Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[miknik5]

When you can answer THAT question, than you can answer your own question as well...

 

[Alla27]

Ahh...I'm not going to explain it. You still haven't told me where the HOLY SPIRIT was before and after CHRIST's crucifixion...

And HIS resurrection...
And HIS ascension...

And how many HOLY SPIRITS there are NOW in Heaven...

I did.
1) The Holy Ghost was the WITH Christ. The Holy Ghost witnessed those events.
2)There is only one Holy Ghost.
So, what does it mean that Father and Son are one ACCORDING to Christ or the Bible?

 

[miknik5]

I did.
1) The Holy Ghost was the WITH Christ. The Holy Ghost witnessed those events.
2)There is only one Holy Ghost.
So, what does it mean that Father and Son are one ACCORDING to Christ or the Bible?

So you believe in the trinity!!!!

Yet you don't believe in the incarnation

Oh how can this be?

 

[Alla27]

So you believe in the trinity!!!!

Yet you don't believe in the incarnation

Oh how can this be?

who teaches incarnation?

 

[miknik5]

who teaches incarnation?

I'm done. I feel like we will be going around in circles and I am not interested. The fact that you can't give a straight answer and add unnecessary input is already more than enough "info" to understand that there is a difference between us

And the fact that there is only ONE TRUTH means one of us is not speaking THE TRUTH

 

[Alla27]

O

I'm done. I feel like we will be going around in circles and I am not interested. The fact that you can't give a straight answer and add unnecessary input is already more than enough "info" to understand that there is a difference between us

And the fact that there is only ONE TRUTH means one of us is not speaking THE TRUTH

ok, but can you tell me at least what scripture has word "incarnation"?

 

[miknik5]

O

ok, but can you tell me at least what scripture has word "incarnation"?

Only when you can tell me what scripture has anything to say about a lost priesthood authority or some sort of gold plates

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, still waiting for that credible witness you claim.
↑
ed: Besides the skeptic Paul as I have mentioned, James the brother of Jesus was also a skeptic who saw the risen Christ.

dm: I have asked you multiple times to show me where Paul refers to a physical resurrected body or an empty tomb. You have not been able to show this to me. So how does Paul count?

The whole purpose of Chapter 15 of I Corinthians is to show that Christ had a physical body. I notice you did not respond to my post about all of his analogies using other things in the universe, ie seeds and plants, different species of animals, and stars and planets in verses 35-44. ALL of which are physical entities that are just transformed not destroyed. Also, we have the historical fact of the empty tomb and the emphasis on it by the early Christians, which would make no sense if His resurrection was just spiritual.

dm: And do you have any writing of James that testifies to a bodily resurrected Jesus? Do you have any written statement of an acquaintance of James that says he saw a bodily resurrected Jesus?

No, but we have the ancient creed in verses 3-7. That says that he saw the resurrected Christ. And given that he was a skeptic and died a martyr the most likely and rational conclusion is that he had seen the physically resurrected Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsus,_Mersin .

ed: And I was not referring to Paul's followers, I was referring to Jesus' followers.

dm: Oh, you were changing the subject.

No, we had been talking about Paul and the disciples, it is you now who is changing the subject.

dm: I had been referring to Paul's followers. Paul and his followers lived in the areas of modern Greece and Turkey. Many of the followers were Gentiles. The mixture of Jews and Gentiles scattered throughout that region would certainly have been open to Greek ideas.

Yes, they may have been but not Paul himself, a jew among jews, and a Pharisee among Pharisees. And definitely not the Apostles to whom I was referring.

ed: I was referring to prior to his conversion and even afterwards since he believed that Christianity was the fulfillment of mainstream Judaism he still believed many of the basic teachings of Judaism regarding spirituality and spiritual beings as revealed in the OT.

dm: Sure he believed some teachings of Judaism. Nobody is claiming that he didn't.

But he also shares some teachings with contemporary Greek teaching.

Only superficially. Again there is absolutely no evidence that he or any other mainstream jews believed that spirits could be killed and buried.

dm: Different subject. In another thread we were discussing whether Paul thought Jesus always was a spirit. In this thread, we are just asking if Paul --or anybody else--thought Jesus resurrected bodily.

You are the one that made that claim. And given that the whole of chapter 15 is about the resurrection, Him having been a spirit and resurrecting would be meaningless since he was never fully alive without a body from the Judaic tradition and belief system. So plainly Paul did believe Jesus had a body both before and after His death and resurrection.

Ed: No, there is evidence that the gospels and Acts were written by the authors traditionally attributed to them.

dm: Do you have any good evidence that the Gospels and Acts were written by the traditional authors? They were never identified with those books until years after they were written, and there never was good evidence for it.

There is good evidence for it. Irenaeus testified to Acts being written by Luke, as well as Clement, the Muratorian Fragment, and Eusebius. And the "we" passages show that the author traveled everywhere Luke had traveled with Paul. Among other things.

ed: Often when Paul mentions the flesh he is referring to worldliness, he means that worldliness will not enter the kingdom of God.

dm: Read I Corinthians 15 in context. Clearly when he says flesh and blood will not enter heaven, he means flesh and blood will not enter heaven.

No, actually most scholars say that this phrase alludes to the weakness of earthly existence and is equivalent to the term "corruption". Paul is warning the Corinthians that without new bodies of "incorruption" they/we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, so how then can some deny the doctrine of the resurrection?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh HE did...
You just don't see that HE and THE FATHER are ONE...

Please, please take this conversation offline. This discussion of trinity and incarnation have nothing to do with this thread. Please start your own thread rather than hijack existing threads for your topics.

 

[Hawkins]

Sorry, I meant the women, not the Jews, were already written into the story by Mark. I have corrected my previous post. What I am saying is that the original Mark (ending at 16:8) did not declare the women to be eyewitnesses to the actual risen Jesus. However, since they were written by Mark as being the first there, it would be natural for later writers who wanted to claim there were sightings of a risen Jesus to include them in their story.

How do you even know that which Mark is original?

 

[Hawkins]

We don't need the originals. The copies will do.

We have a number of Christian documents in which the original was most likely written before 50 AD (the writings of Paul, etc.) , but in none of these does it mention anybody seeing a physical body of the risen Jesus on earth.

No. The only document we can trace back reliably is the 2 artifacts found in Egypt of which our NIV translation is based off. The 2 artifacts are dated as written in the 4th century. This is already the earliest version of Bible we can acquired. Other than this we have discrete letters thought to be written by early Christians quoting early versions of Bible. I however doubt that we are keeping the original ancient scrolls of those letters.

Losing original scrolls however is part of the nature of human history. Most history (say, for which we thought to be written 2000 years ago) we read today are without original records. They are just passed to today's humans by last generation of humans with those history books already written in paper form. Original records however are supposed to be written before paper was invented. We thus need to believe with faith that the history we read today deviate not much from its original for us to get to know what happened.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf, would you please quit ignoring my responses and just repeating the same arguments over and over that have already been answered?

The whole purpose of Chapter 15 of I Corinthians is to show that Christ had a physical body.

No, it is saying that the risen Christ had a spiritual body. I Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body."

I notice you did not respond to my post about all of his analogies using other things in the universe, ie seeds and plants, different species of animals, and stars and planets in verses 35-44. ALL of which are physical entities that are just transformed not destroyed.

It is an analogy. Not everything in the analogy is true about the thing it is an analogy of.

For instance, the analogy of a seed bringing forth a plant does not mean that Paul thought we would have a stalk planted in the ground at resurrection!

Paul is saying the spiritual body rising out of a dead body is analogous to a different plant body coming out of a seed.

He is not saying we are going to be corn on the cob for eternity, or even that we will have a physical body for eternigy. Not everything in an analogy is true about the analogous thing.

Also, we have the historical fact of the empty tomb and the emphasis on it by the early Christians, which would make no sense if His resurrection was just spiritual.

Huh? Get with the program please. That is the question of this thread. What credible evidence do you have for the empty tomb and physical resurrected body? You can't just assume the thing I am asking you to prove.

No, but we have the ancient creed in verses 3-7.
That says that he saw the resurrected Christ.

Huh? So far you have presented no evidence that vs. 6-7 are a creed. All you said is that some scholars agree with you. So what. I think most scholars agree with me that at least the mention of James and the 500 were not part of a creed.

If some scholars agree with you, what is their evidence? You refuse to give any evidence and just repeat the same assertion over and over.

And given that he was a skeptic and died a martyr the most likely and rational conclusion is that he had seen the physically resurrected Jesus.

You have not proven that James was previously a skeptic. You have not proven he believed in a resurrection. You have not proven that he died because of belief in a resurrection. And even if he had, you have not proven that his death proves he was right. Many people die for a lie.

No, we had been talking about Paul and the disciples, it is you now who is changing the subject.

Who's thread do you think this is, anyway?

I am talking about Paul and his followers. You have done nothing to show that Paul and his Greek followers could not have had some Greek ideas.

Yes, they may have been but not Paul himself, a jew among jews, and a Pharisee among Pharisees.

ROFL! Paul, after he was a Christian, was still a Jew among Jews, a Pharisee among pharisees!?!?! Where are you getting this stuff?

Only superficially. Again there is absolutely no evidence that he or any other mainstream jews believed that spirits could be killed and buried.

Get with the program please. You have been told repeatedly that the historical Jesus was the topic of the other thread, and I think I made my case there. Read it if you want to see my case. We can get back to that later if you want to talk about that.

This thread is not about the historicity of Jesus, but about whether there is evidence that there was a physical resurrection of a physical Jesus.

There is good evidence for it. Irenaeus testified to Acts being written by Luke, as well as Clement, the Muratorian Fragment, and Eusebius.

Oh please. The Fragment and Irenaeus were after 180 AD, too late to be reliable on who wrote the gospels. The internal evidence indicates it was not the people traditionally claimed to have written them.

And what does Clement have to do with proving who wrote the gospels?

And the "we" passages show that the author traveled everywhere Luke had traveled with Paul. Among other things.

The "we" passages are a common literary device of the time that does not mean they were written first person.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No. The only document we can trace back reliably is the 2 artifacts found in Egypt of which our NIV translation is based off. The 2 artifacts are dated as written in the 4th century. This is already the earliest version of Bible we can acquired. Other than this we have discrete letters thought to be written by early Christians quoting early versions of Bible. I however doubt that we are keeping the original ancient scrolls of those letters.

Losing original scrolls however is part of the nature of human history. Most history (say, for which we thought to be written 2000 years ago) we read today are without original records. They are just passed to today's humans by last generation of humans with those history books already written in paper form. Original records however are supposed to be written before paper was invented. We thus need to believe with faith that the history we read today deviate not much from its original for us to get to know what happened.

Again, you are confusing the original and the copies. The originals of the Pauline epistles are thought to have been written before 50 AD. The existing copies are much later.

The originals of the four gospels are thought to have been written after 70 AD.

 

[miknik5]

Please, please take this conversation offline. This discussion of trinity and incarnation have nothing to do with this thread. Please start your own thread rather than hijack existing threads for your topics.

Did you want testimony to the TRUTH or to lies?

Does it matter whether what is being discussed is true or not?

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you want testimony to the TRUTH or to lies?

Does it matter whether what is being discussed is true or not?

Reality is always best.

 

[miknik5]

Reality is always best.

I have what is needed. You don't.

And you think you do

 

[HitchSlap]

I have what is needed. You don't.

And you think you do

Feel free to point out my error:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

 

[miknik5]

Feel free to point out my error:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

1 Corinthians 1:18 through 1 Corinthians 1:25

 

[HitchSlap]

/snip/

Which of my three assumptions do you have a problem with?

 

[miknik5]

Which of my three assumptions do you have a problem with?

The TRUTH that GOD is SOVEREIGN over all things and it is HIS WORK and WILL alone to open the eyes and ears of the heart of the man to the knee buckling prick to the heart revelation of the TRUTH