Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[HitchSlap]

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

I'll ask you once more, which one of my three assumptions is incorrect?

(Please don't bother responding if you're just going to preach and mis-use caps-lock ... I'm interested in genuine discussion here.)

 

[Archie the Preacher]

One notes all the witnesses to the Resurrection are dead now and cannot be interviewed.

Of worth noting is when the New Testament was written, roughly between the Ascension of Jesus - around A. D. 30 to 35 - and the end of the First Century A. D., no one posted any serious objections. Surely people alive then who rejected the claims of Jesus were unsympathetic about this and could have easily spoke up with counter claims.

The end result is no one alive at the time could offer any serious antithesis of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there denying the event.

 

[HitchSlap]

One notes all the witnesses to the Resurrection are dead now and cannot be interviewed.

Of worth noting is when the New Testament was written, roughly between the Ascension of Jesus - around A. D. 30 to 35 - and the end of the First Century A. D., no one posted any serious objections. Surely people alive then who rejected the claims of Jesus were unsympathetic about this and could have easily spoke up with counter claims.

The end result is no one alive at the time could offer any serious antithesis of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there denying the event.

Tell you what; provide evidence that the "resurrection" wasn't an interpolation in later copies of Mark.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Tell you what; provide evidence that the "resurrection" wasn't an interpolation in later copies of Mark.

Hitch. Thank you for your admission you have absolutely nothing to offer.

If you wish to discuss any of this seriously, let me know.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitch. Thank you for your admission you have absolutely nothing to offer.

If you wish to discuss any of this seriously, let me know.

Sounds like you're conceding there's no mention of a "resurrection" in the earliest copies of Mark? I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this, as with all dying and rising mythotypes, enough time needs to pass before the story has any 'legitimacy.'

 

[miknik5]

I'll ask you once more, which one of my three assumptions is incorrect?

(Please don't bother responding if you're just going to preach and mis-use caps-lock ... I'm interested in genuine discussion here.)

That is my style of writing sir. I use caps for GOD and the things of GOD

And that is how I will continue to write. When I want to write and where I want to write

 

[doubtingmerle]

One notes all the witnesses to the Resurrection are dead now and cannot be interviewed.

A written statement would be great, if only we had a clear statement from a known witness.

Of worth noting is when the New Testament was written, roughly between the Ascension of Jesus - around A. D. 30 to 35 - and the end of the First Century A. D., no one posted any serious objections.

Did many even know of a claim of a bodily resurrection before 100 AD? As we discussed on this thread, I see no mention of a bodily resurrection in Paul or the other early epistles. The gospels come later, probably after 70 AD. However, before 100 AD we find virtually nothing about the reaction to the gospels, either pro or con, so we don't know what people thought of them.

Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there denying the event.

Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there confirming the event.

 

[miknik5]

A written statement would be great, if only we had a clear statement from a known witness.

Did many even know of a claim of a bodily resurrection before 100 AD? As we discussed on this thread, I see no mention of a bodily resurrection in Paul or the other early epistles. The gospels come later, probably after 70 AD. However, before 100 AD we find virtually nothing about the reaction to the gospels, either pro or con, so we don't know what people thought of them.


Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there confirming the event.

You won't be able to get one from the officials of that time. Rather they wanted to keep that TRUTH hidden and would never have allowed it to be documented

It wouldn't have been something they would have been quick to confirm or have written down

 

[miknik5]

they would have done exactly what they did.

Pay the guards to say the disciples stole HIS BODY

 

[doubtingmerle]

You won't be able to get one from the officials of that time. Rather they wanted to keep that TRUTH hidden and would never have allowed it to be documented

It would t have been something they would have been quick to confirm or have written down

I wasn't asking for a statement from officials.

 

[miknik5]

I wasn't asking for a statement from officials.

You were asking for some sort of written documentation Doubtingmerle from any other source outside the WORD of GOD because you don't believe what is written to be TRUTH and even the witnesses today who testify that HE is risen, you don't believe

 

[Archie the Preacher]

A written statement would be great, if only we had a clear statement from a known witness.
Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there confirming the event.

Please! You already have the written statements and you pretend they don't exist. What good would it do for me or anyone to show you more?

Your 'conclusion' is a presupposition and has nothing to do with logic or argument.

If you really want to discuss this rationally, I am at your service.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Sounds like you're conceding there's no mention of a "resurrection" in the earliest copies of Mark? I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this, as with all dying and rising mythotypes, enough time needs to pass before the story has any 'legitimacy.'

The matter is settled, Hitch; you want to pretend it isn't.

I will be happy to discuss things with you if you can do so rationally and not with your bias in the way.

 

[Alla27]

A written statement would be great, if only we had a clear statement from a known witness.
Tell you what; bring me a person who was there or bring me a document written by one who was there confirming the event.

If this what kind of witness you are looking for, you are wasting your time, my friend.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Please! You already have the written statements and you pretend they don't exist. What good would it do for me or anyone to show you more?

Your 'conclusion' is a presupposition and has nothing to do with logic or argument.

If you really want to discuss this rationally, I am at your service.

We have written record, but again, I am looking for records that are a credible witness to the resurrections.

Paul is not a witness to the resurrection. He never clearly mentions a bodily resurrection.

The gospels and Acts are not credible witnesses. They are written too late by unknown writers. W don't know if we can trust them. They contradict each other and known history.

What we need is a contemporary witness who clearly testifies to the resurrection.

 

[Alla27]

What we need is a contemporary witness who clearly testifies to the resurrection.

Contemporary witness didn't live at that time.
But Joseph Smith testified that he saw Jesus Christ more than once and He(Jesus) was very alive.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Contemporary witness didn't live at that time.

Huh? That is the only possible time a contemporary witness can exist, at the same time as the event in question. Please look up "contemporary".

But Joseph Smith testified that he saw Jesus Christ more than once and He(Jesus) was very alive.

And you expect people to be impressed by a claim like this?

 

[Alla27]

Huh? That is the only possible time a contemporary witness can exist, at the same time as the event in question. Please look up "contemporary".

Yes, you are correct. Those witnesses exist (according to revelations from God).
Will God send them to you before you die? I don't believe He will.

And you expect people to be impressed by a claim like this?

Of course, not. But it can be true.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, but we have the ancient creed in verses 3-7.

Wait, what?

You flip flopping on this again? First you said it was a creed that Paul copied from the disciples. Then when I showed you that Paul said he did not get his gospel from men, you told me I wasn't reading you right, and that Paul did not copy this from the disciples. Now you are back to a creed again that was copied from the disciples (even though Paul specifically says he did not get his gospel from men). Can you please pick a position and stick with it?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

We have written record, but again, I am looking for records that are a credible witness to the resurrections.
Paul is not a witness to the resurrection. He never clearly mentions a bodily resurrection.
The gospels and Acts are not credible witnesses. They are written too late by unknown writers. W don't know if we can trust them. They contradict each other and known history.
What we need is a contemporary witness who clearly testifies to the resurrection.

Merle, your obvious tactic is showing. You 'demand' witnesses (as loosely defined in this thread) then deny All witnesses as insufficient.

Tell me, do you think you are justifying your own preconceived and pre-judged opinion to anyone but yourself?

Your bias and willful ignoring of the facts is as headstrong and as blind as the 'religious' sort who denies all the evidence of science since he doesn't want to recognize it.