resurrection

[rosey]

I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.

(I realize that this might get put in random ramblings or something for lack of a clear debate topic, but it just wasn't getting a lot of traffic in the A room. So if the moderators could leave it up for like 24 hours (assuming it's against the rules to post this in here), that would be great.)

P.S. Haven, that was a great post.

[revelationtestament]

There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God. I wonder what people will say about the next resurrection when some followers just disappear.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it.

According to the story the corpse of Jesus came back to life and then flew away. It's not really a believable story though, is it? What more "evidence" do you require that this is untrue than the nature of the story itself?

There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God. I wonder what people will say about the next resurrection when some followers just disappear.

If there is compelling evidence to justify believing that a corpse became reanimated and then flew away, then please provide it for us. If there is not some truly compelling reason to suppose that such a thing actually happened, then you can hardly expect everyone to just quietly accept it, can you? Can you make a convincing case for it yourself? Or does the reason you believe it yourself have more to do with the fact that you happen to have been raised Christian? It seems to me that these are perfectly reasonable questions, and if you find yourself unable or unwilling to defend your beliefs, perhaps you ought to rethink what it is you think you believe. Seriously!.

[pax]

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS?

It was Matthew. He wrote one in Greek as well.

I do not think the nonsense you are tired of is coming from Christians.

Well, can you show the one he wrote in Aramaic ?? The Gospel of Matthew that we have was not translated.. and therefore is not the document that Papias refers to.

There you go with that obfuscation thingy again.

1). Papias tells us that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the language of the Hebrews.

2). The Koine Greek Gospel of Matthew was not translated.

3). Ergo, Matthew wrote his Gospel twice, once in the language of the Hebrews, and once in Koine Greek.

Simple.

[Haven]

There you go with that obfuscation thingy again.

1). Papias tells us that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the language of the Hebrews.

2). The Koine Greek Gospel of Matthew was not translated.

3). Ergo, Matthew wrote his Gospel twice, once in the language of the Hebrews, and once in Koine Greek.

Simple.

Three doesn't follow from (1) and (2). There's no evidence Matthew wrote a gospel in Koine Greek.

[ThatGirlAgain]

There you go with that obfuscation thingy again.

1). Papias tells us that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the language of the Hebrews.

2). The Koine Greek Gospel of Matthew was not translated.

3). Ergo, Matthew wrote his Gospel twice, once in the language of the Hebrews, and once in Koine Greek.

Simple.

I am confused.

Three doesn't follow from (1) and (2). There's no evidence Matthew wrote a gospel in Koine Greek.

I am confused here. 'Matthew' is the name assigned by tradition to author of the Book of Matthew (aka Gospel of Matthew) in the New Testament. Are you saying that the author of this book (whatever his name) did NOT write it in koine Greek?

Or are you saying that there is no evidence that Matthew, the putative Apostle, wrote a Gospel in koine Greek?

[Haven]

Or are you saying that there is no evidence that Matthew, the putative Apostle, wrote a Gospel in koine Greek?

I'm saying there is no evidence that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in koine Greek. The "gospel of Matthew" was almost certainly not written by Matthew.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

I wonder what people will say about the next resurrection when some followers just disappear.

"I hope it's that bunch that prefers to restrict the rights of anyone but themselves."

[Goat]

There you go with that obfuscation thingy again.

1). Papias tells us that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the language of the Hebrews.

2). The Koine Greek Gospel of Matthew was not translated.

3). Ergo, Matthew wrote his Gospel twice, once in the language of the Hebrews, and once in Koine Greek.

Simple.

Three doesn't follow from (1) and (2). There's no evidence Matthew wrote a gospel in Koine Greek.

Actually, the Gospel of Matthew we have was originally written in Koine Greek... (it is at least attributed to Matthew.

We have zero evidence of a Gospel of Matthew written in 'langauge of the Hebrews'.

Either Papias was wrong, or he was referring to a different piece of writing. There is no reasonable evidence to show that Matthew wrote a Gospel twice.. There is nothing in the current Gospel of Matthew to actually link the writing to Matthew.

[99percentatheism]

Here is a pretty good paper put together by an opponent of the Resurrection. Of course I do not agree with his conclusions, but he does give both sides of the argument a fair shake.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... urrection/

The Resurrection, it's a fascinating thing.