Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"If I had faked the Resurrection..."
#21
No one here was making the claim that anyone should accept Moshe as the prophet and servant of G-D, for I assume we all agree he was pretty awesome. If someone didn’t accept that, then ok, I’m not going to try to tell him otherwise. You and A. Bird and anyone else can believe what you want, but the burden of proof is on you when you try to convince others to believe as you do. That is why going to the Torah is so crucial, for therein we see what G-D actually says, not what someone simply believes.

The reason we got into the “historian” thing is because A. Bird said, “There is nothing we can add to what the historians have said, all you can do is insist on not believing their testimonies…All the historians give report of our Lord's resurrection and more!” I simply wanted to know which historians said such things in light of the fact that no one is recorded as being witnesses to the resurrection, and over two dozen individuals who wrote about that time and place said nothing about the Nazarene, let alone a resurrection.
#22
benyosef Wrote:I simply wanted to know which historians said such things in light of the fact that no one is recorded as being witnesses to the resurrection, and over two dozen individuals who wrote about that time and place said nothing about the Nazarene, let alone a resurrection.

Nonsense.

Josephus writes:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. He wrought surprising feats. He was the Christ. When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared.

Our Lord's resurrection occured once off, he did however, appear again and again after that great and mighty Day.

That doctor and historian Luke writes of the Apostle Paul to Theophilus:
The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”

Another writes:
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

And in our times it has been recoreded that our Lord and Saviour appeared to some muslims:
“It all started with them with a dream,” Doyle said. “They had a Jesus dream, and some of them had many Jesus dreams. They would seek out Christians after a while because the dreams would get so intense that they wanted an answer.”
“Nobody goes to bed a Muslim and wakes up a Christian,” Doyle said. “They have a couple of barriers between them and Jesus. They’ve been told that Christians worship three gods. They’re told that the Bible is corrupted. It’s just what they’ve been told, kind of a party line rhetoric.”

There are many, many more. Y'shua is alive today, meet Him for yourself.
#23
(10-03-2013, 09:04 PM)benyosef Wrote: No one here was making the claim that anyone should accept Moshe as the prophet and servant of G-D, for I assume we all agree he was pretty awesome. If someone didn’t accept that, then ok, I’m not going to try to tell him otherwise. You and A. Bird and anyone else can believe what you want, but the burden of proof is on you when you try to convince others to believe as you do. That is why going to the Torah is so crucial, for therein we see what G-D actually says, not what someone simply believes.

The reason we got into the “historian” thing is because A. Bird said, “There is nothing we can add to what the historians have said, all you can do is insist on not believing their testimonies…All the historians give report of our Lord's resurrection and more!” I simply wanted to know which historians said such things in light of the fact that no one is recorded as being witnesses to the resurrection, and over two dozen individuals who wrote about that time and place said nothing about the Nazarene, let alone a resurrection.

The conversations that Moses had with God, the deeds and miracles that God performed through Moses -- these are recorded only by the followers of Moses, and centuries after they happened.

One of the most-often cited sources for brief mentions of Moses is the Egyptian historian Manetho; but he wrote about Moses not a decade after Moses lived, not a century afterward, but a millennium after Moses lived. And yet Manetho's mentions of Moses (including that Moses was a leper who led a revolt by lepers) are considered significant.

We believe what Moses' followers wrote about him centuries after he lived.

It is, therefore, a double standard to accept what the Tenach says about Moses yet refuse to believe what the Brit Hadashah says about Jesus because its books were written by His followers, and beginning within a couple of decades after His resurrection.

In fact, anyone who has actually read the Brit Hadashah is surprised to see that Jesus' followers did not understand that He was going to be resurrected (e.g. Luke 24:25-27, 38, 41; John 20:24-27). They rejected the earliest reports of His resurrection, and did not believe until He showed them the crucifixion wounds on His body.

Since they weren't expecting Him to be resurrected, it took a lot of convincing for them to believe it had happened.

They were, therefore, as objective as if they had been secular historians.

We also have the testimony of one who actively HATED Jesus and His followers -- Saul, later known as Paul, who consented to the murder of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 7:58-8:3).

Saul "made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison."

Saul was still "breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1) right before Jesus appeared to him and showed him the error of his ways. Saul's transformation into Paul, the fearless proclaimer of the Gospel who suffered "many things" (Acts 9:16), including martyrdom, for his Lord's sake, is astonishing testimony -- not only in words, but also in selfless deeds.

The formerly cowardly disciples, whose encounters with the risen Jesus changed them forever, could have spread their message in distant cities such as Rome and Athens. Instead, they proclaimed it in the heart of the Jewish world, and challenged critics to prove that what they were saying was false .

"In 56 A.D., Paul wrote that more than 500 people had seen the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive (1 Cor. 15:6 ff.). It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus." -- John Warwick Montgomery

It must be said that no evidence will ever be enough for those who have hardened their hearts against Jesus.

"He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf wrote:

"All Christianity asks of men...is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try to judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals.

"Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to rigorous cross-examination.

'The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth."
#24
A. Bird Wrote:Nonsense. Josephus writes: About this time there lived Jesus…

Josephus doesn’t say he saw the risen leader of Christians. In fact, Josephus reports that he appeared only to those he loved—no one else (not the “500,” not the Sanhedrin, not Josephus). This looks at best to be hearsay.

Second, most agree that what Josephus says here is not entirely his words, but a later interpolation to the actual text of Josephus. The argument is over how much exactly is interpolated. Consider: If Josephus truly wrote this, and believed what he wrote, why did he cover his whole ministry in two sentences but devoted 40 chapters to Herod? Does Josephus even mention Herod’s massacre of babies in Bethlehem?

Did anyone who was a contemporary of the Nazarene write about him? You say yes, yet you cite only Josephus, who technically wasn’t a contemporary and doesn't really talk about the Nazarene outside of these two questionable sentences.
#25
MAlan, who told you that the Five Books of Moshe were recorded by others 100’s of years after his death? Why don't you believe they were written by Moshe himself?

I do not reject the Greek Testament solely because of when it was written; that is a side issue. It’s the overall context and content of the book and its disagreements with Tanach that I do not see it as a G-D-given document.

If the Nazarene’s followers didn’t know he was supposed to die and resurrect three days later, I would conclude that the concept of a dying, resurrecting Messiah is not a Jewish one at all, or that his disciples were quite ignorant of Torah. Either one’s a concern, particularly that last one because missionaries have told me countless times, “Hey, don’t you know the early followers of Jesus were Jews?” Yet Jews who have no knowledge of Torah cannot be models of how a Jew is to live his Jewish life.

Regarding the missing body and J.W. Montgomery’s comment: the empty tomb does not necessitate a resurrection. The guards were placed only after the entire night had passed, giving anybody time to swipe the body, and not necessarily the opponents of the Church. Thus, with an empty tomb and no idea where else the body could have gone, the disciples assumed he was risen and began to preach, honestly believing what they thought and challenging others to prove them wrong.

Unfortunately for them, those who deviate need to prove their claim. They, or Jesus, should have proven there was a resurrection rather than telling others to prove them wrong. They didn’t, and Jesus missed his opportunity (why didn’t he appear to anyone identifiable? Or the Sanhedrin, to whom he said the sign would be given?). So while you say, “It must be said that no evidence will ever be enough for those who have hardened their hearts against Jesus,” you are asking us to accept on faith alone something that is logically, naturally, and scientifically impossible, and without sufficient testimony, even according to what your texts say.

As Greenleaf suggests, I took an honest look at the resurrection accounts. Differing views are ok, but they still need to tell the same overall story. It seems like the gospels, instead of offering different bits of evidence, told four different stories altogether. For example:

Mt 28: the stone was in place when the two women arrived, but an angel descended, rolled it away, and told them that he is not there, but they should go tell the disciples that he will appear to them in Galilee.

Jn 20: Mary arrived and saw the stone was already rolled away. She told two disciples, who came and saw the linens, but no body. They left, and Mary peeked into the tomb and saw two angels. She turned around and saw the gardener, who says her name and she realizes it was Jesus. He tells her to tell the disciples that he will ascend to the Father, making no mention of Galilee.

Different angles, or different stories?
#26
(10-07-2013, 09:48 AM)benyosef Wrote:
A. Bird Wrote:Nonsense. Josephus writes: About this time there lived Jesus…

Josephus doesn’t say he saw the risen leader of Christians. In fact, Josephus reports that he appeared only to those he loved—no one else (not the “500,” not the Sanhedrin, not Josephus). This looks at best to be hearsay.

Second, most agree that what Josephus says here is not entirely his words, but a later interpolation to the actual text of Josephus. The argument is over how much exactly is interpolated. Consider: If Josephus truly wrote what this, and believed what he wrote, why did he cover his whole ministry in two sentences but devoted 40 chapters to Herod? Does Josephus even mention Herod’s massacre of babies in Bethlehem?

Did anyone who was a contemporary of the Nazarene write about him? You say there were, yet you cite only Josephus, who technically wasn’t a contemporary.

You are just guessing now. I don't have to repeat all the historians, it's all written down. If you think being a historian only means that one was contemporary with the time you are writing about, well that's just wrong. Josphus clearly states: "On the third day he appeared restored to life". Like I said:

A. Bird Wrote:There is nothing we can add to what the historians have said, all you can do is insist on not believing their testimonies.

Read some more:

Josephus

Complete Jewish History

Church Fathers

The Church History

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
#27
(10-07-2013, 09:48 AM)benyosef Wrote:
A. Bird Wrote:Nonsense. Josephus writes: About this time there lived Jesus…

Josephus doesn’t say he saw the risen leader of Christians. In fact, Josephus reports that he appeared only to those he loved—no one else (not the “500,” not the Sanhedrin, not Josephus). This looks at best to be hearsay.

Second, most agree that what Josephus says here is not entirely his words, but a later interpolation to the actual text of Josephus. The argument is over how much exactly is interpolated. Consider: If Josephus truly wrote this, and believed what he wrote, why did he cover his whole ministry in two sentences but devoted 40 chapters to Herod? Does Josephus even mention Herod’s massacre of babies in Bethlehem?

Did anyone who was a contemporary of the Nazarene write about him? You say yes, yet you cite only Josephus, who technically wasn’t a contemporary and doesn't really talk about the Nazarene outside of these two questionable sentences.
Interestingly enough, Josephus does make mention of Moses. So, if we accept Josephus as a verification of historical acccounts of J-sus, then we need to accept Moses as legitimate as well. An example reference is in Antiquities, Book 2, Chapter 10-16.

But, I think the crux of the matter is still a lack of an account where thousands, or millions of people seeing J-sus actual resurrection event. This is mentioned nowhere in the NT or in any other historical account.
#28
(10-08-2013, 11:05 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Interestingly enough, Josephus does make mention of Moses. So, if we accept Josephus as a verification of historical acccounts of J-sus, then we need to accept Moses as legitimate as well. An example reference is in Antiquities, Book 2, Chapter 10-16.

You are right. We accept both.

(10-08-2013, 11:05 AM)Nachshon Wrote: But, I think the crux of the matter is still a lack of an account where thousands, or millions of people seeing J-sus actual resurrection event. This is mentioned nowhere in the NT or in any other historical account.

Even if there was a historical account of 757 000 people seeing our Lords' resurrection take place before their eyes, with pictures taken in HD and a Live Blu-Ray DVD available online, I would still have said: "So what!" if it had no effect or meaning in my life today, if I didn't see it for myself.
And you? I think you would still not have believed it, with editing technologies available these days, no?

You don't have to see the sunrise to know that it rose.
#29
(10-08-2013, 01:09 PM)A. Bird Wrote:
(10-08-2013, 11:05 AM)Nachshon Wrote: But, I think the crux of the matter is still a lack of an account where thousands, or millions of people seeing J-sus actual resurrection event. This is mentioned nowhere in the NT or in any other historical account.
Even if there was a historical account of 757 000 people seeing our Lords' resurrection take place before their eyes, with pictures taken in HD and a Live Blu-Ray DVD available online.
I would still have said: "So what!" if it had no effect or meaning in my life today, if I didn't see it for myself.
And you? I think you would still not have believed it, with editing technologies available these days, no?

You don't have to see the sunrise to know that it rose.
The sunrise has been verified over and over again, and is a part of nature. It is repeatable. So, I don't have to see it again to know it is real, but it is a beauitful demonstration of Hashem's love and faithfulness to mankind eveyday. The resurrection isn't natural or repeatable. You need a credible account to make it believable and witnesses as well.

Just like Islam and Christianity trust in the account of the revelation at Sinai due to the millions of witnesses, then so would JC's resurrection require a trust worthy acccount with many witnesses.

The NT's lack of recording this evidence for this resurrection event is a major blow to its defense of the accounts.
#30
It's not so much the sheer numbers, but the percentage. 100% of the Jews were present when G-D gave the Torah at Sinai, so you would have a 1:1 chance of finding a Jew who witnessed it. No one saw the resurrection, but even if thousands did, there should be a way to find them to verify the claims. If Paul said that the 500 people who allegedly also saw him after he was risen were the entire population of City X, then people would be able to go to City X and ask them if it happened, and there you would have your answer. This is why "over 500 people" doesn't prove his case: he does not provide more information on these people and is thus free to say what he wants. Would you believe me if I said Joseph Smith came from the dead and appeared to a few of my friends and over 3000 others, though some are now dead? I'm sure your first question would be, "who are the 3000?"


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)