RELIGION POLL #1: Resurrection

Author: MisterChris
Jesus
Christianity
Religion
Poll
Resurrection

Posts

Total: 140
#61
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes, actually. Some people would be willing to die in order to galvanize their communities. Also, they believed in an eternal afterlife.

It seems easy for you to sit here and make such a claim that someone else would be willing to die over a tall tale! I think it is a bit short sighted to believe that, there's many things to consider besides they wanted some attention for whatever fill in the blank reasons. An eternal afterlife does not make getting murdered feel better, I don't care what anyone says. And don't give me the lame example of some Muslim loser who blows himself up (along with other innocent people) in the name of his religion, these guys didn't get the luxury of dying instantaneously, rather at the hands of another authority.

That's one way to look at it, not even to mention lying opposes the very message they wished to spread, or what their Master was teaching. Their Master had already shook up the world, resurfaced the face of religion singlehandedly, made a huge impact on the very people he interacted with, and now all the sudden they betray that reputation and integrity with a fib? Adding stories that weren't true was not necessary and just doesn't fit.
And I'm not even saying a resurrection happened, I'm just saying that what they said fits with what they believed. If you follow the Gospels and the personality types that made up the apostles I'm not seeing people that were liars or people that needed to lie to gain some unknown reason over a fakery, Jesus had to convince the men to follow Him the way they did and that happened without Jesus making up stories so it seems His influence was sufficient as well a powerful. Even the apostle Judas who betrayed Jesus killed himself for what he did, so even the worst of the group was enthralled with the integrity and influence of Jesus. That shows me how serious they took the whole experience. So the whole lying assumption in my opinion just isn't convincing, I think there could be a better argument if one exists. They obviously believed what they were saying. 

#62
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Spirituality is gained through a physiological response to a certain stimulus....That is to say, that you create spirituality inside your own head because you wish to create spirituality inside your own head.

Unfortunately you have no way to prove that lol, ironic ain't it?
I've given you the opportunity to understand the objective nature of spirituality, your conditioned mind won't allow you to consider it. However it doesn't really matter other than you've stunted your own progression, as you slip from this world and are present in the next you'll have the ability to observe it first hand so either way you learn now or later. 
#63
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@MisterChris
verification that Jesus is the Messiah.

You know the term Messiah just means "expected king and deliverer" "a leader or savior". Even if a supposed resurrection never occurred Jesus would still be a Messiah, a resurrection doesn't make or break that reality. A savior is a higher spiritual being that descends from the higher worlds of creation down to the lower worlds to reach mankind, redeem mans wicked ways and show man better ways and higher ways of living. Often times the conscious state of souls battle with carnality and simple ways of thinking in the lower realms and they trap themselves in a lower state of consciousness and it takes a spiritual "savior" to come and break up that pattern of conscious awareness.
They willingly do this as they are beings of much higher qualities to subject themselves to the torments of a carnal world when they have already progressed much further than that. Often they are killed and persecuted but they are regarded as saviors of mankind, some like Jesus actually rule over Kingdoms. They exist in the higher more elevated realms of creation thought of as heavens, which they are heavens or paradises.

You don't need to verify a resurrection to come to the conclusion Jesus is a Messiah, Jesus is a redeemer with or without that.
What they come to offer isn't necessarily miracles or outrageous events, rather it is the truth and quality of their teachings that are the power they convey and it is the food for the souls trapped in these worlds. These elevated ways of thinking and teachings are used to break up patterns of thinking and conditioned minds, empowering weakened emotions. They are way-showers, Jesus is indeed a Messiah but it's not because there's a claim he rose from the grave, that really has little to do with it. The power is in the way he interacted with life, the example He left and the teachings that are recorded. The power for each soul is whether or not they apply such elevated teachings and ways of thinking, so believing he rose from the grave is a nice thought but it has nothing to do with your own salvation (redeemed states of consciousness). If Jesus can elevate your ways of living and thinking then that elevates your future experiences and observations.

To reach access to higher places of existence you must elevate the qualities of your core being, maximize them and know how to control your vessel. In other words a soul trapped in lower states of consciousness cannot exist in elevated places of creation, they are not compatible and for good reason. So when you leave this world the first thing you will notice is that many of the beings you will encounter are of much higher quality, their motives, intentions and actions correlate with where they exist.
Jesus is an incarnation (God in the flesh) but all souls come from the very heart of the Creator, He is just a much higher being who rules an advanced Kingdom in the created worlds. But if you pay close attention to what He teaches you'll see the hidden truth that not only is He one with the Father, but potentially so are you....
John 17
"that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."

The core of all souls including Jesus are one and the same as where they all originate. What distinguishes you from that now is your current embodiment, your thought processes, your perceptions, your emotional states, your motives and intentions but the very core and soul of you came out of the very core of God and can be nothing else. Jesus is a good path to utilize to break the molds and conditioning of lower world consciousness. It brings you back to Divine qualities. Right now, in a world like the one we are in there are endless contrasting and opposing states of consciousness. The higher you get in creation the more those states of consciousness harmonize and exist in unity (oneness). 

This may come across as a bit unorthodox (lol) but I can expand on any of it, if it resonates with you as it should because your true origins are exactly that. 

#64
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@MisterChris
In a nutshell, what you cannot verify (or apply) is not required for you to accept or believe. You can believe anything you want of course, but the only thing required of you personally is that which is applicable to yourself. I know it may come across as if I'm opposing a resurrection but I'm not really (I don't oppose one, I just can't verify one), I'm only pointing out what is imperative. The deeper qualities of the Gospels are that which show you how to progress and improve your observations and experiences. 
#65
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Unfortunately you have no way to prove that lol, ironic ain't it.
No you don't do you lol, ironic ain't it.
#66
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
A good argument for Darwinian evolution...So what.

Certainly no argument for a Christian styled god.
#67
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And what if creation continues through today using natural selection as a means of propagating species? What, you think God worked for six days and retired? That's nonsense, and much of Christianity revels in it. I don't.
Topic's author
#68
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
The Platform is what Outplayz and I refer to as the original Source. Some call that Source God, but It is basically the Source out of which everything has their existence, out of which all things originate. 
Never heard of this before, interesting stuff.
Topic's author
#69
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thanks again for the detailed response!

I'd like to share some verses to show what I mean. 


Actually to be clear, it was His death not resurrection that paved a bridge. But again, I'm not saying there was no resurrection. 
This is true, but only if he is the Messiah, and I doubt he can be verified to be the Messiah apart from the Resurrection. So in a way his death and Resurrection are intrinsically linked to the point I doubt one would mean much without the other. 

Anyway, the rest of your response seems to be a fundamental difference between how we interpret the Bible. I must admit I am not as familiar with the Bible as you are, I just have about a decades worth of protestant teachings shoved in my brain. My protestant lens tells me that if you believe in the Resurrection first, the works will come. 

It is discussions like these that make me wonder how God qualifies his followers. There are so many diverse views within the Christian label that sometimes it appears that two people are worshipping two different religions altogether. 
Topic's author
#70
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@EtrnlVw
Even if a supposed resurrection never occurred Jesus would still be a Messiah, a resurrection doesn't make or break that reality. 
My line of thought is that without the Resurrection, or similar miracles, there is no objective reason to think Jesus above Muhammad or John Brown. Without the Resurrection, I'd simply consider him another moral teacher worth some time for study, but definitely not my life. 
#71
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry...I honestly didn't understand that previous post (#67)....Maybe it was hastily put together.
#72
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I'd say most Christians believe God created earth and heaven over six days - and some take that literally, but I don't - rested the seventh day, ergo, the Sabbath, and then retired, virtually literally. I believe God continues the work of creation today, both here and on other worlds. I think God creates continually by way of evolution, even to the point of beginning other worlds with their versions of Adam and Eve and Satan and Christ. Living eternally would otherwise be a boring prospect, and I don't think that's what He's about.
To Christopher's point, I believe our lives continue through death and resurrection, and continued advancement until we, too, have the potential of becoming like Him, and repeating the cycle of creation ourselves. What else would our ultimate purpose be? Don't boys and girls grow up to be like their fathers and mothers. Yeah, I have a Mother in Heaven. We're a family, literally, of billions of kids.
#73
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Yep. I can actually run with a lot of that, though minus some of the human embellishments and expectations of continued existence in some sort of human form.

I see GOD as the ultimate  accumulation of intelligence, and we are certainly a part of that process....GOD the ultimate knowledge to recreate and perpetuate the universal sequence.

Though I doubt that the ongoing accumulation of knowledge will always be human in origin.... We have had thousands of years to accumulate our intelligence, whereas alternative intelligence gatherers have only had a few decades.....Nonetheless, you could say that in this respect we are already a  part of GOD.
#74
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Dr. Franklin's examples are, at best, second-hand,  [Clement born in Rome, 35 CE, and Justin Martyr born in Flavia in 100 CE. So, my own testimony by the Holy Spirit of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is just as valid. I trust the first-hand accounts of M,M,L&J more than either Clement or Justin. I trust the witness of the remainder of the 9 apostles [one dying by his own hand before the crucifixion. I trust Paul. I trust Mary. I trust the two on the road to Emmaus.
For the most part, I believe Dr. Franklin is speaking of the gospel and epistle writers. I believe the evidence is stronger for his case than that of our sources today. Of the gospel writers, it is reasonable to believe that two were disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. That would be first-hand witnesses. It is reasonable to believe the other two were disciples of the Apostles Peter and Paul, thus possibly second-hand witnesses since Luke is taking it upon himself to investigate from these first-hand sources/witnesses:  

[ Introduction ] Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus

After that, you have others who were first-hand witnesses and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ such as James, John, Paul, and Peter.

After this, you have all the early church fathers who support the resurrection as at the heart of the Christian message.

You also have the OT or Jewish Scriptures that point to the time of the Messiah as coming to these OT people. These OT people are only in covenant relationship until AD 70. Thus, the Messiah must come before that junction in time to fulfill what is written. Some of these Jewish Scriptures speak of the resurrection, such as Daniel 9, 12, Psalms 22, and Isaiah 54.

#75
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
When did Dr Franklin ever say so much?.....They are usually a one syllable person.

And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.


Resurrection in order of probability, most likely first:

1. Mythological fantasy.

2. An alien beamed up into a spacecraft.

3. A god's son ascending to heaven on a cloud.
#76
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
When did Dr Franklin ever say so much?.....They are usually a one syllable person.

And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.
Do you expect me to believe this fanciful mumbo-jumbo? What early writings do you have to confirm your idle speculation? Out of the over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 partial manuscripts, we have a consistent record. The disciples/apostles mostly went to their deaths proclaiming what...a lie? Would you willingly die for a lie, to deceive millions and billions with a false testimony while at the same time preaching something that is noble and good? Is it good to place others before you? Is that noble? Is it good to feed the poor, look after orphans and widows? Is it good to love instead of hate and seek the best interest of your neighbour? 

How would you make up a fictitious being and in every  NT canonized writing write about an existing OT system of worship with the warning of quick, soon, sudden judgment? (i.e., it hasn't yet happened) That system of worship was not replaced with the New Covenant until AD 70. Until that point in time, that generation, the two covenants lived side-by-side.

The apostle Paul summed up our belief like this:

1 Corinthians 15:1-22 (NASB)
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
15 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
The Order of Resurrection
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Paul died in 64-68 AD during the reign of Nero. That would mean that all those epistles attributed to him were written before that time frame. Not one of those epistles speaks of an already destroyed temple and city yet all speak of soon-coming judgment and the end of the age (of temple and Old Testament economy). 

If you want to make outrageous statements then back them up with proof that we may discuss this further. Why do you guys almost always make these unhistoric assertions or cut and paste from some atheist website that garbles the facts available?



Resurrection in order of probability, most likely first:

1. Mythological fantasy.

2. An alien beamed up into a spacecraft.

3. A god's son ascending to heaven on a cloud.

4. THE God's only Son ascending to heaven.

The cloud imagery is metaphorical and if you compare OT Scripture to cloud imagery you find that when spoken of the Father or God in the OT it always was figurative and symbolic of God bringing judgment upon a nation. In the same manner, Jesus was going to bring judgment on Israel during His Second Coming, which happened in AD 70.

Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

1. The Son of Man [Jesus] comes in the same manner, the same glory as of the Father (like Father, like Son). Thus, a diligent student of the word will find out how the Father came in judgment in the OT. Clouds speak of judgment and reward. And every time God came in judgment in the OT against a nation He used another nation of people to judge, as Jesus did by using the Roman armies in AD 70. Josephus records the destruction of Jerusalem and it is like reading the curses of Deuteronomy 28.
2. Repaying every man according to his deeds speaks of judgment. 
3. Jesus said truly that some standing amongst Him will not die before His coming. He told them (pay attention to the audience of address) in numerous places that He was coming again to THAT adulterous and wicked generation. He told them to watch for the coming of the age in the Olivet Discourse dialogue (i.e., Matthew 23-24; Mark 13; Luke 21; Revelation 1-22).
4. The kingdom came in AD 70. Just like the OT, God gave Israel 40 years (one generation) to repent and enter the promised land. (see Hebrews 3-4)

Don't give the Scriptures a superficial reading and think you know it. If you want to understand God's word abide with His required means. Any point above you may want to argue go ahead. Try and pick apart the Scriptures and see how foolish your argument becomes. They are a united revelation from Genesis to Revelation. Every OT book contains imagery and types and shadows of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
#77
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@MisterChris
I'd agree that accounts 100 years after his supposed death are too young to be reliable. Is there a particular reason you regard the writings of the apostles as historical? 
That is a dangerous presupposition. What are the reasons you do not? Is it 17th-19th century higher criticism? What do the earliest historical manuscripts tell us regarding the canonized writings? 

One particular reason would be the impact of His teachings on the world. Another is the number of early copies of the gospels and epistles as compared to any other writing from antiquity. Still, another would be the internal consistency of the 66 writing we call the Bible. Yet another would be prophecy. Another would be the necessity of God revealing Himself to humanity for us to know Him. You see, atheism can't make sense of origins. Morality does not make sense without a fixed, ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging reference point. Other than that all you have is moral relativism. How does that make anything good/right? Subject to who? Who is your final authority? Another reason is that the Judeo-Christian system of belief makes sense and has explanatory power. Ultimately, either God or chance happenstance. Your choice, but I can pull apart a non-biblical belief system by examining its explanation of origins - origins of the universe, life, morals, knowledge, etc. I can also show the consistency of the biblical God and that system of belief.

#78
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@oromagi
RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

no first hand accounts of the phenomenon
This is simply not the most reasonable explanation based on early evidence. There are accounts. Those accounts give evidence they were all written before AD 70. At least eight of the NT writers were disciples that verified they witnessed the resurrection, going into all the known world preaching that message. Paul says all the disciples (excluding Judas) were witnesses of the resurrection along with 500 more. 

paucity of reliable, testable accounts
They are the most testable of all documents from antiquity because of the number of copies and partial manuscripts and the closeness to the time of the event. I believe I can give more reasonable evidence than you that every NT writing was written before AD 70.  There are also the early church fathers who confirm who wrote the accounts. They attribute the Gospels to the four authors and being closer to the times of the resurrection the churches that the original manuscripts were written to would know from whom they had received them. They would protect and cherish the writings of these apostles and copy them to send to other churches as encouragement. That is only logical to believe.

Again, I question the truthfulness of your statement as the most plausible explanation.  

the phenomenon is not repeatable in spite of billions of observations of human death
You are looking for a physical resurrection. I believe it is a spiritual resurrection. Did Adam die the day he ate of the fruit? No, he died spiritually to God that day, however. That is why Jesus taught the reader that we must be born again (regenerated spiritually) to either see or enter the kingdom. Besides that, Jesus taught His kingdom was not of this world/realm. This resurrection is repeated every day. Believing the One God sent is eternal life, life without end. Those who believe (truly trust, place their faith in) have (present tense) eternal life. 

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

[ The Promise Is Eternal Life ] This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

[ This Is Written That You May Know ] These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

In short, lack of evidence
In short, plenty of historical evidence that you choose to disregard. You choose to deny it.
#79
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Interesting points. But let me ask you this:
Does the fact that the men of the gospels were actively trying to spread the faith have any impact on the credibility of their testimonies?

Here is an answer for you, besides the repeated claim of them all to be speaking the truth:

Luke 1:1-4 (NASB)
Introduction
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Manuscripts.
That's another one of those words that attempts to give credibility to the tale....Because something is a "manuscript" it's undoubtedly true then.

It's the credibility of the data that is in question, rather than the medium it is written upon or the number of times it has been rewritten. 
#81
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Manuscripts.
That's another one of those words that attempts to give credibility to the tale....Because something is a "manuscript" it's undoubtedly true then.
Scripture is an internal witness and evidence that is history and backed by history. The external evidence is the information we get from sources outside these manuscripts. 

It's the credibility of the data that is in question, rather than the medium it is written upon or the number of times it has been rewritten. 
You have convinced yourself of that. What do consider discredited? Almost any piece of contrary evidence has a logical explanation. 
#82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.
Do you expect me to believe this fanciful mumbo-jumbo? What early writings do you have to confirm your idle speculation? Out of the over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 partial manuscripts, we have a consistent record.
Exactly PGA. When ever an atheist says scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, I'm astounded at their lack of knowledge.

If scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, the thousands of manuscripts we've found from over several ancient time periods could not be as consistent as it is. Many authors were dead long before others scripted their copies, many were from different countries, cultures, and of different languages.

What do you say to someone who displays a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the topic on which he's pontificating?
#83
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
@PGA2.0
And Mr Ethan has first hand evidence....Wow....Perhaps his input into the time traveller thread would be enlightening.


As Mr Ethan's time traveller pontifications  are breath-taking.


Not that one would expect republished transcriptions to not display some level of consistency....It would be an object defeating exercise otherwise....wouldn't it?
#84
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
And scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales....The word "scripture" though latterly attributed a sort of spiritual quality, nonetheless simply means writings.
Do you expect me to believe this fanciful mumbo-jumbo? What early writings do you have to confirm your idle speculation? Out of the over 5000 manuscripts and 24000 partial manuscripts, we have a consistent record.
Exactly PGA. When ever an atheist says scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, I'm astounded at their lack of knowledge.

If scripture writers probably just recorded, embellish and recounted tales, the thousands of manuscripts we've found from over several ancient time periods could not be as consistent as it is. Many authors were dead long before others scripted their copies, many were from different countries, cultures, and of different languages.

What do you say to someone who displays a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the topic on which he's pontificating?

I say, read up on the early church fathers and examine the bias of the 17th-19th century German higher critics which was influenced by the Enlightenment period where humanity, not God, became the measure of all things. Darwinian evolution bias is also a fascinating study in the influence of modern scientific thinking on origins. (^8

"The higher critical methods described below grew out of a German school of Biblical studies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Important names in the development of higher criticism include Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) and David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874); the origins of higher criticism are deeply intertwined with rationalism and naturalism. The concepts and methods behind higher criticism were carried from Germany across Europe, finding homes in the United Kingdom and France, among liberal Anglicans and Catholics respectively. In later times, higher critical methods were deployed in conjunction with the contemporary philosophical trends to de-historicize Scripture."

"In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Cap. vii-viii), 1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler.
Spinoza was really the fountain-head of the movement, and his line was taken in England by the British philosopher Hobbes."

""Higher criticism" originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars of the Tübingen School. After the groundbreaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation, which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), analyzed in the mid-19th century the historical records of the Middle East from biblical times, in search of independent confirmation of events in the Bible. The latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke (1632–1704), David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) and the French rationalists."

If you want to understand a movement or a particular line of thinking find out who influences the movement and what their beliefs encompass.
The Tübingen School set the table for a modern liberal interpretation of Scripture, IMO. 

Here is another source for you as a Christian might be interested in to better understand the problems and dangers we encounter in higher criticism today. It examines the group-think, application, and influence of a particular worldview bias used in examining Scripture, as put forth from a Christian writer:
#85
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
And Mr Ethan has first hand evidence....Wow....Perhaps his input into the time traveller thread would be enlightening.
Not first-hand evidence but first-hand testimony. That testimony is from 1st-century believers who encountered the Jewish Messiah, or the influence from these eyewitness believers on their disciples. They wrote an account of His life as it applies to salvation, humanity's problem, and through faith a restored relationship with God to all who believe. 

We, today, do not have the original manuscripts these 1st-century believers wrote but when these manuscripts were written to a particular church they were copied and sent to other churches, and so on. We have so many copies, from so many regions, from so many periods of history (over 5000 full and 24000 part manuscripts) that we can compare one with another to confirm what the originals said. And the earliest copies of antiquity surpass any other ancient documents of the time in number and earliness. 

As Mr Ethan's time traveller pontifications  are breath-taking.


Not that one would expect republished transcriptions to not display some level of consistency....It would be an object defeating exercise otherwise....wouldn't it?
And the documents from history do contain that consistency and confirm the accuracy of what we read today. We have translations in almost every language currently spoken, and those translations rely on the original Greek language copies. So they are not translated from Italian to German and then from German to English. No, they are translated from Greek to Latin, from Greek to German, from Greek to English.  
#86
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
See PGA? The fact that Zed thinks I must have travelled time to know about the thousands of copies found all over the world from different times shows he hasn't a clue about his chosen subject. Thanks for the post, you are always a wealth of useful information.

It is clear to me now why God revealed the bible the way He did, the slow revelation, the various newer found copies validating the older. The gradual building of verification from multiple translations, many times, and many cultures. The bible is validated much better that way than if He had just had us get it at once from the ancients.

You and I know that the resurrection is a historical fact. And though the bible's validation was enough for me, I now have personal experience of my risen Lord.

Up from the grave He arose!
With a mighty triumph over His foes!
He arose to victory from the dark domain,
And He lives forever with His saints to reign.
#87
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
See PGA? The fact that Zed thinks I must have travelled time to know about the thousands of copies found all over the world from different times shows he hasn't a clue about his chosen subject. Thanks for the post, you are always a wealth of useful information.
I don't understand anyone who says there is no evidence. The skeptic just doesn't like where the evidence leads (Deny, deny, deny).

It is clear to me now why God revealed the bible the way He did, the slow revelation, the various newer found copies validating the older. The gradual building of verification from multiple translations, many times, and many cultures. The bible is validated much better that way than if He had just had us get it at once from the ancients.
Considering the odds against the faith, the early persecutions, we still have the best record from antiquity. Ron Rhodes article sums it up nicely: 

"The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity...
Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:
  • No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.
  • The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
  • The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
  • The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.
  • From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

I still believe most scholars make errors in the dating process, as for instance below of Revelation. I believe there is good internal evidence from Revelation coupled with history to show that all or most prophecy in the book applies to before AD 70. Since I favour full Preterism I argue for all. For instance, most scholars believe:

"In about A.D. 185, Irenaus wrote that the book of revelation was composed, “almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”10 Domitian reigned from A.D. 81-96, which is one of the reasons many scholars believe the book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John sometime in the 90’s.  Thus, P98 was likely copied within about 100 years of the original autograph."

There is no evidence of this late date around the time of Domitian from Revelation itself once you understand the imagery. The evidence from Revelation puts the writing in the reign of Nero, and his prosecution, about AD 64-68. 

and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.

The one that is would be Nero. Also, just a brief comment on other evidence that speaks of an early dating would be the references to "Babylon the Great" has fallen, meaning Jerusalem, the seven churches John is writing to about the soon coming, the judgment referring to Israel with references to 144,000 from the 12 tribes and,

Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 

In the OT, that verse refers to Israel, not some nation today. Those who had Jesus pierced were the Jews. They handed Him over to Pilate to be killed. Most of the NT points to a soon-coming judgment on OT Israel. I could provide hundreds of verses to confirm that. Pay attention to the primary audience of the address. We are a secondary audience. 


You and I know that the resurrection is a historical fact. And though the bible's validation was enough for me, I now have personal experience of my risen Lord.

Up from the grave He arose!
With a mighty triumph over His foes!
He arose to victory from the dark domain,
And He lives forever with His saints to reign.
Frank Morison who wrote a little book about the resurrection that breaks down the objections as not reasonable.

The immediate thoughts of a skeptic are to strip God of His supernatural abilities and try to understand everything from a naturalistic perspective. Thus, they cannot take Him at His word.
 
That sounds amazing. I have experienced God opening up Scripture to my understanding. I had a friend who was a "Word of Faith" believer if you know what that means (not biblically sound, IMO). He told me that I could lose my salvation, that I could take myself out of the hands of God. I prayed for a long time about this, perhaps over the course of a year or so, I'm not sure how long. Then one day, being very frustrated, I began to read the NT from cover to cover and everywhere God's word showed me who was doing the saving. He will save His people. Salvation is a gift from Him, not by our works, but by His.

God confirms His word to those who believe! Paul told Timothy to study to make himself approved by God. We know we know while the skeptic scoffs. (^8 


#88
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@MisterChris
RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

Feel free to discuss below. I have been doing a lot of research into the matter recently. 

 So you know that it may well have all been a realistic staged affair that Jesus tried to back out of?

“Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”Luke 22:42

#89
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
Is it just me or are most agreeing that my posts and points on the resurrection are sound on this thread? It seems a funny way to end this discussion by ignoring my posts which have been granted the last word on the subject. (Posts 84, 85, 87) I was looking forward to a heated discussion. Or is everyone just taking a break?
#90
wlws9
wlws9's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
0
wlws9's avatar
wlws9
0
0
0
-->
@PGA2.0
........by ignoring my posts which have been granted the last word on the subject. (Posts 84, 85, 87) I was looking forward to a heated discussion. Or is everyone just taking a break?
Allow me then to make the last word on the subject.

There is and never was any such thing as the resurrection of any sort any anyone who earnestly believes such an absurd fairy tale is clearly deluded.

Similarly, anyone who preaches such nonsense is a dishonest liar.