Even IF the resurrection is true..

[Elijah John]

Even if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, what does that prove?

For even Paul indicates that it was God who did raising, Jesus did not resurrect himself:

Romans 10.9

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

[christian001]

All three persons of the triune God are involved in the resurrection of Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

All three persons of the triune God are involved in the resurrection of Jesus.

I almost hate to do this...but I'm obliged to observe that I see no reason to believe the doctrine of the trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible, Christianity or and of its' doctrines, and(as a rule) a post is better if it makes an explanatory case, not just a Faithclaim and posting a video.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]
Not even if the resurrection was true, it would prove that Jesus ist Lord vor the son of god (which he never claimed to be)!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]
Not even if the resurrection was true, it would prove that Jesus ist Lord vor the son of god (which he never claimed to be)!

Should that be reading: "Not even if the resurrection was true, would it would prove that Jesus is Lord or the son of god (which he never claimed to be)."?

If so, we have a raft of problems. Or definitions, rather. What does 'son of God' mean? I know what Matthew thought it meant, but is that true? What does 'Lord' signify? That we should always do what Christian authorities tell us even when they disagree? And even if the resurrection happened more or less as recorded, fiddling together the stories and ignoring the contradictions, what was this resurrection? It wasn't a new incorruptible body, as it still had the holes in. The 'swoon' theory (modified) is actually more in line with the recorded story than the 'came alive again through a miracle' claim.

And it's always tricky referring to what Jesus did or did not say about himself. He is shown as preferring rather to have others say it for him. Luke (in his fiddled rejection at Nazareth) has Jesus pretty much declare himself to be the Messiah. John is always more willing to have Jesus make claims about himself. John 4.26, he says he is the messiah (called Christ, which pretty much shows the Greek authorship) and at the Last supper he pretty much says he's God incarnate.

So I don't have much trouble buying what the Gospels tell us whom and what it thinks Jesus is, I just have trouble buying it as a trustworthy record of the events.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]
Yes, that shoud it mean. Thank you.
About Jesus never said he was
Son of god, I parroted Richard Carrier here.
I presume he means these are later interpolations.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]
Yes, that shoud it mean. Thank you.
About Jesus never said he was
Son of god, I parroted Richard Carrier here.
I presume he means these are later interpolations.

Well, I can't speak for Carrier, but I have to say that I avoid these "Authorities" as they all seem to have missed the essentials about what the Gospels are and what they are not. Though I might be wrong and they are maybe way ahead. I just say that I never hear the Theories that I come up with, and if I'm laughably wrong...I haven't seen it and it fits like a glove and explains the problems (which are usually just ignored as 'It's obviously all wrong' or 'it's obviously true because it makes no sense').

But I don't see the errors argued to be later interpolations. The old argument that the Bible was altered or got corrupted later on (1) seemed more a strawman so that the Bible apologists could floor (with appeal to accurate transmission) an objection that Bible critics never made. What they did was compile lists of Contradictions' which were presented as proof that God didn't write the Bible as it isn't Perfect. That went nowhere as the apologists either denied the contradictions ("not properly understood") or excused them {"Men wrote it, God Inspired it"). From then on I went further with contradictions than just making lists of them.

Later editions of an original Gospel (like the synoptic with Q material added in) is a different matter, as the gospel - versions were circulating before Being collated under Constantine.

(1) it is true that copyist errors are many and profuse in later texts, but the original codices show these errors up.