Guest T-K Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I accidentally posted this in the Arena and couldnt delete it my apology to the moderators please delete the arena post I have been reading up on the resection as its about the last part of the bible that I have not studied enough to understand why it bullshit. After watching Lee Strobel's DVD the case for Christ I found he gave some very misleading info on the authenticity and wording of documents especially the Talmud. Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave. Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice. They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. Actually on some of the topics Im not educated about they made me wonder and I didnt have answers for them. It felt like I was missing some great argument they had and I wondered why Lee Strobel would be converted by this weak evidence I understood and maybe I am missing something. If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I accidentally posted this in the Arena and couldnt delete it my apology to the moderators please delete the arena post I have been reading up on the resection as its about the last part of the bible that I have not studied enough to understand why it bullshit. After watching Lee Strobel's DVD the case for Christ I found he gave some very misleading info on the authenticity and wording of documents especially the Talmud. Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave. Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice. They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. Actually on some of the topics Im not educated about they made me wonder and I didnt have answers for them. It felt like I was missing some great argument they had and I wondered why Lee Strobel would be converted by this weak evidence I understood and maybe I am missing something. If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated. Wow, you spell resurrection a different way each time. You got it right the last time though Anyway, one needn't even read the bible to be able to dismiss the idea that the resurrection is rooted in reliable history. For one thing, it's such an extraordinary claim that it requires a great deal of proof to even consider it. No one has ever been dead 3 days and returned to tell about it. No one in recorded history has even been confirmed brain-dead for ANY amount of time. There needs to be some evidence gathered from that time, but, since there's no earthly remains.... There's also the matter of corroboration outside the bible. There is none. The Josephus writings, which aren't contemporary at any rate, are accepted by the majority of scholars as total forgery. As far as I know, all other non-biblical accounts are pro-christian, in that they just want to bolster the reputation of the faith, and non-contemporary. Furthermore, Jesus is not the only resurrected Savior. Dionysus, for example, died and was resurrected twice. Before Jesus! One of the major christian buildings, Saint Peter's Basilica, I believe, was build on top of the remains of a temple dedicated to Dionysus. To the text itself, well... For one thing, the gospels are pro christian propaganda, not to mention the fact that they contradict themselves on the finer points. Some of the details are just crazy-- Roman soldiers admitting that they fell asleep on duty? That's a capital offense! No sane soldier would ever admit to that. The prophesies, well, I can't give exact details, MWC probably can, but, I can say that the fact a lot of them are distortions of parts of the old testament. A few of them, such as the Nazerene prophesy, don't even exist in the OT. Given that the contents of the NT were decided by committee (a number of committees over hundreds of years actually), it's clear that there was never much uniformity in the beliefs of all people calling themselves christian. Read up on all the early christian groups that existed shortly after the time of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 By arguing this irrelevant minutia, you're falling into your opponents master plan. The fact is, it's all based on batshit ramblings of the mystical leaders of a bronze-age warrior clan. If you're gonna debate these fools, take a tip from their trickbag. Always be on the offensive, don't get bogged down in debating stuff you're not rehearsed in. Come in with a few tricks up your sleeve to put your opponent on the defensive, and keep them there mercilessly. As soon as you're on the defensive with a fundie, you've lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. Even from Scripture at the time of Paul (the earliest writer) we know there were at least 2 sects and maybe three: Paul's sect; Peter and James' sect (the judaisers); and a sect that practiced the baptism of John. Philip baptizing the Ethiopian is thought to be the beginning of the Coptic sect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. It is undeniable. I can't think of any ancient xian documents on the subject that deny it. Can you? That's how this logic works. I'm slowly working my way towards my own explaination (the one I've been promising for almost 2 years now...it's easier said than done as it turns out...but someday I will reveal the grand assertion). But I am confident I know what originally inspired the whole thing and it wasn't Dionysus (so does that mean it happened or not? ). Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice. Have you Justin Martyr? If not you should. There are others but his "brilliant" arguments are actually still used today (in other forms of course). If anyone has read this book and can explain to me why he is convinced by this evidence or can point me out to great counter articles to the Resurrection it would be greatly appreciated. See here for a review and a brief explanation of why the evidence seemed "weak" to you. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Here's what I think: Before the political and social movement morphed into a religion Jesus had been considered a long dead figure. Paul talks of Jesus as a spiritual being. In order to get your guru from being dead to a spiritual being, there had to be some kind of transformation from life to the spirit world. Incorporate a few elements from their culture's ideas of god and a few myths floating around and viola, resurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 *turns on his contradictometer* Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. MEEP MEEP MEEP MEEP MEEP! Found: apologist + logic. Contradiction level: maximum + 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdall Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If you're gonna debate these fools, take a tip from their trickbag. Always be on the offensive, Agreed, start by asking why their gospels (the only information we have on Jesus) disagree internally and externally with the other gospels and with recorded history....Heimdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhoof Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 My two cents? I'll tell you there never was a resurrection (if he even existed at all). The earliest known manuscripts of Mark stops at 16:8. There wasn't anything after that. End of story, close the book. he never appeared to Mary Magdalene, he never spoke to the apostles, he never showed them his wounds and he never ascended into heaven. That was all added sometime later. Now, I'm not gonna say that Paul did it, but if somebody held a gun to my head..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 ...or knocked you down on Damascus Road or hunted you down with swords... I wrote the following post for another forum. A critic looks at Lee Strobel's "evidence" for the Bible's reliability, which includes the Resurrection. This is a four-part YouTube series in response to Lee Strobel's Bible Reliability. examining the high quality of the Bible's reliability in Daniel examining the reliability in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection Jesus' failed prophecies, and the problem of the miracle claims as presented by Strobel sources on the errancy of the Bible Lee Strobel's Testimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff H Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Any way every christian apologist says the reserection is undeniable, obviously this is not true but I feel like Im missing some part of of their argument or logic. For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave. Then they mention the prophecy. Couldn't the NT authors have just penciled in the prophecy's? There actually not that impressive and the Jewish messiah was suppose to be a military and political leader not a blood sacrifice. You've got the right line of thought here. The only evidence we have for the resurrection (or for Jesus' existence, for that matter) are the gospel accounts. What if they just made it up? There was no stopping them. The interesting thing is even if you take the later accounts to be true, the disciples didn't start preaching the gospel until 50 days after the resurrection, at Pentecost. So even if people went to the tomb after that point, Jesus' body would have been decomposed enough that it would be unrecognizable. The disciples say, "Oh, well it's some other body!" and they've got themselves a religion. Then, in 70 CE, Jerusalem gets into a big fight with the Romans, and the Temple and a large part of the city gets destroyed. So after that point, nobody's going to be able to check whether the tomb is empty. But at any rate, as I said, there's no reason to even take the gospel accounts as accurate. Why should you? But at any rate, if you're looking for some more info, take a look at this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...troduction.html I found it helpful. Pay close attention to the argument for a "spiritual resurrection." It's an interesting alternate theory that tries to provide another explanation for the "minimal facts" that people like Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig like to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Even in the gospels there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrection - the party that went to the tomb were all women, the gospel authors are all male, therefore none of the gospel writers is an eyewitness. Even the second-hand accounts they report have the women arriving at the tomb to find the stone already rolled away and the tomb empty - even in the second hand gospel accounts nobody witnessed a resurrection, they just found an empty tomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Excellent point! Never thought of that. No wonder they hype up the "Empty Tomb" doctrine till I'm asking "What's the difference between a tomb and a sepulcher?" They have to distract attention from the fact that there were no witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 ... For instance when they say the disciples couldnt have stolen the body because of the Tomb stone soilders ect. How do we know that Jesus was put in a tomb with a huge stone and soldiers guarding it? Maybe he was thrown into a unmarked grave or unguarded marked grave. I have not read the book, but I may have seen portions of it. The story about soldiers guarding the tomb is only found in the Gospel of Matthew. This is the same Gospel that claims many dead people came to life when Jesus died and they later strolled into Jersusalem and were seen by many townsfolk. On what historical basis should these stories in Matthew be assumed reliable? The New Testament also declares that the risen Jesus only appeared to selected cult members. Jesus did not appear to the general public. Acts 10:40-41 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. That's rather convenient isn't it? The resurrected god-man, the alleged savior of the world, withholds evidence that would help prove to the common people that he was everything he claimed to be. He only appeared to selected cult members. I guess we'll just have to take their word for it. They also claim that early Christians all had a similar beliefs(not true) it took off to fast ect. The myths about Pfc. Jessica Lynch in the second Gulf War also took off fast. They turned out to be a pack of lies however. If all the early Christians had similar beliefs then the New Testament wouldn't be constantly complaining about false teachers roaming about, trying to pervert the Gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts