Jim Larmore

True but I do believe I have raised some questions from a purely logical stand point that makes sense. Making sense is not conclusive evidence only subjective cognitions, but then again you haven't really disproved anything yet either.

I have a whole library of Biblical commentaries from Catholic to Seventh-day-Adventists and in between. The works of Dr. LaMore are not from the Catholic commentaries like I said they were but some Biblical commentaries from David Armstrong on defense of the Bible and its authenticity. Sorry my bad.

Why else would they do it man? Think about it. I mean their sacrifice only makes sense if this is all true . Historically we know they died in sundry ways and were tortured and beaten severely.Later under Nero christians were fed to the lions and burned on crosses as lamp stands on the road to Rome to light the way of traveler. Why? Because they truely believed in this Jesus Christ and His death burial and resurrection. The apostles wouldn't have been put to death for being a normal every day joes would they? They were making statements of faith in this Jesus Christ and preaching the gospel so they were put to death for it. Later people were put to death for just saying they were christians.
And you've failed to disprove it as well.

Ok, lets look at a few facts, they may not be emperical evidence but I offer them as a defense of my acceptance on the reality of the resurrection.

Fact number 1.

The entire christian movement is based on this life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It started at pentacost with the jews and was opened to the gentiles after the stoning of stephen. This movement would NOT have got to square one if the man Jesus was still in the tomb dead. It would not have survived all these years and grown to the point it has if it was all a lie. Supernatural protection has been on not only the Bible but the christian movement from day one.

Fact number 2.
Saul soon to become Paul saw christ in a vision that blinded him as he was on his way to damascus to persecute the christians. Why would I say this is a fact? Because he suddenly change his ways abruptly from being a Zealot persecutor to a christian evangelizing his part of the world. People don't do 180 degree changes instantaneously for NO REASON AT ALL . He went thru terrible hardship during his tenure as an apostle. Even crazy people wouldn't spend the rest of their lives in a sacrificial life style like his for a lie. BTW, If the story is real of Paul's conversion on the road to damascus then that proves Christ was ascended, i.e. resurrected. Paul fully accepted the resurrection of Christ when he wrote 1Cor 15:14.

Fact number 3.
Canonization of the gospels wouldn't have occurred if they truely believed them to be false or compromised by being authored by someone else. Verification and vendication of the Bible has been an ongoing thing since before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls found at qumran. I know that those scrolls were not of the New Testament but they have served to authenticate what we have in the LXX. The whole Bible is authentic.

Amaleq13

How can I disprove your subjective, faith-based beliefs? The notion makes no sense. Quit trying to shift the burden. You either can support your assertion that the Gospel resurrection stories are historically reliable or you cannot.

OK, how about sharing some of the specific evidence and arguments he puts forth to establish that the Gospel resurrection stories are historically reliable?

Are you suggesting that personally experiencing the risen Christ would not provide sufficient faith to resist torture? That would be consistent with Paul's letters yet not require the Gospel stories to be historically reliable.

If you are suggesting that it is not possible that their actual experiences might have differed from the Gospel stories, then you are again applying circular reasoning and assuming the conclusion you are trying to establish.

Don't keep repeating this assertion without substantiating it. "We" know no such thing until you establish it.

Those beliefs don't appear to require that the Gospel stories be historically reliable. Paul and his churches held those same beliefs yet he never mentions the stories at all. In fact, the only written support to which he appeals are various unidentified passages of Scripture.

Quit trying to shift the burden! I have no obligation to "disprove" unsubstantiated assertions, faulty information, and faith-based convictions.

False. This is contrary to the evidence. Paul's faith is based on the death and resurrection but the "life" is clearly irrelevant to his gospel.

Paul seems to have done just fine without any empty tomb.

Why does this not apply to Islam?

Why does this require that the Gospel stories be historically reliable?

The strength of the faith of certain 2nd century Christians doesn't make the Gospel stories historically reliable.

Establishing the textual reliability of the Hebrew Bible does nothing to establish the historical reliability of the Gospel stories.

John A. Broussard

I'm going to try this again.

1. According to many believers, Christ's resurrection from the dead is a crucial part of Christian belief.

2. Christ's resurrection happened in relative obscurity.

Therefore: If the truth of the resurrection is that crucial, why didn't Christ do it publicly? A really big audience--including large numbers of literate people--could have been very effective in establishing the reality of the resurrection.

Jagella

In addition to Christ’s alleged resurrection, the Virgin Mary has a habit of making appearances in out-of-the-way places before very few witnesses. We may therefore ask ourselves which of the two following scenarios is more plausible:

1. An all-wise God, recognizing the urgency of needing to warn all humanity of the imminent threat of eternal damnation if they continue to fall into doubt, attempts to save us by having his son rise from the dead with no witnesses at all and very few afterward. He then takes his risen son away leaving us only with the word of a few of his son’s followers that are written down decades later by unknown individuals. As a last resort, he then sends the mother of his son to earth to sporadically appear in visions to people of questionable characters to again warn of us impending eternal damnation.

2. It’s basically all a lot of BS made up by charlatans.

Which one will you believe?

Jim Larmore

Why didn't He go and humble the high priest and the entire sanhedrin? Why didn't He stand in the temple and preach to the entire city of Jerusalem? I don't know, but I don't consider the fact that He didn't as evidence of the resurrection being a lie. The Bible says He stayed here for forty days before He ascended and appeared to many. This was more than ample proof to the people of the area that the resurrection actually occurred. Its only now many years hince that we sit from our wordly and dimented perspective that we question why He did what He did.

Christ wasn't a show boat kind of guy if you remember, that wasn't what He came here for. He told many that He had just healed to keep it a secret and not tell anyone. He conducted His entire ministry as a poor carpenter from Nazareth and only just before the passion did He allow the masses to treat Him like a king. He wasn't about making a big scene at any time He was here. Jesus said it pretty plainly when He said that this world was not of His kingdom and if it had been then He would have His angels to support Him. His mission was to walk among men as a man incarnate God and to live a sinless life, and to give His life as a sacrifice for the entire world of fallen men/women. He did exactly what He set out to do.

Enough people witnessed the risen christ to make it well known what the truth of the matter is.

I want to suggest you read 11Cor4:1-4 and see if this applies or not.

Jagella

Probably because he was dead.

To them, yes; to us it’s only a claim.

There’s nothing “worldly� or “demented� about asking good questions. The wise person asks good questions and expects good answers.

Maybe, but it takes a lot of faith to believe it.

People have also claimed to have seen ETs, Bigfoot, and mermaids. Do you believe them?

Jagella

Kosh

Then how do you account for origins of Buddhism, Islam, and Mormonism?

The Mormons have signed withness testimonies, ya know.

Are you a Mormon?

John A. Broussard

OK. You've convinced me. Christ shunned publicity--for whatever reason.

Even so, since the Romans were in charge, since one of their conquered people had been honored by his followers as their king which had prompted the Romans to crucify him--isn't it rather strange that when he came back to life and walked around for forty days (and as you state, he wasn't trying to hide) that not one single word was written about it by the Romans? You would think they would have been a bit worried and sent a note back to the Senate, at least.

I'm puzzled by the complete silence about this very significant matter by a people who left us a vast volume of other correspondence.