Jim Larmore

There are over 10 affirmations of O.T. prophecy being fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ and His actions in the first 5 chapters of Matthew alone.
What you have to keep in mind here is a few irrefutable facts.
1. The gospels were indeed written well within the life time of some of those who witnessed these accounts. That fact alone elevates their authenticity.
2. The early christian church accepted the authors of all of the gospels as the ones claimed to have written them. Had there been any doubt about the authenticity of the authorship it would have been duly noted back then and especially later by the Roman Catholic scholars.
3. If Jesus had not actually been resurrected they would have produced a body to refute it. And like I said a lot of ink would have been laid out to reflect the fraud by ancient historians . Those who killed Christ were very paranoid right after the resurrection and made the Roman soldiers lie about what happened. Don't you think they would have refuted resurrection if they could have?

The evidence is resplendant throughout early church history in the fact that they fully accepted the accouts as literal and accurate. Like I said all of the early church embraced it including Paul and in addition it was recorded by Josephus . Many critics like to say Josephus' record of this is a fraud but there is no direct evidence of this at all , only speculation and conjecture. The record still stands.
I respectfully disagree. I don't think you could have a world wide movement originate from nothing. These accounts are based on actual events and the witnesses bore record in what we call the gospels. As far as concrete evidence goes you can't prove for sure who wrote the illiad but its generally accepted that Homer did it.

This is a Biblical critics stance and position to invalidate the authenticity of the scriptures. I don't accept it because writing style can change in a single letter that anyone can write let alone an entire gospel. I change my writing style often when I'm writing, heck you could probably see a change in what I have written right here in this OP.

Jack the Bodiless

Jim, we all know that the author of Matthew ripped OT verses out of context to create numerous false claims of "prophecy fulfillment". He did this quite blatantly.
How is this "irrefutable"?
How "early"? The canonical gospels weren't assigned to their traditional authors until the 2nd century, apparently.
How could they produce a body of a crucifixion victim decades after the event?

Your reply also presupposes that there WAS a resurrection. If nothing surprising happened, why would they be "very paranoid"?
It is perfectly obvious that a JEW could not possibly have written "he was the Christ".

Jim, you joined this forum in April 2003. By now, you should know better. Are you just yanking our chains here?

Amaleq13

Let's stick to the subject at hand (ie the resurrection), shall we? I'm not terribly persuaded by the ability of the Gospel authors to take passages from the Hebrew Bible to create the appearance of fulfillment in a narrative.

First, this is not an "irrefutable fact". The dating of the Gospels is speculative but the majority of scholars prefer the range from c.70CE to 100CE. I agree this is hypothetically within the lifespan of the participants depicted in the story but your are incorrect that this is automatically meaningful with regard to the historical accuracy of the story. Second, in order to obtain an actual increase n the likelihood of accuracy, you must also demonstrate that the stories were known to these alleged eyewitnesses. Your own Bible claims that James and Peter were dead by the time the first story is believed to have been written.

Someone in the mountains of Iraq could write a story about the recent war and still get every fact wrong despite the fact that it was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. This is why your reasoning is flawed.

The 2nd century Christian church established the authors but there is no evidence that they did so based on compelling evidence. This "tradition" cannot be traced any earlier so it has no actual value in establishing the authenticity of the stories. BTW, the same consensus that accepts the dating described above also accepts that the Gospels were originally anonymous.

That's ridiculous. Your own Bible claims that the disciples didn't even make this claim publicly until over a month after the execution but even a three-day-old corpse would hardly be recognizable to the point of refuting such claims.

This is more circular reasoning. Your only evidence for this is one version of the story you are trying to argue is reliable history. That none of the other three versions of the story include this claim does not increase the likelihood that it is factual.

Absolutely but this seems to be a red herring since such a refutation does not appear to be possible given, at minimum, a three-day delay between the death and the claims of resurrection.

I think your use of "early church history" is entirely misleading since your claim is only true after the 2nd century. The actual "early church" (ie mid-1st century) shows no evidence of even knowing these stories existed.
In addition, the faith in the truth of their beliefs demonstrated by Christians living nearly a century after the alleged events is hardly compelling evidence from a rational standpoint.

Paul exhibits no knowledge of the Gospel story of the resurrection. In fact, he declares that his faith in the resurrection of Christ is based on his own experience of the risen Christ and his belief that it was foretold in the Hebrew Bible. He makes no reference to an empty tomb, earthquakes, rising saints, Roman guards, angelic messengers, or torn Temple curtains.

The same consensus that accepts the Gospel dating and anonymous authorship recognizes that Josephus could not possibly have written the Testimonium as it stands. IIRC, the reference to Jesus appearing alive three days later is generally considered part of the more obvious interpolations.

Do you do so on faith because nothing in the rest of the paragraph appears to counter my claim?

My statement does not require this ridiculous straw man. The evidence from Paul indicates the movement began with faith in the claims that a resurrected Christ had appeared to several people. There is no evidence that Paul knew or told the Gospel story in order to obtain converts.

This is the claim you have to support with something other than your faith. So far, you have not.

No, it is a conclusion resulting from the same critical examination to which every other ancient text is subjected. Your faith compels you to make an exception for the Bible but there is no rational basis for it.

Julian

Matthew goes cherry-picking in the OT. Try reading the Mt. quotes in context and you will see how silly this is. Not that you will...
I am assuming that you do not know what the word means so I looked it up for you.

irrefutable

adj : impossible to deny or disprove; "incontrovertible proof of the defendant's innocence"; "proof positive"; "an irrefutable argument" [syn: incontrovertible, positive]

Nonsense. You have yet to show that the events even took place, much less that any witnesses were still alive. Empty assertation, as usual.
Really? Duly noted? By a bunch of bitter old men who believed whatever was put in front of them? How many gospels were floating around back then? 20? 30? It took them a few hundred years to whittle them down to four.
Who are they? Nobody seemed to care about your savior. Have you noticed? No contemporary accounts at all. The whole thing seems to have been a non-event.
I see. So if some guy was put to death by the authorities and then turned up dead, this would have caused them to write reams of historical text? But, the savior of the human race, who died and was resurrected didn't merit even a single line? I guess saviors were resurrected on daily basis back then, so often, in fact, that whenever one actually stayed dead it would cause an uproar. :rolling:
You're just making this up, aren't you? Again, provide evidence. And, no, the gospels don't count. You cannot prove the bible true using the bible.
How about a simpler explanation that fits all the facts? It never happened. A child could refute the resurrection even if it had happened.
Really? Wow, someone should have gotten word to Marcion or the Ebionites... You know, that early church was just one big happy family who agreed with each other on doctrinal, christological and documentary issues...
Paul had no knowledge of any gospels and seemed to have interest in the existence of an earthly Jesus.No it doesn't. Even believing christian scholars no longer use the TF as evidence. How about some actual knowledge?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Oh , BTW, Josephus was not an eye-witness anyways...

Argument from Incredulity. Who says that it had to come from nothing, BTW? Christianity started out fragmented and then eventually came together centuries later. Doesn't sound like something that started with a single founder, does it?
"actual events" and "witnesses" are just assertations again. You have no evidence nor is any of it credible to any reasonable mind.

Homer gets a break that the gospels don't since Homer never claimed that he was trying to save the human race and that you had to live by his rules or die.
No, it is consistently nonsense.

Julian

Jim Larmore

Again I respectfully disagree. The context of many texts support what Matthew says, like the prophecy in Jeremiah. The suffering servant in Isa 53 fits Jesus Christ to a tee.
Well for one its irrefutable that some people who lived in 33 A.D. could have been and were indeed alive by 70-90A.D. when these gospels were written. I believe John Marks account style is indicative of his being aware that anything he said that was not true would be refuted by those who witnessed these things. BTW, his style is very straight foward with very little frills at all, its just plain talk of the facts with very little personal opionion added.

Obviously in the 2nd century but this was close enough to the time of writting to verify validity. All the authors were accepted from very early before canonization took place. Like I said the early church historians associated with Rome and the soon to be catholic church would have found out any fraudulent authorship. These gospels are accurate and authentic . You can count on it.
Heck I don't know maybe the same way we could today produce a body of gun shot wounds or stabbing done and buried decades before. Jesus was a very public man before He was crucified with thousands of followers thru out the whole area of Galilee. His tomb would have been a place of special interest then even as it is today. His body would have been very protected and even worshiped if it was still there. Thank God its not ,,,Jesus is alive today.
Again this is very apparent if you just use some logic and examine the text of the account. In Matt. 28:11-15 it tells of the guards being extremely shaken up by the event of the resurrection going to the priests and reporting to them. The priests then paid them bribery money to tell a lie about what happened, then in another text it tells of them seeking to kill the disciples to keep them from spreading the news of His resurrection. Sounds to me like they were a little paranoid .
Wasn't Paul a Jew? Why are you having problems with this?
I've been accused of being an elaborate troll and some other things on this forum but I can assure you I am not yanking anyone's chain. I know this is for the most part an effort in futility but I do this to witness for my creator what I feel is the truth, ( Romans 1:16 ) Also while you are in this particular book you may read Romans 1:19-22 and see if this applies to yourself or not, especially verse 22.

I know you are most likely an agnostic or atheist as are most of the posters on this forum. I know you feel you've got it all figured out and that the Bible is all a myth and not to be taken literally as the inspired word of God, but the more I study it the more I am convinced it is truely inspired. Is it inerrant? No, its not, but I believe a lot of the problems with that come from the fact that it was written by imperfect men and copied by imperfect men.

I believe God places in all men a thirst for the real truth. The Bible contains the real truth and delineates the plan of salvation for all of mankind. Jesus and His sacrifice is this plan of salvation. Jesus said" I am the way the truth and the life , no man comes to the father but by me". In the book of John it says Jesus is the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.

You believe all of this is nothing more than an elaborate myth. Well one day soon I think we are all going to find out. If you aren't too old you should see it before you die. Christ's second comming is going to be seen by every eye on earth. It also says all of the tribes of the earth will mourn when they see the sign of His comming. Will you be a part of the mourning group or a part of the happy group who will be waiting to greet our Lord. Its going to happen my friend, nothing you or I say here will change that fact.

Julian

I don't believe you are a troll. I think you genuinely believe in the bible and your salvation. I just happen to think you are wrong. I have no problems with any of this.

But why did he choose to communicate his message by means of a text "written by imperfect men and copied by imperfect men" in an obscure language? Why did he choose to provide no evidence of his existence and his plan? If he really wanted to save humankind why didn't he provide any evidence to facilitate the acceptance of him? Why is it faith alone when, using only the mechanism of faith, there are any number of religions to choose from, none of which provides any evidence either?

Surely, any rational man must come to the sensible conclusion that it is mere superstition.

Julian

Wads4

"Originally Posted by Jim Larmore
The fact that there is nothing to counter the claims of resurrection is evidence for its accuracy. "

What about Natural Law?--dead bodies cannot come back to life. We know this, not only inductively, but on theoretical (biological and thermodynamic) grounds

Wads4

He is always coming, but he never comes.



Wads4, This seemed to be the only portion to which you intended to respond but, if that is incorrect, let me know via PM

Jim Larmore

The creator of this natural law wouldn't be constrained by it. In the book of John it says "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God, the same was in the beginning with God, All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made. Later it said the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is fully God, He said I can lay down my life and I can take it up again. The creator of Life and all things would have no problem resurrecting Christ.

Amaleq13

Jim, witnessing and preaching are inappropriate here. You are expected to offer rational arguments supporting your position. If you are unable to do so, you should refrain from posting here.