coloradoatheist

The others have given better critiques than I can but there are many small examples of where there were either no eye witnesses or the person who wrote it had to rely on other people but don't say how they got the information or how they verified it.

One easy example is the virgin birth. Paul doesn't mention it, and neither does Mark (why did he leave it out)? So how did Matt and Luke find out and did they verify it, did they bring Jesus on the Jerry Springer show to test if Joseph was really his daddy or give MNary a lie detector test?

I also agree, find the scholars who say that Matt and Luke don't rely on Mark and summarize their reasonings instead of just saying some unknown conservative scholar says they don't rely on Mark.

Mike

aChristian

It doesn't say that they appeared to everyone in the city, just to many people. I suspect that they didn't appear to those who demanded a sign.
The three days question has been answered many times.

Maybe nothing, but that does not mean that they did. You seem to be argueing that you don't like they way God did the miracle, only having them appear to some people and not others.

As John said in his gospel, it everything that Jesus did was written down, the whole world wouldnt't have room for the books. God just had the disciples record enough so that an honest inquirer would have solid reasons to know the resurrection had occurred and Jesus was the Messiah.

It sounds to me like they remained in the grave until the resurrection and then after that God put their bodies back in the grave again.

There are many things we don't know about the universe, but we have eyewitness testimony to the resurrection.

As I quoted John above, lots of things were not recorded.

Why? You have reliable eyewitness testimony to it. People were around to dispute it if it wasn't true. The Romans or Jews could have brought out the body. The disciples were persecuted for a story that they knew they made up if it wasn't true. This doesn't make sense. It is more logical that they are telling the truth. It also fits their character as we see it in their writings and in the witness of people who knew them in history (church fathers).

It doesn't sound like a deliberate lie to me and I think I am being reasonable.

aChristian

Yes. The Hittites existence was not known and the Bible ridiculed until they dug up too much evidence to dispute it. Same thing with the Horites, Sargon II and Belshazzar. Read Archer's Intro to the Old Testament for more examples.

aChristian

No just the stuff that honest historians have examined carefully and provide good reasons why it is authentic. I think conservative scholars have done so.
Good night. Hey!?! Where did the regular smile go?
:wave:

johntheapostate

Is it not amazing, how the evidence never presents itself to the skeptical?

Matthew 12:40 " For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three day and three nights in the heart of the earth"

All the apologetics revolve around how even a partial day could legitimately be referred to a whole day, but even if we take this into account, Jesus spent only Friday night and Saturday night in his tomb. Why don't you do what all those dumb ass apologists have not accomplished and find us the missing night.

johntheapostate

It could not sound like anything because the text gives no indication of what happened.

How is that some comparably trivial occurrences are mentioned by more than one Gospel, but something of such significance is only mentioned in passing in one. There is no way you would accept the claims of some other religion on such evidence. Why should we accept yours?

Hebrews 9:27 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment"

If the resurrected people had to die again, what is the point of this verse.

johntheapostate

You are assuming that anyone cared if some sect of people ran around making ridiculous claims. You are also assuming that the Gospels were written at a time when verifying their claims was possible or even if people cared at that time.

Do we have written refutations of all the little sects that existed back then and do you believe that even had there been refutations of Christianity, that the Church would have let them survive.

johntheapostate

If there is a hell, Christians will be spending eternity in it. By making a god out of a man they will be lumped with the worst form if idolaters.

The New Testament makes claims for the divinity of Jesus using passages from the Hebrew scripture. In my opinion the textual proof for this claim does not even come close to justifying the concept of the trinity considering the overwhelming preponderance of textual evidence affirming the singular nature of god.

In the book of John the Jews where about to stone Jesus for what they perceived was the claim by Jesus that he was god.

John 10:31-“32 “ Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father For which of them do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you a mere man, claim to be god.�

If Jesus had indicated that he was in some way god the Jews would have been within their Law to kill him.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, Let us follow other gods (gods you have not known) and let us worship them, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your god is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your god you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him, and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death�

If Jesus had not been claiming to be a part of god he had the opportunity to clarify his statements, but instead he makes this statement.

John 10:34-35 “ Jesus answered them, is it not written in your Law I have said you are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own.

I have been accused at times of not interpreting scripture within its context, but here Jesus take that practice to its extreme. He invokes the authority of scripture in his assertion that he held some special relation to god that exceeded that of the persons who had been referred to god in the Hebrew scripture. This passage comes from Psalms and I don’t think that it was considered part of the Law by the Jews anyway.

Psalm 82:1 “ God presides in the great assembly, he gives judgement among the gods�

If one were to read just this passage, it could be interpreted that perhaps the Jewish concept of monotheism could accommodate other gods, but if one reads a little further the nature of these gods become apparent. After berating these gods the chapter closes with this statement.

Psalm 82:6-7 “ I said you are gods, you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler�

It now becomes apparent that this chapter is about human rulers and kings and their refusal to act justly. And it also indicates that at the time Psalms was written a king could hold the title of god or son of God.

This bit of information totally destroys the legitimacy of the proof text which come from the Book of Psalms that are used to bolster the claim that Jesus is also god.

Matthew 22:45 “ While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, What do you think about the Christ, whose son is he? The son of David, they replied. How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him Lord, For he says The Lord said to my Lord. Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. If David called him Lord how can he be his son? No one could say a word in reply, and from that day no one dared to ask him any more questions�

Verses like these are the reason that fundamentalists insist that the Psalms were written by David himself. First Because Jesus said so and second because if they acknowledge that the Psalms were written by others about David then all those instances were it appears that David is addressing a divine entity, simply can be understood as a subject of David addressing the King in language appropriate for the circumstances of a lesser addressing a superior

This is something that liberal Christians should consider. For if they admit (correctly) that to hold to the position that the author of Psalms was David, can not be substantiated considering the internal evidence contained in the text, then they throw out all the proof text supporting his divinity as well. This statement by Jesus which is used as the better part of the claim by Christianity that Jesus was divine depends totally on the assumption that David was the author of the text.

Some would object that the term Lord was reserved only for god. But the Bible contains many instances where the subordinate addressees his superior as lord. Here is a passage were both David and God are addressed as L/lord in the same sentence.

1 Chronicles 21:3 “ But Joab replied, May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lords subjects?�

So if the Psalm was written by a subordinate of David, there is no problem interpreting the passage “ The Lord (god) said to my lord ( the king) Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.� This interpretation is much more plausible and destroys what I consider a rather weak argument to begin with, That the Hebrew scriptures indicate that the Messiah would be a divine figure.

I would like to address some passages from the book of Hebrews which try to impress on the reader the divinity of Christ


Hebrews 1:5 “ For which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son, today I have become your Father? Or again I will be his Father and he will be my Son�

I have shown that Kings could be referred to as Sons of God and in the context of Psalm 2, it becomes obvious that It was written by a subordinate of David about David and that the author is writing in a manner that reflected the semi divine status that Kings held at the time. A status that the Jews did not hold of kings by the first century.

Here is how the author of Hebrews abuses the difference of opinion of the status of kings that had developed from the time when Psalms was written until the time Hebrews was written. Here the author quotes Psalm 45:6-7

Hebrews 1:8-9 “ But about the Son he says Your throne oh God will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, Therefore God, your God has set you above your companions�

This Quote is almost correct but there is one difference. In Psalms it is a scepter of justice rather than righteousness which is referred to. I am not certain why the author replaced justice with righteousness, perhaps justice was to closely associated with the Law for the authors taste�

Again the author assumes that it is David who wrote the Psalm in reference to some future divine Messiah. In the case we can exclude this theory on the internal evidence of the Psalm itself.

Psalm 45:1 “ My heart is stirred by a noble theme as I recite my verses for the king, my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer�

In the first verse the author is identified as someone other than the king.

The author of Hebrews then assumes that the phrase God your God is meant to be understood as one divinity addressing another when in fact it can just as easily be understood as the author of this Psalm emphasizing that god Davids god has set David above his companions. And even if the Psalmist had intended David to be addressed as god, I have shown that this was not impossible at the time the Psalms were written.

If one reads the rest of the Psalm it become clear that is about David rather than by David. The rest of the Psalm is mostly concerned about the sexual interest the king has for women and to state the promise that sons would take the places of their fathers to perpetuate his memory forever.

At any rate with the preponderance of scripture indicating that god was a single entity, I think that most Jews in the first century would have found the concept of the trinity hard to justify.

johntheapostate

In Philippians 2:5-11 Paul attempt to show that although Jesus had humbled himself to die as a man on the cross, he was by nature an equal of god.

“ Your attitude should be the same as that of Jesus Christ: Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.�

Here Paul shows that although Jesus was the equal of god he had not selfishly held on to that status but had willingly become human to sacrifice himself on the cross.

“ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name that is above every name�

Paul shows that Jesus regains his stature

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father�

This verse is a rip- off of Isaiah 45:23 and with the context surrounding it Paul appears to be on very shaky ground.

Isaiah 45:21-25 “ Was it not I the Lord? And there is no God apart from me a righteous God and a Savior, there is none but me.

Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked.

Before me every knee shall bow, by me every tongue will swear They will say off me, In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength. All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.

Did Paul consciously rip-off the text of Isaiah and insert Jesus in the place of god, knowing full well that in the context of the verse the author had gone to great lengths to emphasize the singularity of god and that there was no credible justifications for contorting the meaning of one on some concept of the trinity which can not in honesty be extracted from the text and was foreign to the Jews and had not been formulated by the Christian church at the time Paul wrote his letter at any rate.

It is interesting that contained in the chapters surrounding this verse there is a determined effort by its author to emphasize the singularity of god. Here are some others that I found in the vicinity.

Isaiah 42:8 “ I am the Lord, that is my name. I will not give my glory to another�

Isaiah 43:10-11" Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I even I am the Lord and apart from me there is no savior�

Isaiah 44:6" I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is no God�

Isaiah 44:24 “ I am the Lord who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.�

Isaiah 46:4 “ To whom will you compare me or count me equal?�

Isaiah 46:9 “ I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me.

Isaiah 48:11 “ For my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another�

Isaiah 48:12 “ Listen to me O Jacob, Israel who I have called, I am he, I am the first and the last�



There is no other place in the Hebrew scriptures that contains as many passages affirming the singular nature of god as the section of Isaiah from which Paul plagiarized.

johntheapostate

Nehemiah 9:6 " You alone are the Lord. you made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything"


This verse in Nehemiah contradicts completely the concept of the trinity. Arguments have been made by defenders of that concept, that although there is only one god, that within that god there is more than one lord. In this way they can have Jesus take ownership of some passages in the Hebrew scripture where the lord is referred to. Yet this verse clearly indicates that god alone is lord.