Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

[hedrick]

While this is another issue over which people differ, I'm beginning to appreciate the claim that 1 Cor 15:4 implies a physical resurrection. Why mention the burial? The resurrection seems to be a reversal of the burial. Furthermore, the resurrection on the third day is referred to as an event independent of Peter seeing him.

 

[StTruth]

I believe God is the victim of injustice and cruelty. Yes, it's horrible, but how does God respond? He raises the victim back to life and brings justice. How exactly does that work? I don't yet fully know, but my hope and faith is in Him who died unjustly and was raised to unending life. I have no other explanation for how pure evil can be dealt with than Jesus. Do you?

Hi Chriliman,

God cannot be a victim of injustice and cruelty. That would be logically wrong. A victim is helpless. If a muscular giant is slapped by a tiny baby when he knew the baby would slap him (he's a giant with foreknowledge) and he doesn't strike back or even move away from the baby, would you call the giant a victim of the baby? Of course not. Anyone who believes that God has foreknowledge and is Almighty cannot say God is a victim.

You are of course referring to Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus was never a victim. The Bible tells us that He knew He would be crucified. He went ahead voluntarily. The Bible says He could have summoned a troop of angels to rescue him but he didn't do that because he wanted it. You can't be a victim if you want it.

You ask if I know how to deal with evil. Of course I do. So do you. So does anybody else. But you feign ignorance because you don't want to suggest a way against evil that will show how deficient God is. Because even a child knows what to do in teh face of evil. Eradicate it.

The whole story of the Garden of Eden is of course false. Many Christians don't take it to be true. Even those who think it's not a historical real story have one problem. What is the point of putting it in the Bible if it's a false story?

The story makes God out to be a bad person. He knew the serpent (which we later changed to Satan although that was not the original intent of the very primitive and nursery-like story in Gen 3) would tempt Eve and he knew they would succumb because the Bible calls the serpent wise and cunning and Adam and Eve were described as gullible - they didn't even know they were naked. Exposing such innocent guileless people to a cunning creature and then to pounce on them when they were deceived by the serpent is the height of cruelty. If you accept the story of the Garden of Eden, and if I were God (and I am Almighty and loving), I would have removed the serpent from the Garden the way a real human father would remove a venomous snake from the play pen of his young child. God, by not doing that, is culpable.

There is no excuse for God not to eradicate evil and to allow it to spread and then to say he has no choice but to redeem the world by sending his son to die and even then, he will decide who is to be saved and it's based on mere belief in the fact that his son died on the cross. All that is surely unjust to the mind of any reasonable rational man?

We see other instances of God's inability to rule justly and to eradicate evil. By causing a Flood (I'm assuming you believe in the Flood; many Christians cleverly don't) to kill all of creation except a few sample creatures, God shows a shocking lack of wisdom in dealing with evil. He killed the patient and not the cancer. He killed his own creation while letting Evil flourish. He didn't kill Satan. Instead he killed almost all humanity and the animal kingdom. And after the Flood, what did God do? He realised he had been wrong and he vowed he wouldn't do that again. But is that wise? He allowed Evil to flourish and of course everything went back to Square One but with God earning for himself the dubious honour of having committed a crime worse than any ethnic cleansing in history.

Is this wisdom? Any child can tell you that the right thing to do is to eradicate evil from the start. What we have done is to make use of a nursery story in Genesis and construct a whole theology out of it. The result is we turn God into the big bad wolf. The failure to eradicate Evil makes God guilty of every wrong that happens. He could have prevented every wrong by eradicating evil in the first place.

Think about all this as truthfully as you can and you will know that the one who has spoken the truth is none other than...

St Truth

 

[hedrick]

Someone can become a martyr because they are committed to something they can't rightfully back out of but which will cost his life. Victim? Depends upon what you mean by the word, but under many understandings a martyr is a victim. Normally a victim of injustice, often of other things.

 

[Chriliman]

Hi Chriliman,

God cannot be a victim of injustice and cruelty. That would be logically wrong. A victim is helpless. If a muscular giant is slapped by a tiny baby when he knew the baby would slap him (he's a giant with foreknowledge) and he doesn't strike back or even move away from the baby, would you call the giant a victim of the baby? Of course not. Anyone who believes that God has foreknowledge and is Almighty cannot say God is a victim.

You are of course referring to Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus was never a victim. The Bible tells us that He knew He would be crucified. He went ahead voluntarily. The Bible says He could have summoned a troop of angels to rescue him but he didn't do that because he wanted it. You can't be a victim if you want it.

You ask if I know how to deal with evil. Of course I do. So do you. So does anybody else. But you feign ignorance because you don't want to suggest a way against evil that will show how deficient God is. Because even a child knows what to do in teh face of evil. Eradicate it.

The whole story of the Garden of Eden is of course false. Many Christians don't take it to be true. Even those who think it's not a historical real story have one problem. What is the point of putting it in the Bible if it's a false story?

The story makes God out to be a bad person. He knew the serpent (which we later changed to Satan although that was not the original intent of the very primitive and nursery-like story in Gen 3) would tempt Eve and he knew they would succumb because the Bible calls the serpent wise and cunning and Adam and Eve were described as gullible - they didn't even know they were naked. Exposing such innocent guileless people to a cunning creature and then to pounce on them when they were deceived by the serpent is the height of cruelty. If you accept the story of the Garden of Eden, and if I were God (and I am Almighty and loving), I would have removed the serpent from the Garden the way a real human father would remove a venomous snake from the play pen of his young child. God, by not doing that, is culpable.

There is no excuse for God not to eradicate evil and to allow it to spread and then to say he has no choice but to redeem the world by sending his son to die and even then, he will decide who is to be saved and it's based on mere belief in the fact that his son died on the cross. All that is surely unjust to the mind of any reasonable rational man?

We see other instances of God's inability to rule justly and to eradicate evil. By causing a Flood (I'm assuming you believe in the Flood; many Christians cleverly don't) to kill all of creation except a few sample creatures, God shows a shocking lack of wisdom in dealing with evil. He killed the patient and not the cancer. He killed his own creation while letting Evil flourish. He didn't kill Satan. Instead he killed almost all humanity and the animal kingdom. And after the Flood, what did God do? He realised he had been wrong and he vowed he wouldn't do that again. But is that wise? He allowed Evil to flourish and of course everything went back to Square One but with God earning for himself the dubious honour of having committed a crime worse than any ethnic cleansing in history.

Is this wisdom? Any child can tell you that the right thing to do is to eradicate evil from the start. What we have done is to make use of a nursery story in Genesis and construct a whole theology out of it. The result is we turn God into the big bad wolf. The failure to eradicate Evil makes God guilty of every wrong that happens. He could have prevented every wrong by eradicating evil in the first place.

Think about all this as truthfully as you can and you will know that the one who has spoken the truth is none other than...

St Truth

Jesus was innocent, yet he was killed, how does that not make him a victim? Yes, he knew it was going to happen and let it happen because retaliation wasn't God's will. Facing evil head on and making a public spectacle of it was Gods will.

Colossians 2:15
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross"

 

[StTruth]

Please address every point I made in post #82. Don't just pick one point and dwell on it. You asked me if I could do better than God in handling evil and I showed you I could.

For I remain...

St Truth

 

[StTruth]

Someone can become a martyr because they are committed to something they can't rightfully back out of but which will cost his life. Victim? Depends upon what you mean by the word, but under many understandings a martyr is a victim. Normally a victim of injustice, often of other things.

True, but all human martyrs do what they believe is right and they don't want to be tortured or to die but they can't help it because the opposing force is stronger. Jesus died because of His own rules brought about because He messed up everything by not destroying Evil but destroying those who were deceived by Evil. Huge difference there.

With the utmost respect, I remain,

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

Please address every point I made in post #82. Don't just pick one point and dwell on it. You asked me if I could do better than God in handling evil and I showed you I could.

For I remain...

St Truth

You're being confusing. You seem to be saying Jesus wasn't innocent because he failed to destroy evil and instead destroyed those who were deceived by evil? That would defy many Scriptures, not least:

1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."

According to you this should read "Christ also suffered once for sins, the unrighteousness for the unrighteousness..."

I'd advise you to think about what you're saying and make sure it lines up with Scripture before you post it.

To be clear, I believe it was good and right of God to create beings who can willingly follow their own desires as He can and that Jesus followed the desires of God even to the point of dying for those God loves even while they were being unrighteousness, following their own evil desires.

 

[StTruth]

You're being confusing. You seem to be saying Jesus wasn't innocent because he failed to destroy evil and instead destroyed those who were deceived by evil? That would defy many Scriptures, not least:

Hi Chriliman,

I'm not confused or confusing. But I think you are a little confused. I don't think you can deny that God did not destroy evil but allowed it to corrupt Adam and Eve. That's a fact you must accept. Which earthly father would let a venomous serpent lie in the play pen of his child? God did that in the Garden of Eden.

1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."

According to you this should read "Christ also suffered once for sins, the unrighteousness for the unrighteousness..."

No, that's not what I said. The Bible obviously defines 'righteousness' to include God who left evil intact and punished those deceived and corrupted by evil. But the fact is, and every Christian from a child to the Archbishop of Canterbury will say that God did not destroy evil but he allowed it to corrupt innocent Adam and innocent Eve. The Bible says they were innocent and they were DECEIVED by the serpent. You failed to address this fact. That God allowed evil to proliferate and then he pounced on the victims who fell prey to evil and were corrupted by it. I spoke about this in reply to your question if I knew how to deal with evil better than God and I said yes, I would simply destroy evil from the start.

I'd advise you to think about what you're saying and make sure it lines up with Scripture before you post it.

Have I written anything that is not in line with Scriptures? Isn't it true that God didn't destroy evil but allowed it to deceive his innocent creature who knew no good and evil at that time?

Whatever I say, I am truthful for I am none other than...

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

Hi Chriliman,

I'm not confused or confusing. But I think you are a little confused. I don't think you can deny that God did not destroy evil but allowed it to corrupt Adam and Eve. That's a fact you must accept. Which earthly father would let a venomous serpent lie in the play pen of his child? God did that in the Garden of Eden.



No, that's not what I said. The Bible obviously defines 'righteousness' to include God who left evil intact and punished those deceived and corrupted by evil. But the fact is, and every Christian from a child to the Archbishop of Canterbury will say that God did not destroy evil but he allowed it to corrupt innocent Adam and innocent Eve. The Bible says they were innocent and they were DECEIVED by the serpent. You failed to address this fact. That God allowed evil to proliferate and then he pounced on the victims who fell prey to evil and were corrupted by it. I spoke about this in reply to your question if I knew how to deal with evil better than God and I said yes, I would simply destroy evil from the start.



Have I written anything that is not in line with Scriptures? Isn't it true that God didn't destroy evil but allowed it to deceive his innocent creature who knew no good and evil at that time?

Whatever I say, I am truthful for I am none other than...

St Truth

If we take Genesis for what it actually says then we must acknowledge that God became aware of the deception and Adam and Eves sin, so we can't exactly accuse him of allowing something that he wasn't aware of. It was after he became aware that he immediately rebuked the evil, as expected. Interesting to consider the implications of this that suggest God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing.

 

[bhsmte]

Someone can become a martyr because they are committed to something they can't rightfully back out of but which will cost his life. Victim? Depends upon what you mean by the word, but under many understandings a martyr is a victim. Normally a victim of injustice, often of other things.

In reality, so called martyrs are a dime a dozen in history and one can call themselves a martyr, for any self defined cause. Whether these causes relate to well evidenced reality, is another question altogether. Personal psychology, plays a huge role in this phenomonon.

 

[StTruth]

If we take Genesis for what it actually says then we must acknowledge that God became aware of the deception and Adam and Eves sin, so we can't exactly accuse him of allowing something that he wasn't aware of. It was after he became aware that he immediately rebuked the evil, as expected. Interesting to consider the implications of this that suggest God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing.

I don't think many Christians will agree with that assessment. God's omniscience is universally accepted. He's either omniscient or all-knowing or he is not. You can't say 'God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing'. That would mean he is not all-knowing. If he has to be told before he knew that man had fallen, it would mean he's not all-knowing. You can't say after God was told, then he became all-knowing. That's not the definition of 'all-knowing'.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Chriliman]

I don't think many Christians will agree with that assessment. God's omniscience is universally accepted. He's either omniscient or all-knowing or he is not. You can't say 'God hasn't always been all knowing, but rather becomes all knowing'. That would mean he is not all-knowing. If he has to be told before he knew that man had fallen, it would mean he's not all-knowing. You can't say after God was told, then he became all-knowing. That's not the definition of 'all-knowing'.

Cheers,

St Truth

Well, either the text accurately portrays God as becoming aware of evil and therefore not always all knowing or the text falsely portays God as becoming aware of something that he previously didn't know.

I lean towards trusting what Scripture actually says vs putting my own wishful thinking into it.

 

[StTruth]

Well, either the text accurately portrays God as becoming aware of evil and therefore not always all knowing or the text falsely portays God as becoming aware of something that he previously didn't know.

I lean towards trusting what Scripture actually says vs putting my own wishful thinking into it.

Fine, let's go on. So God didn't know mankind would be tempted and would fall. Do you accept that the serpent was Satan? So God didn't know that Satan would tempt Eve. God innocently was misled by the seeming innocence of Satan?

Did God know Satan was evil and was CAPABLE of corrupting people? If he did, why didn't he destroy Satan?

Or are you saying God didn't know that?

One more thing. All the bad things that happened and God did nothing. The baby that drowns in a pail of water and the boy I saw in the video who was slowly burnt to death and he was screaming the name of Jesus. Are you also saying that God didn't know he was being tortured and so God didn't rescue him?

 

[Hawkins]

In the earliest and most reliable copies of mark, there is no mention of the virgin birth of jesus or any birth of jesus. It also has no appearances of jesus after his death and it ends much more abruptly compared to matthew, luke and john. This is likely why mark was placed 2nd in order, even though there is little question it was penned first. And mark 16: 9-19 are widely accepted by scholars, as late editions, so mark would mirror the other gospels.

Mark wrote on behave of Peter who was in Rome. Publishing fee in Rome was high such that Mark may have to try to shorten everything. The book ended abruptly may be for couple of reasons. They ran out of money, Rome gained more restrictions on Christianity, Peter was under close monitoring or even arrested are all possible reasons.

Matthew addressed the virgin birth because virgin birth is a story among the Jews in regards of how the Messiah is born, while Matthew's intended audience are the Jews. That's why Matthew is more like a storyteller telling the stories could possibly rumored among the Jews. Luke addressed the virgin birth because one of the witnesses he based his writing on is believe to be Mary herself.

 

[Hawkins]

Fine, let's go on. So God didn't know mankind would be tempted and would fall. Do you accept that the serpent was Satan? So God didn't know that Satan would tempt Eve. God innocently was misled by the seeming innocence of Satan?

Did God know Satan was evil and was CAPABLE of corrupting people? If he did, why didn't he destroy Satan?

Or are you saying God didn't know that?

One more thing. All the bad things that happened and God did nothing. The baby that drowns in a pail of water and the boy I saw in the video who was slowly burnt to death and he was screaming the name of Jesus. Are you also saying that God didn't know he was being tortured and so God didn't rescue him?

It's all about legitimacy. Space has two sides, either one is with God or he's not. If one is not with God, he's in the same space where Satan has his influence. God gives every human a life time to choose which side he'd like to be in. God also gives every angel freewill to act. The final judgment marks the end. Satan will thus only be destroyed legitimately after the open and final judgment.

In the mean time, God allows him to cast whatever influence he can for humans to divide on earth. Satan is more like catalyst in a chemical reaction. He keeps those unsaved captive while God saves those savable He foresaw long time ago.

In a nutshell, Satan actually helps in identifying the bad guys for God to destroy them once and for all, in order to secure a sinless Heaven.

 

[Hawkins]

I believe God is the victim of injustice and cruelty. Yes, it's horrible, but how does God respond? He raises the victim back to life and brings justice. How exactly does that work? I don't yet fully know, but my hope and faith is in Him who died unjustly and was raised to unending life. I have no other explanation for how pure evil can be dealt with than Jesus. Do you?

Again, Jesus' crucifixion is about legitimacy. God's Law is set up for the identifying of humans and angels who can be qualified to enter the final eternal Heaven. That's why there's a final judgment given to both angels and humans. After Adam was out of Eden, humans are no longer living with God. Humans virtually are in a realm where Satan has the deep influence. It's thus expected that no humans can abide by God's Law (the set of Law both Adam the human and Satan the angel have broken). This point is proven under open witnessing from the period of Adam till Noah. It means if the same set of Law (which Adam and Satan broke) is used to measure against humans, no one is saved. God's plan for bring humans to Heaven thus failed. The purpose of earth as God's harvest field of human souls is also defeated. God will have to put an end to everything. That's why the flood of Noah.

However God has a backup plan, as Jesus warranted to make a self-sacrifice to save humans. He's thus put in the place of the whole human species to be destroyed. He's not only crucified as a humans, He as God also need to bear insults of His name, from the moment He's crucified till the end of world. This actually harms God more. God cannot be harmed physically, however He can be harmed seriously by putting insults to His name. That's why He never left His true name to humans.

Revelation 3:12 (NIV2011)
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.


Matthew 12:32 (NIV2011)
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Here, it by no means says that Jesus' name is less important. It means that it's the way how God receive insults through the name of Jesus for the atonement of human sins. That's how the justification made.

The analogy is, when a nest of bees stung humans and humans decided to get rid of the whole nest of bees. However if your state law says that a human's painful suffering can save the bees who are sentenced to death, then you can make a deep cut on your arm as a sacrifice for the salvation of the whole nest of bees. (Jesus is the arm of God)

 

[Hawkins]

Is this wisdom? Any child can tell you that the right thing to do is to eradicate evil from the start. What we have done is to make use of a nursery story in Genesis and construct a whole theology out of it. The result is we turn God into the big bad wolf. The failure to eradicate Evil makes God guilty of every wrong that happens. He could have prevented every wrong by eradicating evil in the first place.

No, it won't work. God's purpose is secure the future eternal realm we call heaven. If Satan is removed this way, another Satan will still pop up to tempt the sons and daughters of Adam.

The logic behind is that, freewill will have to divide. So you need to let them divide. Freewill is like 0 and 1. Given the choices, some will choose 0 while others will choose 1. You have let them divide openly in order to pick those choosing 1 legitimately. Even under the circumstance that you know before hand those who will choose 0, you can't remove them legitimately due to the lack of legitimate witnessing.

God won't sentence you to death simply because He knows that you are an evil person. It's after you committed a crime and witnessed (by angels and chosen saints) that you will be legitimately sentenced. Earth is thus the place for evil to show up then for God to destroy it once and for all legitimately, such that an evil free Heaven can be secured.

 

[Hawkins]

In reality, so called martyrs are a dime a dozen in history and one can call themselves a martyr, for any self defined cause. Whether these causes relate to well evidenced reality, is another question altogether. Personal psychology, plays a huge role in this phenomonon.

Martyrdom is part of a serious testimony/witnessing.

What you just did yesterday can hardly be evidenced on a 24 hour basis. We can get to know what you did yesterday (or a year before) if you or someone as witness wrote down what you did for us to believe with faith. The witness can put what you did in a video to make his testimony more believable. However others still need faith to believe that the witness didn't fake the video, say, by using a video cam with a wrong date-time stamp.

In effect, the video strengthens the believability of the witness' testimony about what you did yesterday. If he chooses to martyr himself to back up his claims about what you did, it's another way of strengthen the believability of his testimony. If 10 out of 12 such witnesses all are willing to martyr themselves to back up the claims (about what you did), there's no reason for a sane person to reject what is said, because it doesn't make any sense for a person to kill himself in order to tell a lie.

In ancient times we don't have videos. Martyrdom thus plays the role.

 

[bhsmte]

Martyrdom is part of a serious testimony/witnessing.

What you just did yesterday can hardly be evidenced on a 24 hour basis. We can get to know what you did yesterday (or a year before) if you or someone as witness wrote down what you did for us to believe with faith. The witness can put what you did in a video to make his testimony more believable. However others still need faith to believe that the witness didn't fake the video, say, by using a video cam with a wrong date-time stamp.

In effect, the video strengthens the believability of the witness' testimony about what you did yesterday. If he chooses to martyr himself to back up his claims about what you did, it's another way of strengthen the believability of his testimony. If 10 out of 12 such witnesses all are willing to martyr themselves to back up the claims (about what you did), there's no reason for a sane person to reject what is said, because it doesn't make any sense for a person to kill himself in order to tell a lie.

In ancient times we don't have videos. Martyrdom thus plays the role.

The testimony is serious to the person that martyrs themself, but may have zero to do with reality. People have martyred themselves for too many reasons to count and is more a personal psychological phenomonon, then anything else.

 

[Hawkins]

The testimony is serious to the person that martyrs themself, but may have zero to do with reality. People have martyred themselves for too many reasons to count and is more a personal psychological phenomonon, then anything else.

No. I have yet to see a person willing to die for a lie he himself has made up.

You are confused. People may martyr themselves for a lie not made up by themselves but people never choose to martyr for a lie made up by themselves.

You tell a lie, then you jump off a building to kill yourself to confirm that the lie is a truth. This will never happen, especially when 10 out of 12 people tell the same lie by killing themselves in the proving that the lie is a truth. This never happens.

Or would you show me an example of how a person using martyrdom to back up his own lies?

In a nutshell, a sane person will never kill himself in order to tell a lie made up by himself.