Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

There were multiple stories circulating. Multiple stories. The faith you believe happens to be one (or possibly a few) of those stories that were chosen.​

Again, I don't espouse any 'faith'. That assertion is superfluous and unwarranted. There were, indeed, multiple stories, yet only 4 Gospels until the 2nd Century CE.
​

Yes, and a man has never been killed and resurrected in a manner described by the NT. That has never happened. Which is my point entirely.

How would you know unless someone actually wrote about it happening? Jesus being resurrected is a unique story so it's no surprise there is no precedent in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Your point is invalid.
​

They wrote about him? It must be true then. And Mohammed must be the Last Prophet of God and that Jesus was never resurrected (according to his religion). The fact that they wrote about a man doesn't mean that mean existed in that capacity.

Mohammed wasn't born until 500 years after Jesus and is irrelevant.​

Do the angels they wrote about exist?

I have no clue. I do know that Jesus existed. We have evidence for that.
​

I'm not doing such a thing. I've said all along I'm in the camp that believes a political figure of that nature probably existed. I have no problem saying a human male existed. It's all the other nonsense.

Your problem is that the 'human male' was, in fact, Jesus of Nazareth. Not a 'political figure of that nature'.
​

I'm denying the existence of the Biblical Jesus. He wasn't the son of God.

That's what he and his followers claimed, but you'd have to know the proper context to understand what the title meant. You're 20 centuries removed and ignorant of the culture.​

He didn't have supernatural powers.

I have no idea what you mean by 'supernatural powers'.​

He wasn't resurrected in the manner described (the premise of this thread).

Well then, how exactly was he resurrected since the 'manner' was never described? The only thing stated as factual is that he appeared to his followers after he was dead.​

There is no historical or authentic proof of any of those things. Those things are taken on faith and faith alone.

Incorrect. Those things are taken on evidence and eyewitness testimony.​

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The books of the faith, during the time of Jesus, were in the Hebrew Bible. The Gospels were outside of the 'canon'. Christians and Jews were one-in-the-same until the second century .​

But what Im saying is that they were still moreso books of faith than simply historical. Understood that Gospels were outside of canon essentially until the clear divide but that doesn't make them any less religious or any more historical. I believe that the intent of the writings of most apocrypha aren't very far off from what is canonical. Some books have gone in and out of canon and it is hard to wade through it (looking at the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate and much more).

 

[Type Username Here]

Again, I don't espouse any 'faith'. That assertion is superfluous and unwarranted. There were, indeed, multiple stories, yet only 4 Gospels until the 2nd Century CE.
​

Canonical implies organization and order. The gospels are only a portion of the overall accounting of that time.
​

​

​

How would you know unless someone actually wrote about it happening? Jesus being resurrected is a unique story so it's no surprise there is no precedent in Ancient Near Eastern literature.

Resurrection is not unique at all. Not even in the NT much less when talking about other religions . It doesn't make it true whether it is unique or not. It has no basis in fact or that no historical evidence it occurred exists.

​

​

Mohammed wasn't born until 500 years after Jesus and is irrelevant.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith are very relevant. If we applied your logic about Biblical Jesus to those two, you'd have to accept them as legitimate, and by doing so, you undermine the Christianity you follow. I think you realize that (which is why you have been deflecting my points for the last 2 pages) and I'm sure everyone reading this thread can see that I cornered you.

I have no clue. I do know that Jesus existed. We have evidence for that.

Yes, a man most likely existed. He was baptized and died. That's where all the evidence ends. The premise of the thread is talking about the resurrection. There is absolutely no evidence of that.

​

Your problem is that the 'human male' was, in fact, Jesus of Nazareth. Not a 'political figure of that nature'.

One in the same. He wasn't the son of God. He wasn't a magician. He didn't die and resurrect (the premise of this thread). There is no proof or evidence of any claim outside that a man was born, baptized and died. Everything else is a retelling of a myth or work of fiction in order to push a narrative about a religion.

​

That's what he claimed, but you'd have to know the proper context to understand what the title meant. You're 20 centuries removed and ignorant of the culture.

Yes. I'm proud to be born in an age where reason and logic should override such nonsense. I can understand the circumstances why Central American societies sacrificed children to the Sun while finding it abhorrent and stupid. I can come to know the circumstances of that culture thinking it would please the sun to do such a thing while (correctly) pointing out that such acts could never achieve such things they desired.

I have no idea what you mean by 'supernatural powers'.

A lot of things attributed to the Biblical Jesus that have no scientific, medical or physiological merit. Things that are easily pointed out as supernatural in mythologies (former religions) and works of fiction.​

Well then, how exactly was he resurrected since the 'manner' was never described? The only thing stated as factual is that he appeared to his followers after he was dead.

He died and came back to life after 3 days through the will of God. There is no evidence of this. This is taken on faith only.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Another point that I feel I should bring up is that of Enoch. In both OT and NT it is insinuated that he never "died", ascended to heaven and became an angel (Metatron). Mentions of him spanned from many years before Jesus and also in writings in the 1st century..yet a lot of this is seen as non-canonical while the writings on Jesus are. Text of Enoch exists to this day in ancient Aramaic..what makes it less worthy than that of which is accepted?

Because it claims that Enoch lived to 365 years old?...can't be, because that is also referenced in canonical work. To me, it seems like there was an agenda by Jews and Christians to diminish his importance in faith because it would otherwise confuse traditional Jewish beliefs and also possibly lessen the importance of Jesus (depending on what writings of Enoch are of subject).

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

But what Im saying is that they were still moreso books of faith than simply historical. Understood that Gospels were outside of canon essentially until the clear divide but that doesn't make them any less religious or any more historical. I believe that the intent of the writings of most apocrypha aren't very far off from what is canonical. Some books have gone in and out of canon and it is hard to wade through it (looking at the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate and much more).

They primarily wrote the Gospels in order to disseminate the information. All literature at the time presupposed the existence and interaction of 'deities', so, to label it 'religious' as opposed to 'historical' because of it is to render the majority of ancient literature as 'books of faith'.​

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

I have no idea what you mean by 'supernatural powers'.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Canonical implies organization and order. The gospels are only a portion of the overall accounting of that time.​

The 4 Gospels were the ONLY Gospels in-circulation immediately following Jesus' life and ministry. The Catholic Church didn't exist until the 2nd Century CE.
​

Resurrection is not unique at all. Not even in the NT much less when talking about other religions . It doesn't make it true whether it is unique or not. It has no basis in fact or that no historical evidence it occurred exists.

Jesus' resurrection is unique. There are no precedents in any Ancient Near Eastern literature for it to be based on.
​

Mohammed and Joseph Smith are very relevant.

No, they aren't. Joseph Smith wasn't around until 1800 years after Jesus and Mohammed wasn't around until 500 years after.
​

Yes, a man most likely existed. He was baptized and died. That's where all the evidence ends. The premise of the thread is talking about the resurrection. There is absolutely no evidence of that.

Sure, there's evidence. The Gospels.

One in the same. He wasn't the son of God. He wasn't a magician. He didn't die and resurrect (the premise of this thread). There is no proof or evidence of any claim outside that a man was born, baptized and died. Everything else is a retelling of a myth or work of fiction in order to push a narrative about a religion.

He was described as the 'Son of God', he was a 'miracle worker', he was executed, died, and appeared to various people after his death. The evidence is contained in the Gospels. There is no 'retelling of a myth' since there is no precedent in any Ancient Near Eastern literature.​

Yes. I'm proud to be born in an age where reason and logic should override such nonsense.

We live in an age where people believe that the planes that hit the WTC were holograms, the pyramids were built by aliens, the world is 6,000 years old, and there's a secret society controlling the world. LOL at thinking because we're 2,000 years removed from Biblical times that we're somehow immune to 'nonsense'. If anything, we have more ways to justify those beliefs.
​

A lot of things attributed to the Biblical Jesus that have no scientific, medical or physiological merit.

Which is why we're discussing only those things that do: He lived, was executed, appeared to his followers sometime later.​

He died and came back to life after 3 days through the will of God. There is no evidence of this. This is taken on faith only.

The evidence is that the tomb was empty and he appeared to his followers after he was dead. This is not taken on 'faith' only, but eyewitness testimony and reason. It would have been extremely easy for Jewish or Roman officials to squash this 'fairy tale' by just showing the body to his followers.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Another point that I feel I should bring up is that of Enoch. In both OT and NT it is insinuated that he never "died", ascended to heaven and became an angel (Metatron). Mentions of him spanned from many years before Jesus and also in writings in the 1st century..yet a lot of this is seen as non-canonical while the writings on Jesus are. Text of Enoch exists to this day in ancient Aramaic..what makes it less worthy than that of which is accepted?

Enoch is canonical in the Ethiopian and other Oriental Orthodox Churches.​

 

[Type Username Here]

The 4 Gospels were the ONLY Gospels in-circulation immediately following Jesus' life and ministry. The Catholic Church didn't exist until the 2nd Century CE.
​

Jesus' resurrection is unique. There are no precedents in any Ancient Near Eastern literature for it to be based on.
​

No, they aren't. Joseph Smith wasn't around until 1800 years after Jesus and Mohammed wasn't around until 500 years after.
​

Sure, there's evidence. The Gospels.
​

​

He was described as the 'Son of God', he was a 'miracle worker', he was executed, died, and appeared to various people after his death. The evidence is contained in the Gospels. There is no 'retelling of a myth' since there is no precedent in any Ancient Near Eastern literature.​

We live in an age where people believe that the planes that hit the WTC were holograms, the pyramids were built by aliens, the world is 6,000 years old, and there's a secret society controlling the world. LOL at thinking because we're 2,000 years removed from Biblical times that we're somehow immune to 'nonsense'. If anything, we have more ways to justify those beliefs.
​

​

Which is why we're discussing only those things that do: He lived, was executed, appeared to his followers sometime later.​

The evidence is that the tomb was empty and he appeared to his followers after he was dead. This is not taken on 'faith' only, but eyewitness testimony and reason. It would have been extremely easy for Jewish or Roman officials to squash this 'fairy tale' by just showing the body to his followers.
​

The Gospels are not historical proof of such events. They are there to push a religion. They are biased in doing that. I have already demonstrated the fallacy of your logic as it relates to Islam and Mormonism. I can do so with Norse Mythology if you wish. The fact that you provide non-Biblical proof for certain events means that you understand the need to verify things.

There is only (weak) evidence that Yeshua existed as a human being. Weaker evidence exists he was baptized and was sentenced to die. That's about it.

Where is the non-Biblical evidence and proof of supernatural powers and his resurrection? Quoting Gospels and people referencing the Gospels is no proof. Do you have any or will you spend the next countless pages masquerading your faith as scholarly work?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Enoch is canonical in the Ethiopian and other Oriental Orthodox Churches.​

Right, and Eritrean, etc. I just seem to believe that it is not canonical elsewhere due to agenda and biases, especially if Enoch is legitimized in other OT/NT writings.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The Gospels are not historical proof of such events.

Proof =/= evidence. The Gospels are evidence of the events.​

They are there to push a religion. They are biased in doing that.

Anything written about someone or something is biased. Read any biography of George Bush.​

There is only (weak) evidence that Yeshua existed as a human being. Weaker evidence exists he was baptized and was sentenced to die. That's about it.

There is just as much document evidence for Jesus' existence as Caeser Augustus' and Nero's.​

Where is the non-Biblical evidence and proof of supernatural powers and his resurrection? Quoting Gospels and people referencing the Gospels is no proof. Do you have any or will you spend the next countless pages masquerading your faith as scholarly work?

Your reasoning is irrational and colored by bias. If Jesus didn't exist, there would be nothing written about him. I'm not just quoting Gospels and people referencing the Gospels. I'm accessing critical data used by skeptics and atheists who also use the texts of the Bible and outside of it. As I stated before, you're ignorant of the subject matter you're criticizing and it shows by your repeated attempts at incomplete comparisons. You're free to spend the next countless pages proving that you don't know what you're talking about and making inane, fallacious arguments. Reading the available literature would cure that.
​

 

[Type Username Here]

Everyone notice that he keeps pivoting the conversation about the existence of Jesus, something I said I personally think is true. A man did exist. Just like Joseph Smith did exist. And Mohammed. And Various cult leaders. I'm not debating his existence, just all the supernatural and spiritual aspects that can only be truly believed with faith and has no evidence which is legitimate. I'm still waiting for it to be presented by anyone.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Right, and Eritrean, etc. I just seem to believe that it is not canonical elsewhere due to agenda and biases, especially if Enoch is legitimized in other OT/NT writings.

It wasn't considered 'canon' in the West due to false doctrines: fallen angels can't talk to 'God', the Garden of Eden still existed after the Flood, 'restoration' during 'tribulation', a bunch of angels that appear nowhere else, Enoch coming back to earth after being taken to 'Heaven', etc.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Everyone notice that he keeps pivoting the conversation about the existence of Jesus, something I said I personally think is true.

That's because I answered your criticism earlier in post 118, you keep asking the same questions as if you didn't see it and implying that there is some figure other than Jesus that should be considered.

Everyone notice that those who ask for evidence from others never actually look for it or back up their arguments with any?​

 

[Type Username Here]

That's because I answered your criticism earlier in post 118, you keep asking the same questions as if you didn't see it.​

You know that post does more harm to your argument, don't you? Well get to that at a later post. Can't believe you would miss such a blatant flaw.

Anyway, He's referencing the Gospels. I'm very sure that the NT Gospels seeks to establish such an event as a fact. It's critical to the plot of the story. You won't get an argument from me on that.

Where is the non-gospel evidence though? To make it even more clear, I don't mean give me a scholar who basis his assumption on the Gospels. Evidence of the resurrection of Christ?