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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 60 by marco]

You mean YOU have no doubt; others do. We know next to nothing about Luke and base our beliefs on tradition.

Oh really? Well can you share with us these "others" who have these doubts, and what these doubts would be based upon? I would love to debate this with you, because I will assure you there is overwhelming evidence that Luke was indeed the author, and we can certainly know a lot about him as we will find out as we move forward here. I will be looking forward to this debate.

The other things that for you are "beyond doubt" are debated.

Oh really? Well, I am not sure what you are referring to, but if you bring them forward, I will be glad to debate them.

That others report the same rumour does not make the rumour true.

But you see, just like here, you cannot seem to keep up with the conversation, because I did not make this point in order to demonstrate the "rumor was true." Rather, it was the fact that, the rumor could not have been something that surfaced later on, long after Jesus would have died, because we know the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have known and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making, which demonstrates, the rumor of the resurrection was from the beginning.

So again as we can see, you continue to demonstrate trouble with keeping up with what has been said, which may mean what you think that I have no doubts about may not be the case at all, and we see this time, after time where you seem confused over what is being said, because again, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the rumor being true, and yet somehow you think it was? How does this happen?

Again, to you it doesn't matter. We don't even know if the authors are bona fide - though you think it doesn't matter. Odd.

The difference here between us is, you continue to seem to want to insist that we should base what is being reported upon the credibility of those who are reporting, and we seem to both agree that we can know nothing of their credibility, other than the fact that we are all liars.

With this being the case, it is my position that we do not even consider the credibility of the authors, since we cannot possibly know, and rather look at all the other facts, and evidence which actually supports what they write, and how plausible it is that they would have been lying, as opposed to reporting the truth.

So then the difference seems to be, my position is based upon the facts, and evidence, while yours is based upon faith in, of lack thereof in the reporters.

I find it fascinating that what I accepted as a kid and now reject is still accepted by many.

There is nothing here to be "fascinated" with, because there is evidence, and facts to support this belief, and the only thing you seem to come up with in response is, "the claims are absurd."

Well my friend, this is not news at all. In other words, are you under the impression that those of us who believe these things have not thought of this ourselves? As if you are bringing some sort of news to us? Surely we understand these claims are absurd, and have considered this.

In fact, those who first reported these events, were not under the impression that these events would be ordinary, and they were not in any way attempting to argue that these things were possible, but rather were proclaiming the impossible has happened.

The problem is, when those such as yourself, throws out every possibility you can think of, and have been doing so for years, and even you yourself acknowledge that there are holes in your theories, which causes you to conclude, "we just need better guesses", and go on to admit that you side with the answer that seems to be the most "preferable" to you, this causes folks such as myself to understand, there is indeed reasons to believe the reports.

I wonder if perhaps I have overlooked something.

You really need to get over this. You certainly seem to be more than convinced of your position, and even claim that it is all so simple. If this is the case, then you have your answer, and most folks who come to such conclusions, get on with their life.

As an example, I am pretty satisfied with the fact that the earth is not flat, and it is very simple, to understand this, and those who believe otherwise are simply silly. With this being the case, I am not going to waste my time on a debate site, debating with those I believe to be silly. Rather, I am satisfied, and move on with life, not giving it a second thought.

The more I hear from you the happier I am with my own position.

This is SO, SO, comical, but sad at the same time. Because you see, even if what you say would be true, it means nothing at all, and it should be apparently clear that I could say the same exact thing.

In other words, I can assure you, the more we converse, the more convinced I am that there are truly good, solid, reasons, and evidence to support the resurrection of Jesus, because all you have to offer is the idea that it is absurd, and go on to give other scenarios in an attempt to explain all the facts, and evidence we have, and then acknowledge that these theories do not really work out so well, and then conclude that we simply need better guesses, and come down to admitting you simply choose the option which seems to be the more preferable to you.

You see, you have done nothing at all that would even begin to cause someone to question their beliefs in the resurrection, and have in fact given us reason to believe the accounts, because you have to admit there was a man named Jesus, he was indeed crucified, there was a tomb he was placed in, the tomb was later found empty, there were those who claimed to see him alive after death, these same folks did go on to continue to proclaim these things, many of them did in fact suffer because of what they were proclaiming, we have overwhelming evidence that many of them did in fact go to their death, and prison continuing to proclaim these things, Paul was indeed opposed to this movement, Paul did in fact persecute Christians, Paul did in fact convert, Paul did in fact go on missionary journeys, it is a fact that Luke was there with him, it is a fact that Luke sat down and wrote these accounts down to Theophilus, and I could go, on, and on, and on, but the point is, we have all these facts, and your simple response is, "it's absurd", and then want to go on to call others, "simple." GOOD GRIEF!

The thing is, you may want to stop reading what I have to say, and simply look at your own arguments. The bottom line is, we have facts, and evidence to support the reports, and you have done nothing in all of these years to refute the reports, because simply referring to the reports as "absurd" attempting to give other scenarios that you acknowledge do not work, and admitting we "need better guesses" and admitting that you simply go with the choice that is more preferable, is in no way a rebuttal of the facts.

You say faith plays no part in your stance, but belief in resurrections is based entirely on faith.

Okay, I guess we will have to go through this again! If there were no facts, and evidence to support the claims, then to believe the claims would require faith. However, since there is facts, and evidence to build this belief upon, then there is no faith required.

As an example, we have zero evidence that these individual men were walking around with their spiritual antennas in the air looking for the next god to place their trust in, as you suggest. But we do have evidence that at least one of them acknowledged what you had to say, and goes on to ensure his audience that the reports by him, and the others were not based upon such tales. Ergo, you base your belief in these men being superstitious upon faith, while I at least have facts, and evidence to suggest that your faith is wrongly placed.

So then, you can either supply the facts, and evidence that would suggest these individual men were as superstitious as you suggest, or you can continue to have faith this would be the case.

It really is not that hard. However, and again, this is more than likely one of those things you assume, or have heard from others, and it simply sounds good to your ears, but once you think it through, you begin to understand just how weak it is.

Because you see, when most folks think of religion, one of the things they think about is faith. Since this is the case, they somehow get the impression that anything that is believed concerning this religion must, and has to be by faith, but this is not the case.

I do not need faith in order to believe Jesus was a real historical figure, because there is overwhelming evidence for this. I do not need faith in order to believe that he was crucified, because we have evidence for this. I do not even need faith to believe that he rose from the dead, because we have evidence for this.

What requires faith to believe is, the forgiveness of sin. Because you see, there is facts, evidence, and reason to believe the things above, and I can look at, analyze, study, and weight this evidence. However, I cannot see, analyze, study, touch, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Forgiveness can only be accepted by faith. Again, as far as the things above, there is evidence, no faith required.

You accuse me of having "faith" in some anonymous people, whatever that might mean.

Well, let's see how this works out for you. I have no faith at all in the likes of the Apostles. However, you seem to believe they were capable of some very extraordinary things.

In other words, the resurrection did not occur according to you, but somehow these men were able to keep this thing together the rest of their entire life, with no suggestion whatsoever from history that any of them ever recanted.

Now, I don't care who you are, that is placing extraordinary faith in these men! On the other hand, I do not have this kind of faith in their abilities.

So then, it is up to you my friend! Either you can give us some sort of reasons for all these facts we have, which allowed these men to accomplish such things, (which would include consuming your life) or you simply have faith in them, that I do not have.

Yes, we usually discard absurdities.

Well, some folks do. There are certainly many reports I highly doubt, but I do not insist they must and have to be false. Rather, I simply choose to doubt these things because I am really not interested enough to know the truth. I also do not spend any time whatsoever thinking about such things, and I certainly do not spend an enormous amount of time on a debate site debating these things, because I am perfectly happy with the position I hold, which is not caring about them.

However, if I were interested enough to spend a great deal of my time on a debate site debating such things, I will assure you, I would have a lot more to offer, than my doubt.

There's a theory that the Essenes instructed young Jesus and they removed him possibly to Egypt.

Okay, I'll go with that. What would be the facts, and evidence in support of this idea?

Is this more fanciful than a corpse walking?

Well, we have evidence for this, so again, what would be the evidence to support what you say above? I'll be glad to consider it.

Some rich guy stepped forward to give Jesus a sepulchre. Curious.

Are we suggesting that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion? This is really good stuff here! Let's think about it.

So Jesus, for whatever reason decides to behave in such a way as to get himself crucified. However, he does not intend to die on this cross, but somehow he, and maybe some others have this plan to make it look as though he was crucified, and buried, and then have it known that the tomb was somehow empty.

The question I now have is, would the Apostles be in on this ordeal? Or, would Jesus have planned to simply use them to pull off this hoax? Would it have been in this plan to have the Apostles continue on as they did throughout the rest of their lives? Or, was this simply a unintended consequence?

There is so many things we would have to go through here, but the main question again is, what facts, and evidence do we have which may support this theory, and who was it that came up with this theory, and how long after the events would this theory have surfaced?

So then what we are saying is, "it was magic", just like you have suggested in the past? In other words, it was not "God did it", but rather, "the magician did it?"

All you are doing here, is to exchange one absurdity, for another. And it does not matter in the least which absurdity is the least absurd. And why do you suppose there are those who attempt to come up with all these absurd possibilities, which have no evidence to support them? Allow me to explain.

It is exactly because they understand that there is facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the reports in the NT. Otherwise, there would be no reason at all to come up with these absurd possibilities without a shred of evidence in support. Rather, all one would have to say is, we only have rumors of a resurrection, without any other facts, and evidence and leave it at that.

However, it is because once one begins to really analyze the evidence for the resurrection, they come to realize the evidence is very good, and since they would "prefer" not to believe the resurrection, they are forced to come up with a scenario with no facts, or evidence, which would just as absurd as the resurrection.

The bottom line here is, I am fine with throwing in these other possibilities, and considering all that would have to be involved for them to be true. However, until we have one which is demonstrated to be true, and proves the resurrection to be false, we still have to admit there is very good, and solid evidence to support the resurrection, which means there is reasons to believe that the resurrection did in fact occur.

Are you making this up? What is the story from the authorities? Were soldiers punished?

Exactly what could I be making up? Were the authorities right there? Did they produce the body?

Modern preachers who are also convinced they have spoken to God also founded churches. Paul's actions are not unusual.

And again you demonstrate that you cannot keep up with the conversation. You were questioning how widespread Christianity was in Paul's time, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with modern preachers, nor what Paul was doing would have been unusual. So, it is either you cannot keep up, or you are intentionally attempting to divert the conversation.

His success is based on the fact that a Roman Emperor later adopted Christianity, through a coincidence.

Here is another example. We were talking about the success Paul had during his life, not your theories of what may have made Christianity successful much later. That would be a whole other debate.

We know next to nothing about Luke and nothing about Theophilus, other than the meaning of his name. Luke, whoever he was, reported rumours: LATER these took on the selective dogma of a powerful church. You guess Luke SAW Jesus or the apostles, yet you have no idea who he was.

Again, you need to keep up. I have never once said that Luke would have seen Jesus. This we would not know. However, against what you say, there is a great deal we can know about Luke, simply by reading his two letters, along side the letters of Paul.

Because you see, we can know beyond doubt that Luke would have traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys. We know this because he begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing events, and he uses these words all the way, and up to Paul's court date in Rome, and he ends his second letter to Theophilus with Paul being under arrest.

As we turn our attention to the letters of Paul, we see that Paul mentions Luke as one of the ones who sends greetings in Paul's letters, which demonstrates Luke was with Paul during his journeys, and then in a letter to Timothy, which would have been written while Paul was under arrest, Paul tells Timothy, "only Luke is with me."

With all this being the case, we can know the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, and would have also known, and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have known them all first hand, which means he had first hand testimony.

All of this goes on to demonstrate that this author would have certainly been alive at the time of the events, and would have written his two letters well within the lifetime of the Apostles, which clearly demonstrates that the rumor of the resurrection could not possibly have been, "a tale that grew over the years."

Next, I would like to address your objections to the recipient of this letter which would be Theophilus, whom you have called a "ghost." Actually the argument is, the name Theophilus means "lover of God" and that Luke could have been addressing "all who loved God" which would mean that he did not intend his letter to be addressed to one individual.

In fact, you have actually brought this argument up yourself, and as I pointed out, I highly doubt it is an argument you thought of yourself, but rather, like many of your points, it is something you have heard, or read which sounds good to your ears.

But the real question here is, why are there those who attempt to make such an argument? In other words, why does it matter if Luke would have been writing to a single individual? It certainly must have some importance, otherwise there would be no need in going to all the trouble to come up with these arguments which may cast some doubt upon Luke writing his letters to just one person. Allow me to explain.

It is because, those who came up with this argument, are intelligent enough to understand that, this would mean that this author could not be accused of spreading religious propaganda in order to persuade the masses, but was rather simply sitting down in order to inform a friend of these things, just like he says in the first letter in the beginning.

In other words, this would demonstrate that this author, truly believed he was conveying the truth, and it was this truth which compelled him to write this letter to an individual out of concern for this individual.

Therefore, those who understand this, are desperate to come up with some sort of way in which to explain away the clear evidence that this author was writing to an individual, but the evidence is surely against them.

You are conflating a variety of views; SOME were pretty simple, but others were manipulative.

Well, who then was it that was, "pretty simple", and who were the "others who were manipulative", and what is the evidence to support these views, and who is it that holds these views?

Because you see, we have facts, and evidence to support the reports of a resurrection, so what I would like to know is, what evidence do we have which would support these other views, or are the other views simply, theories?

If Jesus was part of some attempted rebellion, those behind him would not have been stupid.

Do I have to point out that the biggest word here is the first, which is "IF." The question again is, what sort of evidence do we have to support this?

The people Jesus chose were probably chosen for their gullibility:

The word here is, "PROBABLY." You see, I am giving you facts, and evidence, and all you are supplying in return is, "IFS" and "PROBABILITIES" with no facts, and evidence in support.

they believed tricks to be miracles - but this is just a theory.

Exactly my point! You have theories, with no facts, or evidence to back up these theories.

Now again, let's think about this. Why would there be those who attempt to come up with all these "theories" of what might have happened? Because you see, if it was as simple as you attempt to make it out to be, then there would be no need for these other "theories."

The fact of the matter is there are those who understand that it is not so simple, because they understand that there is indeed facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, and therefore they are desperately attempting to come up with theories, in order to attempt to explain away this evidence which supports the resurrection, otherwise, there would be no need in even considering these other theories.

One can believe in resurrections if that sounds better, especially if the unknown Luke says so when writing to the unknown Theophilus.

You are really funny, my friend! I believe that it would be you, who is the one who admits to going on what is "preferable", which is not to far off, and in fact may be the same as, "sounds better."

Because I will assure you that a resurrection certainly is not "preferable", and it certainly does not "sound better", but the problem I keep running into is the facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, while what seems to me to be more "preferable", and "sounds better", lacks any facts, and evidence.

We can stop here. Because YOU cannot offer an alternative explanation to the resurrection, you accept it is possible.

My friend, you are missing the point! A resurrection is not possible. If a resurrection were possible, then there would be nothing extraordinary about the claim.

The point is, either the impossible occurred, or it is indeed this most extraordinary hoax known to man, which is consuming your life, to the point you, "wonder if you are missing something."

We have facts, and evidence which supports the impossible occurring. One the other hand, this subject has been under debate now for over 2000 years, and there have been millions, upon millions, including myself, and you, who have desperately attempted to come up with any sort of scenario, which may explain away all these facts, and evidence in support of a resurrection, and as you admit this has not occurred, which is why you go on to admit, "we need better guesses."

My point is, there may be reasons to doubt these claims, but until that "better guess" arrives, there is indeed reasons, facts, and evidence to support the claims, which means there are reasons to believe them. So, keep on guessing, and I will keep on believing until you come up with that, "better guess."

Does this apply in other branches of knowledge - when you cannot explain why particles seemingly vanish, you shout "miracle"?

Well, no I do not. I would not do such a thing with an empty tomb either, until, or unless there were very solid facts, and evidence in support, which causes those opposed to desperately come up with a way in which to explain away these facts, and evidence, and they demonstrate they are willing to exchange one absurdity for another, and go on to admit that it is because it is "preferable."

However, even then I do not begin to "shout miracle." Rather, I simply acknowledge the fact that there are indeed reasons to believe these things.

We are limited by our brain, by our modern circumstances, by distance, by texts that have been changed and others discarded.

We are simply talking about the claims of a resurrection in the NT, and where there would be facts, and evidence to support these claims. At this point everything else can be discarded, because even if there were much recorded by these men that was not true, this would not negate the fact, that we have facts, and evidence to support the claim of a resurrection.

But out of this mass of confused details you see significance in the ghost Theophilus getting a letter from the nonentity Luke. And that adds up, in your view, to a resurrection.

The sad thing here is, you well know that my view involves far more than Luke who would only be a small part of the equation, but this sort thing is expected from one who admits to simply going with what is more, "preferable."

I want a little more, I'm afraid. I am not as easily served.

Seriously? My friend, you have admitted to being, "easily served!" All it takes is to look for the most, "preferable" answer. I cannot think of anything more easy, because it does not involve a whole lot of thinking to come to such a conclusion.

Unless you come up with something startlingly new, other than how impressive Luke is (maybe you have a full biography that no one else has?) I'm not going to repeat myself further.

As I have said in the past, the way things are going for you, that is more than likely the best thing you can do.

Go well.

You as well! And keep on smiling my friend!

[marco]

I would love to debate this with you, because I will assure you there is overwhelming evidence that Luke was indeed the author

Yes, well we accept much from tradition. Your "overwhelming evidence" seems to be another way of saying "somebody said it somewhere." Just read details of what is debated about Luke and if you wish to perform your own research, good and well. There is nothing to debate: I am not a biblical historian. Those who are have varying views.

we know the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have known and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles

We don't even know if Theophilus was a person. Luke was not an eye witness, whoever he was.

With this being the case, it is my position that we do not even consider the credibility of the authors

I know this is your position - it's not a good one. Reliability is an essential. That they may be supporting false rumours does not seem to matter to you.

So then the difference seems to be, my position is based upon the facts, and evidence, while yours is based upon faith in, of lack thereof in the reporters.

No. Your position is you believe a resurrection took place. If you don't there is nothing to discuss. That is faith.
I do not believe in this or in any other resurrection, even the ones mentioned in Greek and Egyptian mythology. I have no faith.

Surely we understand these claims are absurd, and have considered this.

They are absurd and you accept them. End of story. Given you are accepting absurdities, where does reason feature? If you tell me God told you to believe this, I can go along with that, sympathetically.

The problem is, when those such as yourself, throws out every possibility you can think of

It isn't clear what you mean by "throwing out". It would normally mean discarding and I haven't discarded "every possibility." If you mean by throwing out, presenting theories, then all I can say is that some suggestions are reasonable and better than a resurrection. The Essenes instructed young Jesus and the rest was organised and orchestrated. That's a possible explanation that benefits from being earthly not supernatural. Evidence - well if the evangelists had known this or told us this where would our debate be?
It remains a possibility.

You see, you have done nothing at all that would even begin to cause someone to question their beliefs in the resurrection

Reason is useless against faith, as I am finding.

Paul did in fact persecute Christians, Paul did in fact convert, Paul did in fact go on missionary journeys, it is a fact that Luke was there with him, it is a fact that Luke sat down and wrote these accounts down to Theophilus, and I could go, on, and on,

And you do. None of this has anything to do with the truth of the resurrection, especially the friendship of Luke and Paul, if it existed. You have no idea what the reason for Paul's conversion was. "I met an alien" and you believe this. I find this rather silly. If Paul - poor soul -thought God was angry with him then of course he'd act piously and regret what he had done. There are many preachers in modern times have had the same religious experience and gather thousands of followers. This seems to impress you enough for you to accept absurdities. That is your decision.

In other words, the resurrection did not occur according to you, but somehow these men were able to keep this thing together the rest of their entire life, with no suggestion whatsoever from history that any of them ever recanted.

Where in "history" do we hear of "these men"? I am not persuaded that the earliest Christians maintained a physical resurrection: they simply followed Christ, believing in a reappearance in their lifetimes.

However, if I were interested enough to spend a great deal of my time on a debate site debating such things, I will assure you, I would have a lot more to offer, than my doubt.

Then accept my certainty. I am certain there was no resurrection. Your narrative is about evidence. I mention the Essenes and you want evidence for my suggestion. Every shred of "evidence" we have comes from biblical writers who were far from unbiased historians. They were recruiting members. How are we to find contrary evidence in their writings? However, I have read hundreds of Latin texts from around the time and the only scrap of mention is a line in Tacitus discussing Nero's persecution of Christians: "that obnoxious sect whose leader suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate." So the only evidence we have from a historian is that Christ was a criminal, not a risen corpse.

Your arguments combine irrelevance (Luke and God-lover and Paul ) with false conclusions (Paul says it -it must be so) and circularity.


We differ over what faith is: to me it is belief in the irrational or impossible, which you demonstrate, however much you protest.


We're not going to move out of constant repetitions. You like Luke and so you are seduced into accepting his guesses about what happened to Christ's stolen corpse. You coyly avoid mentioning the angel in the sepulchre - too embarrassing?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 62 by marco]

Yes, well we accept much from tradition.

While tradition would be considered evidence, I would not even have to mention tradition, in order to demonstrate that Luke would have been the author of the two letters to, Theophilus.

Your "overwhelming evidence" seems to be another way of saying "somebody said it somewhere."

Again no! I would not have to appeal to what anyone else may have to say concerning the matter.

Just read details of what is debated about Luke and if you wish to perform your own research, good and well.

I already have, and would be more than happy to debate it with you, and in this way we can see the overwhelming evidence.

There is nothing to debate: I am not a biblical historian. Those who are have varying views.

Well, I will take this to mean that you have not "read the details" which means that it would be you who is, "taking the word of others.

we know the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have known and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles

We don't even know if Theophilus was a person.

This would have nothing whatsoever to do with, "the author knowing, and or spending a great deal of time with the Apostles."

I understand that there are those who are desperate enough to want to come up with the idea that Theophilus would not have been an individual, but what you have failed to address is why this would be so important? But again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making, and it would take nothing away from my point. So why bother to bring it up?

Luke was not an eye witness, whoever he was.

I never said he was. But again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with him knowing, and spending a great deal of time with the Apostles.

I know this is your position - it's not a good one. Reliability is an essential. That they may be supporting false rumours does not seem to matter to you.

My friend, you are the one who argues that we can know nothing of these folks, but somehow, we are suppose to determine how reliable they were?

No. Your position is you believe a resurrection took place. If you don't there is nothing to discuss. That is faith.
I do not believe in this or in any other resurrection, even the ones mentioned in Greek and Egyptian mythology. I have no faith.

You are confused! Faith is not confined to religion. You operate on faith all the time, and we all do. But the fact of the matter, as we have demonstrated, you have far more faith the the Apostles, than I can even imagine.

They are absurd and you accept them. End of story.

No, this is what you dearly would love to believe. The fact is, the claims are absurd, and have facts, and evidence in support. Simply calling a claim absurd, in no way demonstrates the claim is false.

Given you are accepting absurdities, where does reason feature?

Well, in the fact that you demonstrate the reason, when you attempt to come up with these alternative explanation in an attempt to explain what you know to be the facts, evidence, and reasons we have to believe these things, and it certainly does not help when you have to go on to acknowledge your attempts are failed attempts, and go on to admit you simply choose the option that would be the most preferable to your mind.

If you tell me God told you to believe this, I can go along with that, sympathetically.

No, that would not have been me who told you that, because as far as I know, God has never spoken to me. Rather, my belief is built upon the facts, and evidence we have.

If you mean by throwing out, presenting theories, then all I can say is that some suggestions are reasonable and better than a resurrection.

Please explain exactly how you come to this conclusion, and please do not tell us, "because it sounds better."

The Essenes instructed young Jesus and the rest was organised and orchestrated. That's a possible explanation that benefits from being earthly not supernatural.

Again, I will be glad to go with this. So, exactly what would be the facts, and evidence to support such an idea? Next, exactly how is it that you are certain that the answer must, and has to be an "earthly" one?

I mean you act as if it would be a known fact that there is nothing outside of our known universe, and I am just wondering how one can determine this? If you can do this, (without simply calling it absurd to think otherwise) then this would end our conversation.

Evidence - well if the evangelists had known this or told us this where would our debate be?
It remains a possibility.

Yeah, there are many possibilities, but I sort of like to examine the facts, and evidence which may support such an idea. You know, like the facts, and evidence we have which support the claims of a resurrection. The point is, giving us other possibilities does not explain away the facts, and evidence we have in support of the resurrection, and until that happens, there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims.

Reason is useless against faith, as I am finding.

You are doing nothing here to help your case. I could say the same thing. It means, and demonstrates, nothing.

And you do. None of this has anything to do with the truth of the resurrection, especially the friendship of Luke and Paul, if it existed. You have no idea what the reason for Paul's conversion was. "I met an alien" and you believe this. I find this rather silly. If Paul - poor soul -thought God was angry with him then of course he'd act piously and regret what he had done. There are many preachers in modern times have had the same religious experience and gather thousands of followers. This seems to impress you enough for you to accept absurdities. That is your decision.

Again, you are not helping your case. I did not bring these facts up in order to demonstrate, or prove the claims. Rather, these are just some of the facts, evidence, and reasons in support of the claim, and you do yourself no favors by simply saying, "None of this has anything to do with the truth of the resurrection" when it is not intended to be such, but is rather intended to demonstrate there are very good reasons to believe the claims.

So then, unless you can explain why these facts, would not be good reasons to believe the claims, then we have reasons to believe them, and simply telling us that you choose not to believe them, gives us no reason to doubt them ourselves.

Where in "history" do we hear of "these men"?

My friend, we have the letters which they wrote. Now, if you would like to argue that these things were fabricated in some sort of way, I will be glad to listen. But simply saying it is a possibility does not work, when we have all these other facts, and evidence in support.

I am not persuaded that the earliest Christians maintained a physical resurrection: they simply followed Christ, believing in a reappearance in their lifetimes.

It is no argument to tell us what you are persuaded of. What we need is the facts, and evidence which cause your persuasion.

Then accept my certainty. I am certain there was no resurrection.

No, because you see, I would have a lot more to offer than my certainty as well. What I mean is, I would have facts, and evidence to back up my certainty, which you do not seem to possess.

I mention the Essenes and you want evidence for my suggestion. Every shred of "evidence" we have comes from biblical writers who were far from unbiased historians. They were recruiting members. How are we to find contrary evidence in their writings?

So, are you suggesting they made all this up? I will assure you that you will run into some major problems with this idea, but I will be glad to go over it with you if you like.

The problems you will run into is the facts, and evidence we have, while I am still waiting on the facts, and evidence which may support this "Essenes" theory, which I am sure is not your own, but simply something you have heard from someone else, and yet you want to accuse others of simply taking someone's word.

However, I have read hundreds of Latin texts from around the time and the only scrap of mention is a line in Tacitus discussing Nero's persecution of Christians: "that obnoxious sect whose leader suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate." So the only evidence we have from a historian is that Christ was a criminal, not a risen corpse.

Again, I will be happy to go over the possibility that the letters we have in the NT would be fabrications with you any time you like.

Your arguments combine irrelevance (Luke and God-lover and Paul ) with false conclusions (Paul says it -it must be so) and circularity.

No, because we have already established the fact that it would be you who places so much importance upon who it is making the claims, even when you make the claim we can know nothing about them. On the other hand, I am in the habit of ignoring the one making the claim, and rather attempt to examine the facts, and evidence which may support, of refute the claim.

We differ over what faith is: to me it is belief in the irrational or impossible, which you demonstrate, however much you protest.

No that would be you. You see, we can simply say things to one another without any sort of evidence to back it up, but it sort of seems pointless, don't you think?

The fact of the matter is, we all use faith in our daily lives, and you demonstrate this faith in the abilities of these men, and, or "the magician" to orchestrate all the facts, and evidence in such a way, as to have all these facts, and evidence to be aligned in support of the resurrection, and you cannot explain them away no matter how hard you try, and it is consuming your life.

We're not going to move out of constant repetitions.

If this is your way of bowing out of the conversation then, all I can say is again, the way things are going for you, the best advice I can give you is to, "move on."

You like Luke and so you are seduced into accepting his guesses about what happened to Christ's stolen corpse.

And again, we have already established who it is who believes, or dismisses claims based upon the one who makes them, as opposed to the one who attempts to analyze the facts, and evidence involved.

You coyly avoid mentioning the angel in the sepulchre - too embarrassing?

You are mistaken again. I attempt, to address every objection you have, and have only omitted very few (and I mean VERY FEW) of them, while there is a host of things you have not commented on which I have said, by cherry picking those things you would rather attempt to address.

The fact of the matter is, I have addressed this issue, by demonstrating the fact that you have no way to determine the truth of this matter. Moreover, this report would have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts, and evidence we have to support a resurrection which you continued to fail to explain, even though, it is indeed consuming you.

[marco]

Luke was not an eye witness, whoever he was.

I never said he was. But again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with him knowing, and spending a great deal of time with the Apostles.

Ah, spending "a lot of time with the apostles" means he KNEW what happened. He is therefore reporting stories he has heard, stories we are getting second hand, and which strain credibility. Good witness!

My friend, you are the one who argues that we can know nothing of these folks, but somehow, we are suppose to determine how reliable they were?

It would be a basic requirement to question the reliability of people who reported the impossible, else we are gullible. We know "these folks" lived in a superstitious time and the zeitgeist of that period would lend itself to stories of magic. We would want to know that the reporters rose above such.

You are confused!

I must have picked up an infection.

it certainly does not help when you have to go on to acknowledge your attempts are failed attempts, and go on to admit you simply choose the option that would be the most preferable to your mind.

It's the option most preferable to reason.
Let's be clear. Suggesting the body was stolen, that there was a plot behind the scenes, that a rich man came forward with a special tomb for a special purpose - these are NOT failed attempts at explanation. At a vast distance of time we cannot speak with certainty but we can give an idea of what might be a reasonable explanation. Resurrection is NOT a reasonable explanation, whatever Luke might have thought.

Yeah, there are many possibilities, but I sort of like to examine the facts, and evidence which may support such an idea.

Well you don't have "facts": you have biased reports, which for some reason you choose to believe. I don't. When shadowy people of the past claim resurrections AND ascensions (to where, for goodness sake?) I do not accept this. It is nonsense, even if Theophilus got the message.

My friend, we have the letters which they wrote.

We have letters expressing excitement at Jesus dying, rising and rising even higher. Wonderful. How much excitement adds up to truth?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 64 by marco]

Ah, spending "a lot of time with the apostles" means he KNEW what happened. He is therefore reporting stories he has heard, stories we are getting second hand, and which strain credibility. Good witness!

Again, you fail to keep up with the conversation. This point was made in order to demonstrate that the tale of the resurrection could not possibly have been long after the events, but would have rather been what was being claimed from the beginning, because Luke would have lived at the same time as the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making. It had nothing to do with the truth being told.

It would be a basic requirement to question the reliability of people who reported the impossible, else we are gullible. We know "these folks" lived in a superstitious time and the zeitgeist of that period would lend itself to stories of magic. We would want to know that the reporters rose above such.

And as has already been pointed out, we have zero evidence that these men would have held these sort of superstitions, but we do in fact have evidence they were well aware of this, and went on to ensure their audiences that this is not what they were reporting because they were claiming to be, "eyewitnesses."

It's the option most preferable to reason.

Well that is a fine opinion, without any facts, or evidence to back it up, and it seems to be the opposing side who is using reason, since we are using the reasons involved.

Let's be clear. Suggesting the body was stolen, that there was a plot behind the scenes, that a rich man came forward with a special tomb for a special purpose - these are NOT failed attempts at explanation.

Unless you have some facts, and evidence to back up this theory, it is a failed attempt, because we have another explanation, with facts, and evidence in support. In other words, one is backed by fact, and evidence, while the other is simply a "guess."

At a vast distance of time we cannot speak with certainty but we can give an idea of what might be a reasonable explanation. Resurrection is NOT a reasonable explanation, whatever Luke might have thought.

It may not be a reasonable explanation in your mind, but when there are facts, and evidence to support the claim, and none to support the guesses, then it becomes reasonable to believe the claims, have merit.

Well you don't have "facts": you have biased reports

No, we have reports, and it is your opinion that they would be influenced by bias. This is not an established fact, and what would be the evidence to suggest such a thing?

which for some reason you choose to believe.

Actually, it is that I am compelled to believe them, and I have been compelled by the facts, and evidence, and you have helped as well.

I don't.

And I have no problem with this. The problem comes in when one goes on to insist, there would be no reason to believe the claims, all the while they are attempting to explain away the facts, and are failing, and miserably.

When shadowy people of the past claim resurrections AND ascensions (to where, for goodness sake?)

You seem to keep ignoring the fact, that there are facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, and none of these other details would negate this fact.

I do not accept this.

I am not asking you to. Rather, all I am doing is to demonstrate there are very good reasons to believe the claims.

It is nonsense

You continue to say things like this, but it does nothing to demonstrate that a resurrection did not take place, and it certainly does not demonstrate there would be no reason to believe that it did.

We have letters expressing excitement at Jesus dying, rising and rising even higher. Wonderful. How much excitement adds up to truth?

Again, would like to make the argument that all these letters were fabricated in some sort of way? Go right ahead. I will be waiting.

[marco]

[Replying to post 65 by Realworldjack]



It might be of interest, and of as much relevance as Luke and Theophilus, that Mr Gradgrind in Hard Times demanded that facts be given to the boys, and nothing but facts. I feel I have been reading Dickens when reading your replies.

We can conclude our discussion with a summary:

I believe there was no Resurrection. Reason: corpses do not get up and walk and rise into the sky, going nowhere.
After reading some authors of dubious authenticity, but who were mates of the famous apostles, you have concluded not that there was a resurrection, but that it is a good decision to accept there was one. You are certain there was.


Despite my perfectly valid reason for not believing, you would like me to take up archaeology or biblical research and re-enter the area of 1st cetury superstition and uncover reasons why there was NO resurrection. At the same time I could investigate why there were no flying elephants, like Dumbo. Proving that X did not happen is a pretty tough task - especially if the eminent Theophilus believed it did.


Of course my addled brain may not have kept up with the arcana and esoteric nature of the discussion here, but it's the only one I have, and using reason to get aswers has served me well. Using faith has not.

My best wishes.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 66 by marco]

It might be of interest, and of as much relevance as Luke and Theophilus, that Mr Gradgrind in Hard Times demanded that facts be given to the boys, and nothing but facts. I feel I have been reading Dickens when reading your replies.

Why yes, I do tend to deal with the facts, now don't I? It certainly does not surprise me to see you object to this, seeing as how facts, do not really seem to bother you in any way.

I believe there was no Resurrection. Reason: corpses do not get up and walk and rise into the sky, going nowhere.

Again, I have no problem with this at all. I am not concerned with what it is you "prefer" to believe. All I have done is to demonstrate that there are very good, and solid reasons to believe the reports, despite what it may be that you "prefer" to believe and you have certainly helped me out with this.

After reading some authors of dubious authenticity, but who were mates of the famous apostles, you have concluded not that there was a resurrection, but that it is a good decision to accept there was one. You are certain there was.

Again, you attempt to make it all so simple, but it involves much more than you list here, and this can be demonstrated by the many, many, points you failed to address during this conversation.

One of the points you have failed to address would be the one about why it is so important to attempt to make the argument that Theophilus may not have been an individual. I gave an answer as to why, and since you seem to have avoided this, I can only assume that you must agree that I would be correct.

Despite my perfectly valid reason for not believing,

Which valid reason are we talking about? Would it be the "claim is absurd"? We can make such claims about anything at all, but it does not make it valid. Would it be, "we just need better guesses?" I cannot for the life of me understand how this could be valid. Or, would it be, it is what you "prefer to believe"? Yeah, now that makes it valid! Let me know if I left any out?

you would like me to take up archaeology or biblical research and re-enter the area of 1st cetury superstition and uncover reasons why there was NO resurrection.

No, I am simply asking you to refute the facts, and evidence we have to support the resurrection, and you seem to be admitting that you cannot accomplish this task, which leaves us with the reasons to believe the accounts. Some of us do not ignore the facts, and evidence, and simply believe what we would "prefer."

At the same time I could investigate why there were no flying elephants, like Dumbo.

I would not waste my time on this, and I am sure you will not yourself, and the reason being is the fact that there is no evidence in support. However, you do seem to think it worth your while to continue day, after day, month, and month, year, after year, to continue to debate this issue, and it could only be worth your while, because you understand there are facts, evidence, and reasons to debate.

I am not asking you to "prove" the resurrection did not happen, even though you are under obligation since you have assured us it did not, rather I am simply asking you to demonstrate that there would be no reason to believe the accounts. And simply telling us "it is absurd", and what you would "prefer not to believe", or that "we need better guesses", does not in any way demonstrate this.

Of course my addled brain may not have kept up with the arcana and esoteric nature of the discussion here, but it's the only one I have, and using reason to get aswers has served me well.

I am trying to understand where you may have used reason in our conversation, other than to say, "resurrections are impossible", but this ignores all the facts, and evidence we have, that you cannot for the life of you explain away.

Using faith has not.

You can continue to say this over, and over if you wish, but you demonstrate a tremendous amount of faith in whoever you believe it may have been who orchestrated all these events, which has left us with all these facts, evidence, and reasons to believe, that you cannot explain away.

My best wishes.

Same here my friend!

[Zzyzx]

.

Luke was not an eye witness, whoever he was.

I never said he was. But again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with him knowing, and spending a great deal of time with the Apostles.

Ah, spending "a lot of time with the apostles" means he KNEW what happened. He is therefore reporting stories he has heard, stories we are getting second hand, and which strain credibility. Good witness!

This point was made in order to demonstrate that the tale of the resurrection could not possibly have been long after the events, but would have rather been what was being claimed from the beginning, because Luke would have lived at the same time as the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making. It had nothing to do with the truth being told.

OH? Luke (whoever that may have been) spent a lot of time with the Apostles and would have known the claims they were making, did he?

Kindly cite supporting evidence.

An opposition view

Where Did Luke the Evangelist Live?

Because the Gospel According to Luke doesnt display accurate knowledge of Palestinian geography, the author probably didnt live there or compose the gospel there. Some traditions suggest that he wrote in Boeotia or Rome. Some scholars today have suggested places such as Caesarea and the Decapolis. He might have traveled with Paul on some of this journeys. Other than that, nothing at all is known.
https://www.learnreligions.com/luke-the ... phy-248815

[Realworldjack]

.

Luke was not an eye witness, whoever he was.

I never said he was. But again, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with him knowing, and spending a great deal of time with the Apostles.

Ah, spending "a lot of time with the apostles" means he KNEW what happened. He is therefore reporting stories he has heard, stories we are getting second hand, and which strain credibility. Good witness!

This point was made in order to demonstrate that the tale of the resurrection could not possibly have been long after the events, but would have rather been what was being claimed from the beginning, because Luke would have lived at the same time as the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making. It had nothing to do with the truth being told.

OH? Luke (whoever that may have been) spent a lot of time with the Apostles and would have known the claims they were making, did he?

Kindly cite supporting evidence.

An opposition view

Where Did Luke the Evangelist Live?

Because the Gospel According to Luke doesnt display accurate knowledge of Palestinian geography, the author probably didnt live there or compose the gospel there. Some traditions suggest that he wrote in Boeotia or Rome. Some scholars today have suggested places such as Caesarea and the Decapolis. He might have traveled with Paul on some of this journeys. Other than that, nothing at all is known.
https://www.learnreligions.com/luke-the ... phy-248815

Okay, well let's get to it. First, I would like you to notice that your opposing view does not really state any facts, but rather, as you can see, it uses words such as "probably" "suggest", and "might." Not a whole lot to sink your teeth into there, now is it?

But now, let's look at some facts we can know. We can know the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been one, and the same person, because the evidence is overwhelming.

Next, we can know that this author never identifies himself, in either of these letters. However, we can know this author did in fact travel around with Paul on his missionary journeys, because this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, as if he is there to actually witness the events he records himself, and he uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul is on trial in Rome, and this author ends this letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years.

Notice, how this author does not use these words at all in his first letter, and he also does not use them in the second letter, until he gets to the journeys of Paul.

So then, unless you would like to argue that this may have been some sort of ploy on the part of the author, then we have very good evidence that this author would have spent a number of years traveling around with Paul on his journeys, which is why your "opposing view" is forced at the very least to say, "He (the author) might have traveled with Paul on some of this (sic) journeys."

But this is not all. As we turn our attention to the letters of Paul, we have a letter that Paul would have clearly written while under arrest, and in this letter, Paul tells Timothy, "only Luke is with me." Moreover, Paul mentions the name of Luke several times in other letters, as if Luke is there with him.

So, we have Luke, writing a letter to Theophilus, and in this letter he speaks as if he is traveling around with Paul, and ends his letter with Paul being under arrest, and here we have Paul, writing a letter to Timothy, that is clearly written while Paul is under arrest, and in this letter, Paul tells Timothy, "only Luke is with me", on top of the fact that Paul mentions Luke being with him in other letters.

So here, we have some very strong evidence to support the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have spent a good number of years with Paul not only on his journeys, but also while he was imprisoned. So then, what would be the evidence, that would possibly cause your "opposing view" to simply conclude that this "might" have happened? Allow me to help you out. There is none.

With all this being the case, we can know this author would have been a companion of Paul, which would clearly demonstrate that he would have been alive during the lifetime of the Apostles, and would have known them all personally as Paul did, and would have spent a great deal of time with them, knowing the claims they were making.

The main fact here is though, we can know this author would have written both of his letters well within the lifetime of the Apostles, which clearly, and beyond doubt demonstrates, that the tale of the resurrection could not possibly have been something that, "grew through the years, after the Apostles were gone."

[marco]

I believe there was no Resurrection. Reason: corpses do not get up and walk and rise into the sky, going nowhere.

Again, I have no problem with this at all.

Then on this note of agreement let us finish there.


We given the topic a good airing and further repetition would waste further time.

Go well.