Resurrection of Jesus (Fact 2: Genuine Belief)

[Finally4Christ]

I am soooo glad I found you! your videos rock! Very well done.

[Dogschach]

I understand that this is primarily aimed at those who claim that the disciples were lying but this is quite possibly the least relevant, and quite possibly, needless fact. As you stated in this video, them, or anyone, genuinely believing anything does not, in anyway, effect the truth value of the claims they make . . . cont.

[Dogschach]

cont . . that being said, one distinction that is never really addressed directly, if at all, is that the Gospel authors, and the disciples are not necessarily the same thing. Therefore, the question is not if the disciples genuinely believed this, but the gospel authors did. Meaning, it is possible for the disciples to be telling colorful legends that the authors took to be genuine truths.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

I'm not gonna keep this going. I will let you have the last word. I have already wrote what I needed to write. If you want to know more, maybe we can skype. The Moby dick reference is a horrible straw-man. Doesn't even compare. Nice try though. Doctrinal purity simply mean pure in doctrine (unchanged). The evidence does fit with the Bible. I can help you too see that 2+2=4 if you do not want me too.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@xTheUnknownTruthx That video is horrible anyway. I could easily point you to other videos (CreationistsWON and many others) debunking what he has to say, but that is too easy. I bet you want me to tear it apart so that you can make up more things to waste my time. You are not going to see things for what they are if you close out the possibility that it could be true so you can see how it fits. It's crazy how the Bible even references how in the last days people will fall away from Christ.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx I'm not sure which one of the videos you refer to, but since ProfMTH goes exactly by what is written in the Bible and elsewhere, you have to debunk the Bible, not him. That's the point, the only way to circumvent the issues pointed out by him is through weird interpretations and bare assertions that don't make a whole lot of sense. So everybody who claims that the Bible interprets itself either has to dismiss Christianity, or he's lying.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx In what way is the Moby Dick reference a straw man? I simply applied your standards to another book in order to show how absurd they are.

Other than that, I find it funny how you try to turn around that evidence thing. Fact is, there is no evidence. You haven't presented any here and you couldn't if you wanted to. I know the arguments of guys like Strobel or Craig and they're not based on evidence, even though they try so hard to give the appearance.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay Like I said, I'm done. It was you who said that this was too big for the comment section. This is not going to go anywhere since one of us doesn't even know what constitutes Biblical hermeneutics. I would ask you what evidence you are even referring too since you change topic so much, but you are just here to argue it seems and not to find truth. Try sticking to 1 issue at a time instead of trying to go on too something else; it's like you are afraid that I might be right or something.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx I was referring to what was presented in the video. In my very first post, I addressed 4 major points of the video and later I added a 5th point in response to antybu86. And as far as I can see, all these points still stand.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay Yeah... you are right, but only if I am Charlie Sheen....

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Nope, it stands whoever you are :)

The thing is that you choose to ignore the historical critical method and instead assert that the Bible has to be taken at face value. But that's a very arbitrary standard of evidence and is not acceptable in history departments around the world (unless you're in a Bible institute I guess...)

In other words, you're talking theology, not history.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay Right, I totally ignore everything that I learned in all of my history classes throughout my years in school. No...Out of all the teachers that i had for my humanities classes, most were Christian and see the way I do. Some were not though, but I still did my own studies for all of them to find out for myself what the truth really was. I didn't read into things, and still do not.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Apparently you haven't run across historical criticism then. You should read Bart Ehrman, his latest book ("Jesus, Interrupted") for example does a good job pointing out what we do and do not know regarding the Bible.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay You must be a comedian....

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Well, you can choose to close your eyes all you want, it doesn't make your fantasy any more real. But if it makes you feel better, all the power to you.

[matrixlone]

@thalamay you can also look up bart ehrman refuted

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

Look man, I can't help you if you work off a a skewed paradygm...These things have to be taken for what they claim to be. To understand something better, one has to adjust his mindset much like adjust ethos before a speech so that the speaker will not engage in ethnocentrism or not be able to relay the information well. Anyways, I bid you farewell and hope you see that you have you open your mind before you close it.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx So the Qur'an has to be taken for what it claims to be as well? And the Avesta? Am I close minded because I don't just accept divine authorship of the Qur'an?

Or is it the believer who accepts claims made in scripture without any evidence who is unreasonable?

I mean you can believe whatever you like, just don't try to sell it as history when all you have is theology.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay Yes, they have to be reviewed as Holy Books. Now, what is it that differentiates the Bible from those. The main thing is doctrinal purity. The Bible HAS NOT been changed in doctrine. The books that claim divine authenticity can't ever be in conflict on historical details, and especially doctrine. Which book is right? They claim this, but is it true. The Bible has textural purity, this can be and has proven time and time again. This can't be said for the book of Mormon or Quran. History

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx I don't get what you mean by "doctrinal purity" since doctrine is more a matter of interpretation. Different Christian groups have always drawn different dogmas from the Bible.

As for "textual purity", I don't see how that is proof of anything. Moby Dick is textually pure, yet we don't believe that there was this whale.

But then we do know that the Bible has been tempered with, some of Paul's letters are forgeries for example, or the ending of Mark that has been added.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay What I have been relating to you, it takes historical knowledge to see these things. You think that I just accept the Bible for what it claims based on no evidence? No way. My historical studies along with biology has actually significantly strengthened me as a Christian. The evidence has to fit with the Bible, or else it cannot be true. If you don't want to see that the evidence is there, you will miss it. It is amazing how the Bible gets complimented like w/ prophecy and archaeology.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Since the evidence doesn't fit the Bible (neither historically nor scientifically) I can only conclude that you didn't study history or biology, but rather the website of Answers in Genesis.

As for the "prophecies", I once again refer you to this video series, dealing with some of the most prominent ones:

watch?v=wx5EKaY1B8g

Like the one about the apostles, this video series does a great job at dismantling the bare assertions of Christian apologists.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

Both sides can't pick and choose Bible passages that support their claims and be correct and genuine in scriptural interpretation (In adherence to Biblical doctrine) It's pretty simple. The Bible actually interprets itself. If that doesn't make sense, then just think "Maybe I should read this as the disciples at that time would have read it." Context is crucial to scriptural interpretation or really almost anything. Biblical doctrine will not change, culture may change. God's sovereignty won't

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx I'm not here to debate theology.

But whatever your interpretation of the Bible, obviously it's not convincing everybody, otherwise you wouldn't be in the minority position.

I do want to add though that I find it funny how evangelicals always say that the Bible interprets itself and refuse any Catholic doctrine when it was the Catholics who put it together. One would imagine that they knew what they were thinking when they did that. But I digress...

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay Are you kidding me? You are here to debate History right? Well you need to see how this ties in to Theology or else what is the point? Come on...Christ Himself approved the 29 books of the Old testament and preauthenticated the 27 books of the new testament. The Jewish people have done an amazing job with genealogies and chronologies. The torah alone proves that with the old testament. Now as for the canon, books have to claim inspiration and be sanctioned.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx What I mean is that I don't want to debate how to interpret the Bible. That is entirely pointless. Knowing about theological interpretations is of course important, especially those of the early times. BTW, your still asserting things. Christ didn't approve anything. You're referring to some Bible passage, written by the author of Luke that you interpret in a certain way. That's theology, not history.

BTW, it's 39 books, and while I don't want to get entangled in theology,...

[thalamay]

@thalamay ...

I do believe that the Catholics have a better point by sticking to the Septuagint. It was the scripture used by the authors of the NT, it is attested back to antiquity.

The Hebrew Bible on the other hand was put together in the Middle ages and replaced the Septuagint in protestantism mainly because of an error on Luther's part who believed it to be more ancient and therefore authentic.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

physical just as William Craig points out in his book assessing the new testament, "Were this not so, then Pauline theology would have taken an entirely different route, trying to explain how resurrection could be possible, though the body remained in the grave." You seem to be adhering to the typical objections to the resurrection, none of which I seen have any merit when put up against the known facts.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Wow, that's a very weak point by Craig, in fact it's not even a point, because that's exactly what Paul does. It's just that Paul has been put in a very different context within the Bible, but Paul does in fact talk quite a bit about the resurrection and that it's the essence of a person that goes to heaven, not the physical body.

Known fact:

Paul didn't believe in the bodily resurrection.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

First off my statement wasn't directed to you specifically. What you are doing is ungrounded claims based on no historical or empirical evidence. What evidence do you have to conclude that early Christianity was not homogeneous, given that correct hermeneutics and historical interpretations are genuine? You say we do not have historical knowledge of the disciples? Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Schumacher, etc...Ever heard of those few people? You think that is ignorant to use paul? Why?

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx

1) You should take a university course on early Christianity (like me), then you'll know how diverse it was. I mentioned two branches that opposed what is now known as orthodox christianity on this. But there are more.

2) The people you name are not disciples. As for the actual ones, once again I direct you to ProfMTH's channel.

3) I explained why using Paul is ignorant: He didn't believe in the bodily resurrection.

[thalamay]

@thalamay

PS: Here's the link to ProfMTH's first video on the disciples. You'll find your way from there:

watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay I didn't say those names that I mentioned were disciples, but were HISTORISTS who wrote about the disciples and apostles. Paul spoke of a spiritual body. The resurrection is the transition from the natural body to the spiritual body. That is not to say that the spiritual body cannot manifest the physical, but this transcends the very nature of the natural. A simple example of this would be Thomas feeling the wounds of Christ. No surprise here though, we are talking about God. cont.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@xTheUnknownTruthx cont..We see the manifestation from Spiritual to physical with that of angels as well. There is much evidence for this (i.e.when the angels went to Lot's house, ate, and slept-see Gen.19).

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx

1) I know what you were trying to get at with your church fathers. The point is that their stories of the apostles are highly mythical, highly asserting, often conflicting, and definitely religiously motivated rather than historically. But once again, I point you to ProfMTH who goes through the apostles one by one, discussing what we "know" about them and from which sources.

2) What you say about Paul is not necessarily wrong but still assertive...

[thalamay]

@thalamay ...

We have no evidence that Paul believed in an empty grave (one would imagine that he'd mention such a thing in the context of some of his letters) and we have evidence that he didn't believe in the bodily resurrection. So even under your interpretation, he's not a good witness for your case. On the contrary. And given that he was the only NT author who probably did know the apostles, it kinda undermines the entire argument made here.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay I hope you do not read your mail like you study History. You have not given me ANY strong grounds to otherwise accept your assertion that the early church father as you say were "mythical, highly asserting, often conflicting." As I said those were only a few of the references that qualify as secondary corroborating evidence. There is a good bit more, but there comes a point where one must learn to fish instead of bumming fish off of others, if you will. As for what I said about...

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@xTheUnknownTruthx What I say about Paul isn't assertive at all given the context of other scripture. You say that we have no evidence Paul believed in an empty tomb? No, it definitely can be argued (GIVEN THE CONTEXT) that Paul at the least implies an empty tomb. One can't take from the fact that the Jewish concept of resurrection was exceptionally....

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx

1) I didn't say that the church fathers are mythical, I said that their writings are. And I did give you evidence by pointing you to ProfMTH's detailed video series.

2) Regarding Paul: You can't reconstruct the historical Paul by interpreting him with Luke or Mark or any other book, you have to look at his letters independently. Just as you can't reconstruct Shakespeare with Goethe's works.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay How do I know? Maybe because I actually read the Bible, especially in context. You should try it. I bet you haven't even read the Bible. How do I know the Holocaust happened? I actually use reasoning (inductive and especially deductive) The evidence speaks for itself. empty tomb+ all other theories fail+ changed lives of the disciples+historical evidence= the resurrection. The way you look at it basically concludes that mormons are Christians too, it seems...you miss A LOT of details.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@xTheUnknownTruthx pointing me to go here someone else make vague and ungrounded assertions is not evidence....You need to study about the topic of canonicity as well. It seems like you are not taking in anything from my comments....Try sticking to one topic at a time. I don't want to take things to fast as you seem to miss out easily.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx It's a complex issue and too big for the comment section. You can take it or leave it, but don't call others ignorant when it's you who refuses to look at the evidence.

And quite frankly, I think it's you who needs to study when it comes to the historical background of the Bible. I did and from your comments, I can see that you didn't. You're making theological points, not historical ones.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay No, You have to understand that the Bible is both a Historical book and a Holy book. I do know A LOT about humanities studies. It was my first major...

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Which books are you talking about? The Jewish people actually have already done most of the work for us in the Torah for the old testament.

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Since we're mainly talking about the resurrection, I guess the NT is more relevant, but ultimately, it's true for every book, including those of the OT.

Also, if you use one book to interpret the other, you can only use the older one to interpret the newer book. Reading Jesus into the OT is a fallacy, but interpreting Matthew (for example) in light of David is not as there is an obvious influence.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay You are completely missing Jewish prophetic events...also preordained by Christ and other teachings...

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx Which reminds me, ProfMTH also has an excellent video series on OT prophecy with regards to Jesus: watch?v=wx5EKaY1B8g

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx The bible is historical in the sense that it's old, and it's historical in that we can deduce some of the beliefs of those who wrote it. It is not historical in the sense that it reports history as it happened.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay I agree, this is maybe to big for the comment section. The historical back ground of the Bible is greater than that of any other collection of antiquity that I have studied. You can take truth for what is or leave it..

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx So according to you, no Catholic, no Eastern Orthodox, etc has ever read the Bible? Yes, you do read the Bible in context, problem is, it's your very own context. You're looking at the Bible as if all of its books were intended to be side by side, when in reality it took centuries for the canon to form.

If you want to get historical data you therefore have to look at each book independently.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay You still have yet to give me examples of the diversity. I am trying to see what you know so I can adjust my ethos...

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx I did give you two examples: Gnostics, who believed that Jesus was a regular man with a divine spark within him (like many others) and that only that spark survived his death. Then I mentioned Docetists who believed that Jesus never had a physical body to begin with but that god merely gave the illusion of a human form. But as I mentioned, there were more: Probably the oldest group is the Jewish Christians who considered Jesus to be a prophet, nothing more, this belief was...

[thalamay]

@thalamay ...

in fact very wide spread, it went as far as the Persian empire where it survived until around the 7th century. Only in the Roman empirde did Nicea put an end to this belief. Then we have adoptionists who believed Jesus to be a regular human, but that later in his life he was adopted by god (see: "today I have begotten you").

All these beliefs formed as early, or even earlier than what we today call orthodox Christianity.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@thalamay Just so you you, Christ taught against formal religion like that of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic doctrines go against canonical scripture and Biblical doctrine. This can be said about Mormons, and many other "Christian denominations." The Jewish Sanhedrin did not just hate him for his craftsmanship (;

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx How do you know? The Catholics certainly disagree and they're in the majority. Both sides can pick and choose Bible passages that support their claims. If it was as clear as you say, there wouldn't be any disagreement.

Anyway, I fail to see what that has to do with what I said.

[antybu86]

Your "independent sources" are Paul, oral tradition of the early church, and written stories from the early church. I'm sorry, but are you sure you know what "independent" means?

Also, your argument that the Roman Empire would spread recantation accounts is based on assumption that the Roman Empire even cared about the early Christian cults. But why would they?

I think you too easily take things as "fact." It will come back to bite you.

[thalamay]

@antybu86 I agree and I want to add something: The "early church" is not the same as "early christianity".

Just look at the traditions of the branch of Christianity that lead to gnosticism. These Christians did not believe in a bodily resurrection. Neither did the docetic Christians as they didn't believe in a physical body to begin with.

The traditions and writings referred to by telemantros were contested by christians even back in the earliest of times and are hence worthless as history.

[hrobertb]

I am continually surprised by the non-historical thoughts/worldviews that creep into people's assessments of the Historicity of Jesus. The evidence is so amazing and is so much more amazing than people in the mainstream of the world would be or have been lead to believe. That Jesus lived, was crucified, and his believers were willing to die for their faith is very well attested and the best explanation of this is that Jesus bodily rose from the grave. Looking forward to your future videos. PTL.

[WhereTheyAre]

The fact that a debate for the factuality of the resurrection of Jesus even takes place, is evidence for the mythological status of the event.

Providing the meaning and the significance of the event according to the Christian religion, it makes absolutely no sense that a divine being, chose such an event to be only witnessed by a limited number of people that were already believers, forcing the rest of us to just take their words for a fact.

(cont..)

[hrobertb]

@WhereTheyAre That debate continues is not evidence whatsoever for this being mythological. How did you come to that conclusion based on what you said?

[WhereTheyAre]

@hrobertb

Did you read what i wrote past the first sentence? If such an event took place it would only make sense to be globally witnessed. The fact alone, that it was supposedly witnessed by a handful of Jesus own disciples, points towards mythology.

Give me one good reason, for such an event to be only witnessed by a limited number of people, instead of being a global event.

[hrobertb]

@WhereTheyAre Bare assertion that it has to be a global event.

[WhereTheyAre]

@hrobertb

This is ironic. Christian apologetics is mostly based on bare assertions. And now you dismiss my argument because you're not able of critical thinking :

Facts :

- The event's purpose was to effect humanity. (...by "manifesting the justice of God" (Ph 2:8-9) upon humans)

- It could immediately fulfill its purpose, by being globally witnessed.

- It could be globally witnessed due to the omnipotent nature of Jesus.

- It wasn't.

[hrobertb]

@WhereTheyAre No irony here. You are indeed making bare assertions and not the Christian. I suppose that is ironic. Your Phil quote has nothing to do with manifesting justice. You do not know that if it was globally witnessed that it would fulfill its purpose, you are just making a bare assertion. Besides, what is to be witnessed? Why do you think this would be some spectacular display of something? How would it have been globally witnessed? Who would have even understood what they were watching

[WhereTheyAre]

@hrobertb

"You do not know that if it was globally witnessed that it would fulfill its purpose"

I absolutely do.

You must agree with my first premise, being the event's purpose was to HAVE AN EFFECT ON HUMANS.

Of course you must also agree that the ultimate purpose was humanity as a whole to be effected, not just a few individuals.

Now someone has to WITNESS THE EVENT in order for it to have ANY effect.

You only have 2 options.

(cont...)

[WhereTheyAre]

@hrobertb

(...cont)

Option 1.

Jesus allows a few individuals to witness the event : Evidently, purpose not fulfilled. Not all humanity was effected.

Option 2.

Jesus makes this event global : Purpose fulfilled instantly since witnessing is causing an immediate effect.

"Why do you think this would be some spectacular display of something?"

Why walking on water is any different?

(cont...)

[WhereTheyAre]

@WhereTheyAre

(..cont)

On the other hand, every single aspect of this scenario makes sense, if the resurrection is indeed a myth. The "witnesses" were a handful of biased, and uneducated people, the biblical accounts are not even their own, and the "event" was already a cliche already used by a plethora of religions.

Additionally, there is no line of reasoning in the scripture for this event not to be globally witnessed, and this is where many Theists reply that god works in mysterious ways.

[thalamay]

1) Genuine belief doesn't proof anything. There are thousands of people who genuinely believe to have been abducted by aliens. Do you believe them?

2) There is no evidence that the disciples ever claimed that they believed that Jesus had been resurrected. We only know that the authors of the gospels claimed that the disciples believed that Jesus had been resurrected.

3) The closest thing we have is Paul who never talks about any bodily resurrection. He doesn't mention an empty grave or...

[thalamay]

...anything of that sort. He does talk about his Damascus experience, but that is clearly a vision or revelation, not a physical Jesus. In the original Greek, Paul says that "Jesus was made manifest in him". There are other indications in Paul that he did not believe in a bodily resurrection, like when he talks about the resurrection of all the Christians at the end of times which supposedly mirrors Jesus' resurrection. I forgot the Greek word he uses to describe the resurrected bodies...

[thalamay]

...but it clearly does not refer to a physical body, but rather one made of something else...it's more like spiritual, although in the Greek that could also relate to the fabric of celestial objects. Anyway, it's not a bodily resurrection.

4) As you admit yourself, the "die for a lie" argument doesn't prove anything either. But what you forgot to mention is that there's absolutely no evidence that the disciples were in fact martyred. For more on this watch ProfMTH's excellent series on this.

[telemantros]

@thalamay Did you listen to what I said? I indicated this fact functions against theories of lying and legend. Moreover, no one fact proves something; taken together they prove something. Again, did you even listen to my intro and what I said in this video? I get tired of people not listening to important distinctions.

[thalamay]

@telemantros Did you even read what I wrote? What "facts" are you talking about? The fact that Paul (the only author of the Bible who probably knew the apostles) did not believe in the bodily resurrection? The fact that belief does not equal truth? The fact that we have no historical information on the actual apostles? You're right, that does prove something, albeit not what you set out to prove.

[xTheUnknownTruthx]

@telemantros It's hard to cope with the amount of ignorance (not to be mean, but come on...) incorporated into most of these counter-argumentative comments, but even Jesus had similar problems with his disciples. I am not saying people are stupid. I understand alternate world views and know why people think the way they do, but that is why we are here. Fishers of men...Keep up the good work bro (:

[thalamay]

@xTheUnknownTruthx what ignorance are you talking about? It is ignorant to use Paul as witness for the belief in a bodily resurrection. It is ignorant to claim that we have historical knowledge of the apostles. It is ignorant to presuppose a homogeneous early christianity. I'm not the one making ignorant claims here.

Telemantros is using theological arguments to make a historical point and I'm calling him out on it. That's all.

[jcrebel18]

@telemantros

I'm sure he just read the title and decided to comment. Just my guess though.

[matrixlone]

@telemantros as far as the deity of christ couldnt we just simply look up personal testimonies? or trying prayer if he really is there? i know theres some interesting testimonies on youtube i can give you some if you want