW! Now that is a convincing argument???? However, it really matters not what you, or I believe, or do not believe, but rather what we can demonstrate. I have acknowledge the fact that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe, but can only give the, facts, reason, logic, and evidence that would back up what I believe.

I am not attempting to make the argument that a resurrection did occur, but rather I have demonstrated that there would be very good, and solid reasons to believe there was indeed a resurrection.

Simply proclaiming, as you do here, that you do not believe certain things, is not any sort of, reason, evidence, or facts, that would give us reason to believe you would be correct in your unbelief.

I will also point out that you do not have the luxury, of saying you, "do not own the burden of proof", because you do. Because you see, when you claim these reports are false, then you are making a positive statement, and own the burden to demonstrate your statement would be a fact. This would also go for making a statement such as, "there would be no reason to believe these reports."

I think it is REASONABLE to have this view.

Well, that would simply be an opinion, but I happened to agree with you. In other words, I can certainly understand how one could use reason, logic, facts, and evidence, to come to the conclusions you have arrived at.

However, simply because one can use reason, facts, logic, and evidence to arrive to a certain conclusion, would not necessitate, that those who arrive to a completely different conclusion, could not possibly be using, reason, facts, logic, and evidence.

The problem is, you very seldom use reason, facts, logic,, or evidence, but rather state your opinion, as if it were a fact, and here is a good example!

Fantasy as I have said before, is the acceptance of angels and risen corpses.

With no sort of reason, facts, logic, or evidence to back up what you are stating as a fact. Fantasy my friend, is one who is under the delusion, that what they would really like to believe, must, and has to be true, no matter the reasons, facts, logic, or evidence.

At 16 I was perfectly capable, from my classical education, of deducing the meaning of Theophilus. It isn't rocket science. The figure of speech where a name is used to signify a quality (A Daniel come to judgment is used in The Merchant of Venice) is called antonomasia.

All of this is beside the point. My point was, you are not the one who came up with this idea, no matter if you were aware of the meaning of the name Theophilus, or not. Now, you can correct me if I am in error, but the question would be, was there any time in your life, when you came to understand the meaning of the name Theophilus, when you, by yourself, came to the conclusion, that the author was using this name Theophilus in order to address a wider audience? Or, did this only cross your mind, once you read this idea from someone else?

I think for myself and have enough education to make judgments on the resurrection tale.

You just go form one thing, to the next don't you? We were not, and are not talking about your ability to "make judgements on the resurrection tale", because no one has brought this up. Rather, the question here is again, did you think the author of Luke may have been using the name Theophilus, to address a wider audience? Or, was this idea given to you by another?

Of course it is reasonable to suppose Luke is addressing those who respect God.

Not, when he has addressed one and the same individual, in both letters, with no other reason to believe such a thing other than the name that was used, which would have been a common name at the time. At this point, it would no longer be reasonable, but would demonstrate some sort of desperation.

Which brings me to the point that you seem to have avoided the question, as to why it would matter if Luke were addressing a wider audience, as opposed to an individual? In other words, how would this have anything at all to do with the matter?

But yes, some wonderful real entity called Theophilus may have stepped onto the Biblical stage then vanished.

How would be be difficult to believe that Luke may have known someone by the name of Theophilus, whom he wanted to write this information to, that is nowhere else mentioned? Did Luke use this name with some sort of deceit in mind? Or, did he just decide to use the name, Theophilus, instead of simply saying something like, "lovers of God?"

It would appear that when a sensible view is adopted, then this involves fantasy

So, you are suggesting that it would involve "fantasy" to come to the conclusion that Theophilus would have been an individual, when this would have been a common name? Or, would it be "fantasy" to assume this name must, and has to be used, in order to address a wider audience, in order to protect some sort of agenda?

whereas believing ANYTHING Paul says is going by "facts".

And here is that "simplicity again." I have never suggested that one should simply take the word of Paul, but have rather suggested that it would be next to impossible, for there to have been any sort of fabrication with the consistency of all the facts recorded, among many other reasons.

Fascinating and irrelevant.

Oh but, it is extremely relevant. Of course I understand why you do not want it to be, but it certainly is. Because you see, when we read what Paul had to say, and then compare these things with what Luke had to say, knowing that Luke would have witnessed much of wrote he wrote, and how this information coincides with each other, it is very relevant.

I am amused that people think cherubs hop into empty sepulchres.

How, would this be desperation, when it is a fact that these things were reported, as opposed to those who simply see the use of a name being addressed, and resort to having to insert the idea, (more like force the idea) that Luke could not possibly have been writing to an individual? Again, why does it matter? There has to be a reason, why you want to reject the idea.

I don't care how Luke was duped or why God decided to call Saul Paul rather than Polly.

And another statement made as a fact, without a shred of reason, logic, fact, or evidence to back it up.

The deductions you make about these characters are quite honestly farcical, but they are your sincere opinions, so amen to that.

You can call my deductions whatever you like. The problem is, in a debate you really need to demonstrate your point, and not simply throw out opinions.

Well there is no evidence you have made rational deductions other than your saying you have MANY reasons for coming to your opinion.

So you're telling me, that the letters in the NT, written by numerous different sources, addressing numerous different audiences, addressing different concerns, who all report the same event would not be evidence?

What about the fact that these folks who report this event, continue to report the same things, in the face of certain persecution, well into their old age? Or, how about the fact that, it is next to impossible for a group of folks to hold a story together, when the whole group would be in on the act? What about the fact that we know for a fact, there would have been those who would have wanted to put a stop to these rumors, and would have had every reason to do so, but failed? It is also a fact, that no matter what it was that happened, there was some sort of extraordinary event that went on, in order for us to understand that there was indeed an empty tomb, and a tale of a resurrection that is still going strong today, to the point you are consumed by it.

I could continue on, and on, listing the facts, and evidence which would support the claims, and as much as you hate the fact, all of these facts would be evidence. They would not be proof, but they would, in the very least be evidence. Now, you can claim that this evidence does not convince you, but it would simply be, "fantasy" to suggest there would be no reason, facts, logic, or evidence to support the claims.

Your demonstrations have failed; there is no reason to throw out science and believe that a corpse walked to town.

Another "fantasy!" Because you see, no one has to "throw out science" to believe these things, because it does not involve science. Science is not in the business of reporting historical events. The only thing that science could possibly do, is to explain to us, that a corpse coming back to life after 3 days of death, would be, scientifically impossible. However, this would not tell us if the event actually took place or not. Rather, it would only tell us, that science would not be able to explain the event.

And had Luke reported a dragon, would that by your logic have been truth? Just because somebody reports somebody else's view on somebody rising up doesn't make it true.

Nice try, but I am not biting. You are either attempting to divert the conversation off topic, and I can understand why. Or, you simply cannot keep up with the conversation.

Let us recall, that I made this statement, not as any proof, or evidence that it must be true, and that I believed it because he wrote it, like you are suggesting.

Rather, I made this statement, which demolishes your "fantasy" that the "resurrection tale probably came later." Because you see, we know who, and in what time frame this author would have wrote. We also know for certain that this author would have known, and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have clearly known the claims they were making, and since this author reports a resurrection, this destroys the hopes, dreams, and fantasies of those who really to do want to know this.

So again, as we can clearly see, you are either intentionally attempting to divert the conversation to avoid this point, or you simply cannot keep up.

But hey, nice try? I can't really say your argument is advancing, but at least you are trying!

[marco]

I have acknowledge the fact that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe, but can only give the, facts, reason, logic, and evidence that would back up what I believe.

You are not in possession of facts that would back up the Resurrection. You have read Paul and believe him.

I am not attempting to make the argument that a resurrection did occur, but rather I have demonstrated that there would be very good, and solid reasons to believe there was indeed a resurrection.

You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. Your main point is you like what Paul says.

I will also point out that you do not have the luxury, of saying you, "do not own the burden of proof", because you do. Because you see, when you claim these reports are false, then you are making a positive statement, and own the burden to demonstrate your statement would be a fact.

Russell's tea pot orbiting the sun comes to mind. When one reports an absurdity, it is not for the listener to disprove the event.

Fantasy as I have said before, is the acceptance of angels and risen corpses.

With no sort of reason, facts, logic, or evidence to back up what you are stating as a fact. Fantasy my friend, is one who is under the delusion, that what they would really like to believe, must, and has to be true, no matter the reasons, facts, logic, or evidence.

I have no need to comment on the above, other than to mention a smile.

Now, you can correct me if I am in error, but the question would be, was there any time in your life, when you came to understand the meaning of the name Theophilus, when you, by yourself, came to the conclusion, that the author was using this name Theophilus in order to address a wider audience? Or, did this only cross your mind, once you read this idea from someone else?

This borders on being insulting. When I heard Luke wrote to Theophilus, it DID occur to me that he was writing to "dear reader" as Victorian authors did. Is this such a great revelation to you?

Science is not in the business of reporting historical events. The only thing that science could possibly do, is to explain to us, that a corpse coming back to life after 3 days of death, would be, scientifically impossible.

Good point - why not accept it?

We also know for certain that this author would have known, and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have clearly known the claims they were making, and since this author reports a resurrection, this destroys the hopes, dreams, and fantasies of those who really to do want to know this.

We are not sure that Luke wrote Luke. He is not mentioned as being present at the crucifixion. In fact he says he got his info from others.


It would be a mercy if we advance the conversation from talk of "fantasy" and what you call "facts", meaning age of writers, their sincerity, their dying, still believing .... while we say nothing of angels, resurrections, ascensions and corpses having a fling.


I have never set out to explain what MIGHT have been, but 2000 years after the events, I am not obliged to, nor am I obliged to believe in cherbs guarding a tomb EVEN THOUGH some awfully nice people said they did.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

You are not in possession of facts that would back up the Resurrection.

Of course we are in possession of these facts, and I have been over, and over it with you. So let us simply take a look at one of those facts.

It is a fact that more than one source reports an empty tomb, along with a resurrection. Now of course this does not prove a resurrection, but it certainly is evidence, and evidence is what is used in order to back a belief. And of course, this would be just one fact, of many.

Now of courses this fact may not be convincing to you, and I would not expect it to be on it's own, because it would not be convincing to me. However, your explanation that some sort of deceit must, and had to be involved, is certainly not very convincing, on top of the fact that there would be no facts, and evidence to support such an idea, and does not answer all the questions. Next, simply because certain evidence does not convince someone, does not in any way mean, that it does not count as evidence.

As an example, if there is a murder, and the murder weapon is found at my house, this may not be convincing enough evidence to convict me, but it would indeed be counted as, evidence, and it would also be enough evidence to believe, that I may have very well committed the murder.

In the same way, the evidence we have concerning the resurrection, may not be enough to demonstrate or prove there was a resurrection, but it is enough to believe there very well may have been.

You have read Paul and believe him.

"Fantasy land" again. And I will address this with your next comment.

You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort. Your main point is you like what Paul says.

Well, yes I have given many legitimate reasons to believe that a resurrection may have in fact taken place. Simply because you are not convinced by this evidence, would not in any way mean that it would not be good, solid evidence.

Next, you say my main point is, "I like what Paul says" when I do not ever remember claiming to "like what Paul says?" Maybe you can give us a quote where I have said such a thing, but I think you would have to copy, and paste it from "fantasy land."

Again, it is not that I like what Paul has to say, but rather the fact that, simply claiming he could not possibly be telling the truth, and there must, and had to be some sort of deceit involved, just does not add up. This is a far cry from claiming to "like what Paul says."

Russell's tea pot orbiting the sun comes to mind. When one reports an absurdity, it is not for the listener to disprove the event.

Here's your problem here. We have no facts, and evidence to support any sort of tea pot, orbiting the sun. However, there is evidence to support a resurrection, and the fact that you spend so much time debating the subject sort of demonstrates you understand this to be the case, because I do not see you spending very much time debating other (what you call) "absurdities."

Therefore, since we have these facts, and evidence, for you to claim this information is false, would be to make a positive statement of fact, that would need some sort of evidence, and facts to back it up. Simply making the claim that it would be false would be no different than me making the claim, they are true, which I have not done.

I have no need to comment on the above, other than to mention a smile.

And as I have pointed out, those in "fantasy land" do smile a lot, because they know no better, because they do not face the facts. So then, as "Wet Willie" says......... "keep on smiling" my friend............. "Keep on smiling!" There is always something to smile about, in "fantasy land."

When I heard Luke wrote to Theophilus, it DID occur to me that he was writing to "dear reader" as Victorian authors did. Is this such a great revelation to you?

This was not my question. Did you come to the conclusion on your own, that Luke may have been using the name Theophilus, not to address an individual, but rather the name was used by Luke, in order to address anyone who would have been a "lover of God" as the name means?

It is not that hard of a question. Either, you thought of this idea on your own. Or, you got the idea by reading, or hearing someone else? I see nothing insulting about this question.

Good point - why not accept it?

My friend, I do accept the fact that a resurrection is, scientifically impossible. But this does not answer the question as to whether a resurrection did in fact happen. In other words, I am not in "fantasy land" nor under any delusion, that science can answer every, and all questions.

We are not sure that Luke wrote Luke.

We can know this beyond any reasonable doubt. Because you see, in his second letter this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" as if he is there to witness the events he is reporting, and he uses these sort of words all the way to the end of the letter, where Paul finds himself under arrest, and he claims Paul was there under this arrest for at least 2 years.

Then, we have a letter that was written by Paul, while under arrest, and in this letter Paul tells his audience, "only Luke is with me." So then, I can certainly understand why you would rather not have to admit it was Luke, because it does not bode well for your case, but the evidence is overwhelming that it was indeed Luke.

But in any case, the fact of the matter would remain, which would be the fact that this letter would have been written well inside the lifetime of the Apostles, which demonstrates beyond doubt, the resurrection tale, could not have possibly been a later addition, and that is a fact.

He is not mentioned as being present at the crucifixion. In fact he says he got his info from others.

Yep! And you're helping his case. In other words, this author does not attempt to tell Theophilus he was there to witness the resurrection events, but rather admits to getting his information from others. The fact of the matter would be, Luke, and Theophilus would have known each other, and Theophilus was more than likely well aware of this anyway.

However, it is a fact that this author would have known the original Apostles, first hand, and that he spent a number of years traveling around with Paul on his missionary journeys, which would absolutely demonstrate that this author would have been alive at the time of Christ, the crucifixion, and the original Apostles, which again clearly demonstrates that the hopes that the resurrection tale may have come along much later, is simply a fantasy.

It would be a mercy if we advance the conversation from talk of "fantasy" and what you call "facts", meaning age of writers, their sincerity, their dying, still believing .... while we say nothing of angels, resurrections, ascensions and corpses having a fling.

We cannot leave "fantasy land" because you demonstrate that you are still there. As an example, I have not said a word about, "sincerity" and yet you continue to bring it up. Also, I have said plenty about a, "resurrection" and yet here you say, "we say nothing of a resurrection?" How is it that folks cannot see when they are in a "fantasy world" when they continue to attribute things to others, that were never said, and cannot keep up with what has been clearly said?

Next, it would also seem to me, that a "corpses having a fling" would be the same thing as a resurrection? Therefore, the only thing that I can see you would like to move on to, would be "angels, and the "ascension"? What is it you would like to know about these things, and what kind of education were you talking about? Did you say, "classical?"

I have never set out to explain what MIGHT have been, but 2000 years after the events, I am not obliged to

No, but when you insist that these things cannot possibly be true, then you are obligated to demonstrate your case, and simply sharing with us your opinion, along with appealing to science, is not getting it done.

Now, if you would like to end by saying, "you do not believe these claims", then I have no problem with that in the least. The problem comes in when one insists there is no reason to believe. That, my friend, is a fantasy!

nor am I obliged to believe in cherbs guarding a tomb EVEN THOUGH some awfully nice people said they did.

We agree! You are free to believe whatever it is you like. However, when you go on to proclaim what you believe, or do not believe, would be a fact, then you are at that point, obligated.

[marco]

[Replying to post 29 by Realworldjack]

Let's move on from this quasi-logical surmising. Mark tells us that a young man: neaniskos, ran naked from Gethsemane. Odd. Mark tells us that a young man: neaniskos, waited in the tomb and was able to tell the women exactly where Jesus had gone. Odd.


My view is that something we do not know has happened. We can call the young man, naked or clothed, an angel. I think this is foolish supposition. Or we can call him a young man who knows a lot about Jesus. Is it possible that the wonderful resurrection some have accepted was nothing of the sort. The young man could have told us a lot - but Mark doesn't allow him to.


This gives me sufficient reason for disbelief.