JoeWallack

God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!


JW
Good. I feel like we are making some real progress here. Now, where is Andrew's testimony "that Jesus had risen from the dead."?

Also, does St. Mark describe Andrew as an Apostle?



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Richbee

By-the-way Joe, thank you posting this canard!

Let have fun debunking this one................

The late, great Professor Ronald Nash writes:

The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."[3]

This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.

As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.

http://www.summit.org/resource/essay...hp?essay_id=29

Richbee

Hey, thanks for you pic! (Hmmm, how do I upload my Pic?)

Are you a Badger?

Can you provide any modern scholarship supporting your assertion about eyewitness testimony?

Until then enjoy learning about...............

Dr. Simon Greenleaf writes about the nature and quality of evidence, and burden of proof required by "skeptics" who wish to impeach the New Testament evidence.

Testimony of the Evangelists - by Dr. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels; and injustice silently acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, aliunde, to establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is entitled to be considered, and in permitting the testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single Christian. This is not the course in courts of chancery, where the testimony of a single witness is never permitted to outweigh the oath even of the defendant himself, interested as he is in the cause; but, on the contrary, if the plaintiff, after having required the oath of his adversary, cannot overthrow it by something more than the oath of one witness, however credible, it must stand as evidence against him. But the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true. This treatment, moreover, has been applied to them all in a body; and, without due regard to the fact, that, being independent historians, writing at different periods, they are entitled to the support of each other: they have been treated, in the argument, almost as if the New Testament were the entire production, at once, of a body of men, conspiring by a joint fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the world.

It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy."

Hotlink: Simon Greenleaf

Spanky

Did anybody read the OP's link?

Here's a little more. . .BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHA

BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHA

These "evidences" could not hold up in any court of law.

Richbee

Would you like some Cheese to go with your whine?

You dissemble off topic and cannot or will not address the core issues here?

Why is that?

2 Peter 1:16

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [See: Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(emphasis mine)

Richbee

People have attacked the New Testament for the last 2,000 Years!

All have failed!

The Christian faith was not born in a vacuum, or appear out of thin air, but rather rests on a strong foundation, and tradition of truth - Judaism with it's tradition of scribes, prophets and prophesy. Not to mention truth telling.

Recall, that Saul/Paul, a Pharisee of all Pharisees, a Hebrew of Hebrews, must verify the basic facts, and confirm the revelation he received on the road to Damascus, and in the tradition, must cross examine first hand, eyewitness accounts.

Read Paul's testimony, in: Galatians 1:11 - 18

"..the gospel I preach is not something man made up.." "..I persecuted the Church and tried to destroy it...I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews, and extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers...verse 18: "Then after three years I stayed with Peter, James, etc, in Jerusalem.
( ~ 33 or 35 A.D.)

Again Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 "Christ died for our sins, And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day, And that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also,.."

History is full of ......Attacks on the veracity of the Gospels

Over the last two hundred years, the historical veracity of the Bible has been under attack from both within and without the faith. The attacks range from questioning whether Jesus ever existed (He did), to postulating bizarre theories regarding Jesus that have far less empirical evidence to back them than do the Gospels themselves. The chart below lists some of the primary skeptics since the 18th century:

Follow along....

Curmudgeon - Date - False Premise

H.S. Reimarus: 1778 - Claimed disciples stole the body of Jesus, and made up the resurrection story

David Friedrich Strauss: 1835- - In Life of Jesus, doubted historical accuracy of gospels

Bruno Bauer: 1882 - Denied that Jesus actually lived

William Wrede: 1901 -- In Messianic Secret, claimed that the evangelists had put words in the mouth of Jesus to make theological points

Albert Schweitzer: 1906 - In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, denies that Jesus was the Messiah

Religions-geschichtliche Schule: c. 1900 -- Drew parallels between Christianity and other religious sects in the Mideast

K.L. Schmidt: 1919 - Claims details of time and place in the Gospels are fabricated

Elizabeth Clare Prophet: 1984 -- In Lost Years of Jesus, pictures Jesus as a mystic traveling in India for 17 years.

Michael Bagent, Henry Lincoln: 1982 - In Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jesus as the husband of Mary Magdalene

G.A. Wells: 1971, 1975, 1982 -- In three different books, questions whether Jesus ever existed

John Dominic Crossan - Jesus Seminar: 1993 - Panel members voted on which words of Jesus are "accurate"; The Five Gospels claim that only 18% of the words attributed to Jesus are verifiable

Gardner, Laurence: 1996 - - In Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Jesus as 1) husband of Mary Magdalene 2) an Essene teacher 3) brother of Joseph of Arimathea

Interestingly enough, though, modern archaeology, and ancient history do verify much of the historical panoply of the Gospels.

Why study the historical Jesus? - A Lesson for the so called "skeptics". - Click HERE

Spanky

Why don't you go back to all of your posts kind sir, and witness yourself how many times YOU dissembled off topic and NEVER addressed let alone come near the core issues.
I act like a fool to you because this is what you merit. I normally don't post like this but you are an exception.
These are not proofs, sir. None of them, none of them, can be proved beyond a reason of a doubt.
I will say it again . . . you belong in either religious discussions or politics. You do not measure up in Biblical Criticism and History. You have proved that time and again.
At least I can admit that I don't really belong posting here, either. Trying to keep up with people that have studied this all their lives. Who know Greek, who know the history of the church, who know a hell of lot more than you or I. So, please, please, spare us and just FUCKING READ!

hallq

Only in fundie fantasy land. If you want modern scholarship on the authorship of the Gospels, I suggest Raymond Brown's introduction. He lashes out at those who are highly skeptical of their miracle claims, but the most charitable assessment he can give of the traditional authorship claims is that it is "not impossible" that the book of Luke was written by a minor companion of Paul. "Not impossible."

Or, answer this question: did the women keep quiet after discovering the tomb (as per Mark), or did they run straight to the disciples (as Matthew couldn't have stated more clearly)? Keep in mind that even most evangelical scholars reject the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, something that is admitted in Gary Habermas' latest book.

You quote Greenleaf saying we should accept the testimony of eyewitnesses at face value. Where, though, in legal lore is there anything that says we must accept the testimony of copies of documents for which we do not have chain of custody, which did not initially appear with their authors names, and whose authors are not identified in other sources until decades after the fact?

Richbee

My friend Ravi Zacharias writes: (posted with permission)

At a debate one of my colleagues attended on the existence of God, there was a rather vociferous atheist who sported an unforgettable jacket. Monogrammed on the back of the jacket were the words of a familiar verse, yet with a surprise ending. It read,

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever...dead."

The resurrection of Jesus has been called the linchpin of Christianity. Indeed, even the apostle Paul wrote that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, there was no faith to be had. What incredible words!

Some who wrongly dichotomize "faith" and "facts" might expect the apostle to say,

"Well, if we find out that Jesus really did not rise, we'll keep believing it because it brings comfort and besides, what would it do to Christianity?"

Yet Paul says, in effect, if Christ is still dead, if he is still in the grave, let's hang up the whole thing. Eat, drink, and be merry!

No historical event has been so subjected to scrutiny as Jesus' claim to have risen from the dead.

This alone is an indicator of the event's importance. So many ingenious ways have been concocted to falsify it—from the swoon theory to the disciples' self-delusion—that it's almost humorous. I am amazed at the lengths to which some scholars have been willing to go in an attempt to debunk the resurrection, while scores of other religious figures (such as Krishna, Buddha, or Mohammed) have been left totally unstudied. Interestingly enough, an average student in India, for example, does not even know when Krishna was born or if indeed he ever was. At the same time, he or she has theorized about Jesus quite a bit. This is an ironic phenomenon.

Of all His claims, His promise of His resurrection was understandably the most controversial. Yet, to be certain, it was the ultimate justification of His message.

More people in the world bow their knee to Jesus than to any other religious leader. Are they justified in doing so, or is Jesus still in the grave like all of the others that have come and gone?.....

.....If the resurrection of Jesus Christ is true, life itself must be defined by that truth.

Source: Resurrection - Part 1 of 8

Richbee

Thanks for playing, but I'm not a "fundie".

There are five passages in the New Testament that claim to be historical accounts of what happened to Jesus, and these are:

Matthew 28:1-20
Mark 16:1-14
Luke 24:1-53
John 20:1-29
1 Corinthians 15:1-8

There is a complete resource - Hotlink: Resurrection Harmony - Resource for suggested Study