Amaleq13

Worthless as evidence for such an absurd claim.

Prove it.

Prove it.

jkhuss1

In the court of law it takes two or three witnesses to prove without any doubt that someone is either guilty or innocent. . .
There were doctors, police officers on accident scene, ambulances, medical professionals, mortuary workers, preachers, intercessors, crowds of people, family.. . . . .

I am so sorry that you were not there. . .

You stake the claim that you were risen from the dead. . . Doing the very best that you can with so many eye witnesses and workers, and lawenforcement involvement. . .
You do that with that many witnesses and make it flawless.
Not Possible. . .

Solo

testify to what ? that he was dead ? How does a dead person know he or she is dead ?

Good for him !

You said in a previous post it was a 'mortition' who 'declared' him dead. :huh:


Jiri

jkhuss1

I have a friend who is a mortition. . .

He is a qualified dealer in dead people. . .

I was mistaken about the Mortition declaring him dead, but who cares?

Doctors try to save lives and Mortitions deal only with lost lives. . .

What is your point anyway JIRI. . .

If the Corpse made it to the Mortition - I would call the Mortition a liar if He declared the Man LIVES! ! !

Roger Pearse

I do not think this debate reflects much credit on either side, or achieves much. It is certainly possible that the Bonnke incident was a fraud; any of us can imagine how it might be done. It is likewise somewhat pointless to trot out a series of imaginary reasons why frauds happen; we all know that they do, but it demonstrates precisely nothing about whether a particular incident was genuine or not. In short all I can see here is knees jerking, and it is rather unedifying reading.

Returning to the OP, from that limited summary the book would seem to be advancing a rather curious idea. How valid is it to argue about first century ideas of resurrection, by discussing second century texts from a movement which held docetism -- the idea that the body of Jesus was a phantasm -- as its primary tenet? The utmost study of such texts can only tell us that the authors were docetists, and this we already knew. It won't tell us anything about what the general view on this subject was in the first (or second)-century world, surely?

I know that some would argue that the Coptic gospel of Thomas is a c.1 text, but we should remember that the form that has reached us clearly is not, although it might contain c.1 material. But to use it in any argument of this sort, it would have to be certainly and beyond disagreement a c.1 document, and this condition for the argument does not seem to be met.

The idea of consulting a range of antique material to obtain an idea of how things are used is a good one tho -- it is the only way to avoid crass anachronisms.

Solo

You mean you have a friend who is mortician but you don't know how to spell that, right ?

No, a mortician does not deal in dead people. He manages their funerals and burials.

Well, for someone who is interested in the psychology of religion, this is a very revealing type of error. You see, if you have poor reading/writing skills and can't properly grasp the respective functions of a doctor and a funeral director in deaths, then it tells me something about the grade of your reality-testing skills in general.

You say the corpse made it to the mortician. I only have your word for it and not the mortician's. And again, I see you protesting too much ! There have been many instances where seemingly dead people woke up in morgues or funeral parlors. So, it can happen and does happen. It usually happens without the call on the holy name. And conversely, many, many people of faith have called God or Jesus to resuscitate their loved one with no effect at all. Are you denying that ? Or would you say that it is true but that their faith was not strong enough ?

Jiri

Amaleq13

Witnesses who have been critically questioned before the jury. You don't have that here.

Then there should be ample official documentation. It doesn't exist, does it?

Amaleq13

You never do when the "faithful" argument is so utterly without merit.

Wow, you are going out on a limb there! It is "certainly possible" that a man was not actually raised from the dead after being embalmed!! Are you sure you want to go so far? Your healthy skepticism compels you to allow for the reasonable possibility that the embalming fluid was magically transformed into blood and other body fluids necessary for life? :rolling:

If only your knee jerk reactions were so rational as a rejection of the patently absurd notion of an embalmed man coming back to life.

Back to safer ground and I agree with you!

jkhuss1

Safer Ground is where?

What if a storm came and swept all of your sand away?

Then you could come and stand upon the Rock that I am standing on. . .

jkhuss1

It is funny to me that on the bible discourse they dont want to talk about all the points in favor of the Bible - but they gag at one silly point and overlook all the sound evidence. .

Then this topic is about the Resurrection. . . OF COURSE who's Resurrection but Jesus' Resurrection. . . But no one wants to listen to the facts in favor of a resurrection in Jesus name. . . You disqualify what is way too sound to disqualify: and in the process of doing so you call yourselves scholars and philosophers, and extremely educated men and women in Religion. . .

If your an Athiest. . . Then why would you talk so much about what you don't believe in anyway. . . Are you afraid that you might be wrong?

I knew a boy who got so mad at his parents that he claimed not to have any parents...
People would say, "boy, who is your mommy and daddy." He would exclaim with angry rage - I DON'T HAVE NO MOMMY NOR DADDY. . . He spent his whole life like this. Eating mommies food and sleeping in daddys house. Yet he told all, "they don't exist. . ."

Well of course He don't exist little feller. . . Of course He don't. . . You just keep on fighting the wind. . .

Can't you just picture that boy? Well anyway I hope he gets his point across and convinces at least one person that his parents arn't really real like they say that they are. . .

Must be miserable not having parents - but the most horrifying thing of all is that no one believes that you don't have parents. . .