Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #1

Post by Aetixintro »

Mattman wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 8:26 am I love discussing/debating arguments related to God's existence and Christianity, and I have a voice chat group I'm putting together to do that. Send me a PM if you're interested in participating or listening in.

Below is a brief summarized version of an argument. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
____
Resolved: The available evidence justifies our belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

I'll present three lines of evidence supporting this claim:

The NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony.
We have reliable copies of that testimony.
We can establish facts from that testimony that support the resurrection.

In support of the first point, that the NT documents were based on eyewitness testimony, I present the testimony of three extra-biblical authors who were contemporaries of the eyewitnesses and of the writing of the NT documents. These writers were Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome. These three men were well acquainted with the eyewitnesses (Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John, and Clement was appointed to his position in Rome by Peter). They all also endorsed the NT documents through their many citations, quoting from every NT book except for 2 John and Jude. Finally, these men gave their lives for their faith (which speaks to their sincerity). The significance of this testimony cannot be understated. Three different men, well acquainted with the eyewitnesses, endorsed the NT documents through their many citations and died for their faith. Their writings justify our belief that eyewitness testimony provided the basis for the original NT documents.

Second, we want to know that we have accurate copies of those original NT documents. The NT stands head and shoulders above every other ancient work in this respect with over 5300 early copies and fragments in existence today. The next runner-up (Homer's Iliad) has just 643 copies and fragments. The New Testament manuscripts are also close to the originals, with many copies and fragments from the first few hundred years after the sources. Compare that to the next runner-up (again the Iliad), whose manuscripts are 500 years after the originals. There is also something to be said for the wide distribution of the documents. They were spread out over three continents and translated into multiple languages (with the earliest Latin translation going back to the 200s). The wealth of documents and their nearness to the originals give us good reason to believe we have accurate transmissions of the original documents.

Finally, we want to know what facts we can establish from the testimony. There are four facts critical to our consideration of the resurrection that we can consider:

Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
The tomb was empty on the third day.
People, individually and in groups, reported post-mortem appearances of Jesus.
The disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Multiple NT witnesses corroborate each fact. We can find individual support for these points as well. For example, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin (the same group that condemned Jesus) and is therefore unlikely to be an early Christian invention. James (Jesus' brother and one of the people reporting a post-mortem appearance) met Paul in Jerusalem before Paul reported James's claim to a post-mortem appearance, indicating that Paul’s report of James’s claim to an appearance is firsthand.

I've supported the claim that eyewitness testimony provides the basis for the original NT documents and that our copies are accurate. I identified four facts that we can establish from that testimony, and those facts support the conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. We are, therefore, justified based on that evidence in the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

____
Sources:

Craig, William Lane. On Guard. David C Cook, 2010.

Holden, Joseph M. The Popular Handbook of Archeology and the Bible. Harvest House Publishers, 2013.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. 1999.
So, QFD: Does this argument above convince you that Jesus rose from the dead? Why? Why not?
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #131

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:05 am Do you know what the Septuagint is?
This is a red herring.

You know full well that "Christ" isn't in the Septuagint, either.

So why are you even mentioning it, I do not know.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:05 am I can't tell if you're trying to play some sort of pedantic word game or if you genuinely don't understand the relationship between "messiah," "anointed," and "christ."
Um, you were provided The Hebrew-Greek Interlinear, with Strong's concordance as to how messiah/anointed are to be rendered in context, with practically every scripture you are using to prove whatever point you are making.

Guess what, it fails.

Anointed one/Messiah is not meant to mean "Christ" in any of those contexts...but, as you were shown, it is meant to be rendered as "Christ" in the context that I am advocating for...obviously, if Jesus is called "Christ" in Matt 16:16, then it can only be rendered as such.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:05 am How would one distinguish between "anointed one," "messiah," and "Christ" in Hellenistic Greek?
Easy.

If the word "Christ" is actually used as a title for someone, that should be enough to distinguish that person from individuals of whom the word "Christ" is NOT used as a title for.

Plain and simple.

No over-analyzing for fancy pancy hocus pocus interpretations.

The text interprets itself.

Reading comprehension.

Red herrings are beginning to take over now.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #132

Post by Goat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:05 am
Goat wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:52 pm It seems you are failing to read the response about that, since Transponder showed a source where that was done.

viewtopic.php?p=1083697#p1083697
I did fail to read that post (missed it).

However, I just read it, and am now discarding it.

The challenge was to show one instance where the title "Christ" (specifically CHRIST) was used as a title for ANYONE except Jesus, brother of James.

I dont want to see anything about titles of messiahs or anointed ones...specifically, the title of Christ.

Until you can do that; false equivalency.

This is about the third time I've asked and it doesn't look like I will get it.
I am totally unsurprised that you discard it, because it does not meet your preconceptions. However, the high priest was a christ, as shown by the titles Aaron was given.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #133

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:08 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:33 am Can you tell me what point you made that isn't fully answered by my response, because i can't think of anything relevant. Angels turning up later do not address the problem.

I have refuted attempts to argue that one or other of the Marys somehow didn't see the angel or hear the message. I really don't know what useful response you can make other that, 'sure there is a serious contradiction between John and the synoptics'.
I already addressed all of that...and I've yet to see a response.

So, we can leave it right there...I've done my job.
I made my argument which you responded to and I debunked that and have yet to see anything other than you claiming that you responded. I asked what response you made that I didn't debunk. The ball is in your court and any leaving it 'right there'; means that you lose.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:21 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:40 am #110 set out the passage. Jesus son of Damnaeus is identified as the person made the High priest.
I agree.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:40 am I know that some deny it, but argument is that the previous mention of Jesus also relates to Jesus son of Damnaus and the reference to Jesus known as the Christ is likely a gloss by a Christian editor since the story seems to have no relevance to Gospel Jesus.
What??? What do you mean it has no relevance to Gospel Jesus??

Reading comprehension.

Jesus was referenced as an identifier of James, of whom the passage was about.

"James, brother of Jesus (called Christ)".

That, WAS the relevance and the only relevance needed.

And notice you didn't say Damnaus had no relevance..probably because you don't have a problem accepting that "son of Damnaus" was just an identifier of (the other) Jesus.

But only when it comes to the Jesus of Nazareth, all bets are off.

We put on our skeptical capes and become super skeptical because anything related to Jesus of Nazareth must be a sham.

It is a double standard, and disgusting..quite frankly.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:40 am Lucceius Albinus 62–64

this Roman governor, named in the account, is obviously governor of Judea long after Jesus' time.
Point?
Reading comprehension indeed. The passage is about Jesus and James (his brother) both sons of Damnaeus. And the procurator involved (Albinus) is governor long after the execution of Gospel - Jesus. Thus the reference to Jesus as 'the Christ' is either overdoing the idea of a messiah (anointed person such as a High Priest) or is an explanatory (and wrong) addition by a Christian editor or copyist. What is is not is anything to do with Gospel Jesus.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #134

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Goat wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:02 am I am totally unsurprised that you discard it, because it does not meet your preconceptions. However, the high priest was a christ, as shown by the titles Aaron was given.
Again (third time), why weren't any other high priests identified, in text, as specifically Christ?

Because after all, JESUS WAS identified as such.

Dont have an answer to that, do ya?

Hey Goat, do a favor for me; hold this L.

:lol:
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #135

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:43 am I made my argument which you responded to and I debunked that and have yet to see anything other than you claiming that you responded. I asked what response you made that I didn't debunk. The ball is in your court and any leaving it 'right there'; means that you lose.
You responded by offering weak resistance and once I shut that down, you went back to rehashing your original sentiments.

If that's all you got, then um, Christianity takes the dub.
Reading comprehension indeed. The passage is about Jesus and James (his brother) both sons of Damnaeus.
See, that is where you are WRONG.

Reading comprehension, very much indeed.

Jesus was already given two identifiers in the first mention (if they are the same Jesus)...the two identifiers were...

1. Brother of James

2. Jesus, called Christ.

So, Jesus had been established at that point. So then, it goes on to say..

...when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


Makes no sense.

The latter is a clear introduction to a new character with a new identifier.

I guess if he was mentioned a third time, he would have been identified as "Jesus, nephew of Sarah" :lol:

Second, usually, after the first identifier is used, the character is addressed by his first name.

Like in the case of John the Baptist..Matt 14:1-5

14 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

[John has the "Baptist" identifier, as he is introduced to readers as one of the main subjects in passage]

3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.

[After the identifier is used, readers now know which John is being discussed, so the identifier is dropped in verses 3-5]

Third, not only is this writing principle NOT used in the Josephus passage in Antiquities, but an entire NEW identifier is used...if anything, the same identifier would have been used, if it was the same Jesus.

Two identifiers = two persons.

No charge for the lesson.

Fourth, the million dollar question is; why in the HELL would James' brother, Jesus, be made high priest after James had just been stoned shortly before?

Implausible.
And the procurator involved (Albinus) is governor long after the execution of Gospel - Jesus. Thus the reference to Jesus as 'the Christ' is either overdoing the idea of a messiah (anointed person such as a High Priest) or is an explanatory (and wrong) addition by a Christian editor or copyist. What is is not is anything to do with Gospel Jesus.
Ohhh...its funny, you had mentioned the years of governorship of Albinus in a prior post; what was it, 62-64 CE?

Interesting.

Because you are implying that that timeframe was so long after Jesus' execution, by the time Albinus was governor, the entire Christian movement would have been over.

Thats what I got out of it.

But, that is where you are WRONG...considering the fact that Paul had already wrote some of his books by or DURING that time.

Also, the Great Fire of Rome took place in 64 CE, were many Christians were persecuted and executed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

So Christianity was spreading and being dealt with during Albinus governorship, which means your theory is historically inaccurate and holds zero truth value..and fails because of it.

My heart goes out to you, TRANSPONDER. You seem to have some well thought-out positions.

The problem is; those positions are typically WRONG.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #136

Post by Goat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:25 am
Goat wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:02 am I am totally unsurprised that you discard it, because it does not meet your preconceptions. However, the high priest was a christ, as shown by the titles Aaron was given.
Again (third time), why weren't any other high priests identified, in text, as specifically Christ?

Because after all, JESUS WAS identified as such.

Dont have an answer to that, do ya?

Hey Goat, do a favor for me; hold this L.

:lol:
It the septigaunt, the high priest was referred to a christ in 2 Maccabees 1:10 , and is pslam 105. (or 104 depending on which version you read).
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #137

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:28 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:43 am I made my argument which you responded to and I debunked that and have yet to see anything other than you claiming that you responded. I asked what response you made that I didn't debunk. The ball is in your court and any leaving it 'right there'; means that you lose.
You responded by offering weak resistance and once I shut that down, you went back to rehashing your original sentiments.

If that's all you got, then um, Christianity takes the dub.
Reading comprehension indeed. The passage is about Jesus and James (his brother) both sons of Damnaeus.
See, that is where you are WRONG.

Reading comprehension, very much indeed.

Jesus was already given two identifiers in the first mention (if they are the same Jesus)...the two identifiers were...

1. Brother of James

2. Jesus, called Christ.

So, Jesus had been established at that point. So then, it goes on to say..

...when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


Makes no sense.

The latter is a clear introduction to a new character with a new identifier.

I guess if he was mentioned a third time, he would have been identified as "Jesus, nephew of Sarah" :lol:

Second, usually, after the first identifier is used, the character is addressed by his first name.

Like in the case of John the Baptist..Matt 14:1-5

14 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

[John has the "Baptist" identifier, as he is introduced to readers as one of the main subjects in passage]

3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.

[After the identifier is used, readers now know which John is being discussed, so the identifier is dropped in verses 3-5]

Third, not only is this writing principle NOT used in the Josephus passage in Antiquities, but an entire NEW identifier is used...if anything, the same identifier would have been used, if it was the same Jesus.

Two identifiers = two persons.

No charge for the lesson.

Fourth, the million dollar question is; why in the HELL would James' brother, Jesus, be made high priest after James had just been stoned shortly before?

Implausible.
And the procurator involved (Albinus) is governor long after the execution of Gospel - Jesus. Thus the reference to Jesus as 'the Christ' is either overdoing the idea of a messiah (anointed person such as a High Priest) or is an explanatory (and wrong) addition by a Christian editor or copyist. What is is not is anything to do with Gospel Jesus.
Ohhh...its funny, you had mentioned the years of governorship of Albinus in a prior post; what was it, 62-64 CE?

Interesting.

Because you are implying that that timeframe was so long after Jesus' execution, by the time Albinus was governor, the entire Christian movement would have been over.

Thats what I got out of it.

But, that is where you are WRONG...considering the fact that Paul had already wrote some of his books by or DURING that time.

Also, the Great Fire of Rome took place in 64 CE, were many Christians were persecuted and executed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

So Christianity was spreading and being dealt with during Albinus governorship, which means your theory is historically inaccurate and holds zero truth value..and fails because of it.

My heart goes out to you, TRANSPONDER. You seem to have some well thought-out positions.

The problem is; those positions are typically WRONG.
You may have tried to shut me down but all you showed was that you had no response to my point which I reiterate -

The synoptics have an angel giving the message at the tomb. John has no angel at the tomb and no message. The Marys report back to the disciples and 'We' The speaking woman says (both of them) do not know (where Jesus is). This is total contradiction of the synoptic version by John. The angels that appear later on make no difference to that.

As to the James passage, You cannot make a case that a different character is introduced later. The story is clearly about James and his brother Jesus, made High Priest by Albinus and cannot be about gospel Jesus as Albinus was procurator too much later - around 30 years after Jesus had been executed. We know the whole story is about these two brothers, Jesus and James the sons of Damnaeus and the gloss of Jesus being 'called the Christ' is an edit by a Christian later on and is plainly wrong. It might be a Grecification of 'called the messiah' though I think that less likely. The name 'The Christ' has been long known to be a Greek translation of 'The messiah' and apart from Greek Christians they would not have any reason to use the term (though some occurrences have been shown in the earlier post). The term is not peculiar to Gospel - Jesus but the Christians thought it was. Just as we get references to 'Christ a king' as though he was the only one to be called a king.

This is argumentative, but it doesn't matter as plainly the James passage relates to events after the death of Jesus and we know the story relates to the sons of Damnaeus anyway. Apply your reading comprehension.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #138

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:02 pm You may have tried to shut me down but all you showed was that you had no response to my point which I reiterate -
········
The synoptics have an angel giving the message at the tomb. John has no angel at the tomb and no message. The Marys report back to the disciples and 'We' The speaking woman says (both of them) do not know (where Jesus is). This is total contradiction of the synoptic version by John. The angels that appear later on make no difference to that.
Oh, look; a rehash of stuff I already responded to :ok:

As to the James passage, You cannot make a case that a different character is introduced later. The story is clearly about James and his brother Jesus, made High Priest by Albinus and cannot be about gospel Jesus as Albinus was procurator too much later - around 30 years after Jesus had been executed.
Um, it wouldn't be too much later if James was still alive during the time.

It is called "living to be an old man".
We know the whole story is about these two brothers, Jesus and James the sons of Damnaeus and the gloss of Jesus being 'called the Christ' is an edit by a Christian later on and is plainly wrong. It might be a Grecification of 'called the messiah' though I think that less likely. The name 'The Christ' has been long known to be a Greek translation of 'The messiah' and apart from Greek Christians they would not have any reason to use the term (though some occurrences have been shown in the earlier post). The term is not peculiar to Gospel - Jesus but the Christians thought it was. Just as we get references to 'Christ a king' as though he was the only one to be called a king.
I stand by what I said..so we simply disagree. Its not as if my points were addressed anyway.
This is argumentative, but it doesn't matter as plainly the James passage relates to events after the death of Jesus and we know the story relates to the sons of Damnaeus anyway. Apply your reading comprehension.
?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #139

Post by Difflugia »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:59 amAnointed one/Messiah is not meant to mean "Christ" in any of those contexts...but, as you were shown, it is meant to be rendered as "Christ" in the context that I am advocating for...obviously, if Jesus is called "Christ" in Matt 16:16, then it can only be rendered as such.
The word "christ" is just a transliteration from the Greek instead of a translation. It's the same word in Greek. The "context" that you're talking about is that the word is used of Jesus. When it's used of Jesus, most translators render it "christ." When it's used anywhere else, most translators render it "anointed" or "anointed one." If your argument is based on that context, it's circular. You're claiming that because it's written "christ" rather than "anointed" when it refers to Jesus, Jesus is therefore the Christ.

Here's Matthew 16:16:
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Leviticus 4:5 in the Septuagint:
καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστὸς ὁ τετελειωμένος τὰς χεῖρας ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ μόσχου καὶ εἰσοίσει αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου
The bolded phrase is identical in each case, ho christos. Whether it's rendered "the christ," "the Christ," "the anointed," or "the Anointed" is a judgement by the translator. Strong's Concordance tells you what the judgement of the Authorized Version's translators was, no more, no less. If you're going to use a dictionary in your argument, use one that's a bit more nuanced and comprehensive. The page that you linked yourself actually has an entry from Thayer's on it, which is generally well-regarded. It even tells you that χριστός is the word used to translate the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ, (mashiach or "messiah") in the Septuagint.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:59 am
Difflugia wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:05 amHow would one distinguish between "anointed one," "messiah," and "Christ" in Hellenistic Greek?
Easy.
Image
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:59 amIf the word "Christ" is actually used as a title for someone, that should be enough to distinguish that person from individuals of whom the word "Christ" is NOT used as a title for.
What I'm telling you is that the words are the same. You seem to think that there's something extra in the Greek text of Josephus that, if you could read it, would tell you that Josephus intended "christ" as a title at all, let alone "the Christ," unique to Christianity's Jesus. There's not.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:59 amPlain and simple.

No over-analyzing for fancy pancy hocus pocus interpretations.
You're arguing about a different language, but literally claiming that the ability to understand that language isn't important to the argument.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:59 amThe text interprets itself.

Reading comprehension.
Considering that you can't read ancient Greek and your only response is to insult those that can, the phrase "reading comprehension" is ironically hilarious.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:59 amRed herrings are beginning to take over now.
So is hubris.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Resolved: Jesus Rose from the Dead

Post #140

Post by TRANSPONDER »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:54 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:02 pm You may have tried to shut me down but all you showed was that you had no response to my point which I reiterate -
········
The synoptics have an angel giving the message at the tomb. John has no angel at the tomb and no message. The Marys report back to the disciples and 'We' The speaking woman says (both of them) do not know (where Jesus is). This is total contradiction of the synoptic version by John. The angels that appear later on make no difference to that.
Oh, look; a rehash of stuff I already responded to :ok:

As to the James passage, You cannot make a case that a different character is introduced later. The story is clearly about James and his brother Jesus, made High Priest by Albinus and cannot be about gospel Jesus as Albinus was procurator too much later - around 30 years after Jesus had been executed.
Um, it wouldn't be too much later if James was still alive during the time.

It is called "living to be an old man".
We know the whole story is about these two brothers, Jesus and James the sons of Damnaeus and the gloss of Jesus being 'called the Christ' is an edit by a Christian later on and is plainly wrong. It might be a Grecification of 'called the messiah' though I think that less likely. The name 'The Christ' has been long known to be a Greek translation of 'The messiah' and apart from Greek Christians they would not have any reason to use the term (though some occurrences have been shown in the earlier post). The term is not peculiar to Gospel - Jesus but the Christians thought it was. Just as we get references to 'Christ a king' as though he was the only one to be called a king.
I stand by what I said..so we simply disagree. Its not as if my points were addressed anyway.
This is argumentative, but it doesn't matter as plainly the James passage relates to events after the death of Jesus and we know the story relates to the sons of Damnaeus anyway. Apply your reading comprehension.
?
Oh look. A repeat of a repeatedly debunked argument that you claim hasn't been responded to. It has and re -explained a couple of times while you have twice failed to say what I haven't responded to. You 'standing by what you said' doesn't do anything but illustrate refusal of the fact that John does contradict the synoptics. And not only for that time. The whole of the resurrection -account contradict. That is why I say it must be made up because if there had been an original tale, never mind a true one, at least they'd be consistent.

P.s :D I loved this:

in response to my " As to the James passage, You cannot make a case that a different character is introduced later. The story is clearly about James and his brother Jesus, made High Priest by Albinus and cannot be about gospel Jesus as Albinus was procurator too much later - around 30 years after Jesus had been executed."
Venom writ:
Um, it wouldn't be too much later if James was still alive during the time.

It is called "living to be an old man".

James may well have lived to be an old man, but by the 30's AD Jesus 'The Christ' was already dead, so the Jesus made High Priest by Albinus (procurator in the 60's) can't be Gospel Jesus, so is clearly Jesus son of Damnaeus, all through the story. So whether 'the Christ' is a translation of 'messiah' or a gloss by an editor who thought the Jesus of the story was Gospel Jesus, it can't be the Jesus of the gospels. This looks to me slam dunk unless I am missing something vital as, if I'm right, this apologetic should have sunk long ago. Serious comment is invited.

Post Reply