Resurrection proved in US courts

[Tired of the Nonsense]

post #13
If all the proof of the resurrection were to be offered to a jury, they would found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.
There was a book by David Limbaugh, (JESUS on trial) a New York Times best seller. He used his expertise as an attorney to see if there was eneough evidence about JESUS to be true. As an excellent attorney, he said a jury would be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt that JESUS story is true.
He then was convicted of faith.
As why GOD planned it the way HE did is because it was the perfect plan, to save all HE could and that all scripture was fullfied as HE promised. I think that our creator who created all things from the beginning has all of out best interests at heart.

viewtopic.php?p=861069#861069

We will be the jury. All Christians are invited to participate. Present your case and allow us to see for ourselves just how well it holds up.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense in post #1]
Impossible! Tradition shows that one must be a reporter (Lee Strobel), retired detective or attorney to conclusively make a case and give a verdict about the truth of the resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense in post #1]
Impossible! Tradition shows that one must be a reporter (Lee Strobel), retired detective or attorney to conclusively make a case and give a verdict about the truth of the resurrection.

Yep. The Big Three in my mind are Strobel, the retired detective and Lane - Craig. Strobel is a propagandist and a dishonest one, though I gotta say it is a common Believer ploy to claim 'I was an atheist .... like you...until I was convinced by undeniable evidence'. But talking to these people, they know nothing of the atheist argument. And like Strobel, the evidence is totally one - sided and the Bible - critical side is never given a hearing.

Then the retired detective should know better than to think that such a contradictory bunch of witnesses as in the resurrection -stories would hold up in a court of law (unless it was a kangaroo court totally a Christian show -trial) and a halfway decent attorney could trash the resurrection witness stories in fifteen minutes.

Lane - Craig...well I will have to watch the posted debate, but I dealt with a written article of his posted (on a former board) and it was pretty much 'what other explanation is there?' the 'Swoon theory does not work' (in fact it is demonstrably the best theory that fits the account) and the disciples would not die for a lie. Not very impressive from one of the Bible's primary apologists.

[The Nice Centurion]

Lane - Craig...well I will have to watch the posted debate, but I dealt with a written article of his posted (on a former board) and it was pretty much 'what other explanation is there?' the 'Swoon theory does not work' (in fact it is demonstrably the best theory that fits the account) and the disciples would not die for a lie. Not very impressive from one of the Bible's primary apologists.

Swoon theory does not explain why his friends had that much extreme trouble to even recognice the risen saviour. Also he run all over the land playing peekabue with them instead of seeking rest after the stressful crucification.
And he run out of sleight of hand tricks/ no more miracles!
If you really want to take the gospel storys into account, a hoaxer just at best barely looking like christ sounds more fitting.

[TRANSPONDER]

Lane - Craig...well I will have to watch the posted debate, but I dealt with a written article of his posted (on a former board) and it was pretty much 'what other explanation is there?' the 'Swoon theory does not work' (in fact it is demonstrably the best theory that fits the account) and the disciples would not die for a lie. Not very impressive from one of the Bible's primary apologists.

Swoon theory does not explain why his friends had that much extreme trouble to even recognice the risen saviour. Also he run all over the land playing peekabue with them instead of seeking rest after the stressful crucification.
And he run out of sleight of hand tricks/ no more miracles!
If you really want to take the gospel storys into account, a hoaxer just at best barely looking like christ sounds more fitting.

Swoon theory relies on the argument that the claims of Jesus being seen later on are not credible. The original story is the that the women coming early (earlier than Arimathea and his helpers expected) found the tomb open before they could go back and close it again. Any Original account of Jesus recovering and going to Galilee or not recovering and being taken there for burial was not what the Christians needed and so the story ended there and let everyone swallow the claim that Jesus ' body must have got up and walked.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]
Still a hoaxer could have taken advantage of empty tomb because of the saviours swooning.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]
Still a hoaxer could have taken advantage of empty tomb because of the saviours swooning.

Perhaps a possible scenario. But the problem there is that, if so all the gospels would tell the same story (more or less) of the hoaxer. Since the stories are all different, there was no resurrection event, real or hoaxed.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]
The evangelists and St.Paul supposedly didnt describe the supposed hoaxers hoaxes to write detailed true appearances, but to suffice their agenda.
Later this scriptures might have undergone more changes by censoric writers with also agendas.
Therefore its no miracle that the storys differ.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]
The evangelists and St.Paul supposedly didnt describe the supposed hoaxers hoaxes to write detailed true appearances, but to suffice their agenda.
Later this scriptures might have undergone more changes by censoric writers with also agendas.
Therefore its no miracle that the storys differ.

Paul doesn't really say anything about it, so He's no help. I don't see the need to add further explanations when it works perfectly well to say that they (the writers of the gospels as they now are - whoever they were) added their own resurrection stories. After all, it wasn't the only time the original story was amended by them. They did in fact write detailed but contradictory appearances which (bottom like) discredits them. And the agenda is often clearly detectable. Luke we can tell altered the angelic message at the tomb because his gospel does not have the disciples go to Galilee (as instructed) but they stay in Jerusalem and found the Church. That was his agenda. There is an agenda in Luke shifting the anointing at Bethany to Galilee or in John stripping out the temple cleansing and shifting it to the start of the mission. There is even agenda in Mark adding hired servants to the calling of the disciples - Jesus didn't really leave old Zebedee with no help. The gospels as they are is full of agenda without having to propose later editors.

When that (later editing) happens we can often see earlier Codices without those changes and it shows up in Bible footnotes with a mendacious 'Some authorities add..." like it was anything but deliberate fiddling.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]
The evangelists and St.Paul supposedly didnt describe the supposed hoaxers hoaxes to write detailed true appearances, but to suffice their agenda.
Later this scriptures might have undergone more changes by censoric writers with also agendas.
Therefore its no miracle that the storys differ.

Paul doesn't really say anything about it, so He's no help.

Wait! What? What do you mean?
Paul says nothing about risen Christ appearances?

viewtopic.php?t=39513