Jesus wasn't resurrected

[jimmiej]

That would be where I look at the lives of his apostles. These people went to their deaths long after Jesus was gone still proclaiming that Jesus had risen.

These guys were human...not divine. It would have taken seeing something pretty spectacular for me to hold fast to it when I'm about to be hanged or beheaded.

That's a big selling point for me. These guys basically ran for their lives, fearful of their own demise, when Jesus was arrested. Peter was shooting off his mouth about how he would never desert Jesus. Soon after, he denied (3 times) ever knowing the man. I believe w/o the resurrection, we'd have never heard from them again. Something happened to them that caused them to do a 180. I believe they saw the resurrected Christ. When told some had already seen Christ, Thomas said he would not believe until he could touch & see the wounds on Jesus hands & side. He saw, touched, & believed.

What about Paul? The man was a terrorist, bent on the destruction of Christians & their crazy "religion." Paul was a very learned man & a "Jew's Jew." What would cause this notorious Christian hater to later become arguably the greatest Christian missionary ever & writer of most of the Holy Scriptures? He had an encounter with Jesus!

Now, you're going to tell me this whole thing was made up to fool the uneducated masses? You can buy that if you want, but I'm not havin' any!

 

[JennyMominRI]

told some had already seen Christ, Thomas said he would not believe until he could touch & see the wounds on Jesus hands & side. He saw, touched, & believed.

What about Paul? The man was a terrorist, bent on the destruction of Christians & their crazy "religion." Paul was a very learned man & a "Jew's Jew."

I don't know how educated of a Jew I would call him when he clearly had no understand of the Law or how it was applied.

 

[jimmiej]

I don't know how educated of a Jew I would call him when he clearly had no understand of the Law or how it was applied.

Care to expound?

 

[JennyMominRI]

Care to expound?

The whole idea that if you break one law you break them all etc.. The idea that the breaking of one law led to some sort of eternal damnation that one needed to be *saved* from ..These ae not and were not jewish concepts.. ever..Frankly there is not much to be said about Paul that shows he had any understanding of the most basic parts of Jewish theology..This is why as I said before,everything changed when Paul came into the mix..Before that Christinity was clearly very Jewish in nature...Jesus was very clearly Jewish and taught things that were reasonably consistant with Jewish beliefs. Paul did not. Paul brought many people to the worship of the G-d of Abraham,and for that I respect him a lot...I just have huge issues with his understanding of Judaism at the most basic level

 

[cardaway]

I think the point Mike was saying is that the "evidence" we have that Jesus was resurrected wouldn't be considered enough evidence if we were say, trying to convict a criminal.

If we were talking about a different situation, the evidence wouldn't seem so convincing.

That was my point but I honestly wasn't thinking criminal. More like a belief in other supernatural/paranormal phenomena that others don't believe because there is no proof.

 

[jimmiej]

The whole idea that if you break one law you break them all etc.. The idea that the breaking of one law led to some sort of eternal damnation that one needed to be *saved* from ..These ae not and were not jewish concepts.. ever..Frankly there is not much to be said about Paul that shows he had any understanding of the most basic parts of Jewish theology..This is why as I said before,everything changed when Paul came into the mix..Before that Christinity was clearly very Jewish in nature...Jesus was very clearly Jewish and taught things that were reasonably consistant with Jewish beliefs. Paul did not. Paul brought many people to the worship of the G-d of Abraham,and for that I respect him a lot...I just have huge issues with his understanding of Judaism at the most basic level

According to the gospels, Jesus was constantly in trouble with the Jewish leaders for ignoring Jewish law. He healed on the Sabbath, His disciples picked food & ate it on the Sabbath, He hung out with the dregs of society.

As far as Paul goes, his thoughts on the Law changed AFTER his Damascus Road experience. Before this, he challenged anyone to find fault with him as a Jew & a Roman citizen. Do you believe he was at fault BEFORE he became a follower of Christ?

 

[magicmato]

Yes but rarely does anybody ever quote those things as facts. I see many people quote the resurrection as a proven fact.

I agree. And that is one of my fundamental issues with many of the organized religions. No one, using logic and reason, can claim such things as fact.

To use a personal experience, I know for a fact that I have experienced a ghost, but there is no possible way for me to prove that to anyone else. Therefore, while I can personally say that that place is haunted, there is no possible way for me to prove it to anyone else. Religion is just like that. We may have experienced things that convince us that our beliefs are valid, but there is no proof.

 

[magicmato]

I know all about faith because I have it, but this statement "There is no such thing as proof of the resurrection outside of stuff that would be discredited if it was a different topic." is just a dig with no proof behind it. I want to read the discredit stuff.

I could careless if you (generic) don't believe in the resurrection or have any faith in any religion.

Um... how is that a dig? It is honest and forthright to state that faith is not fact and there is no way to prove it. If there was proof, then why would you need faith? No one can prove the resurrection happened. The Bible talks about it, but no one can prove that it is the Word of God. People have faith that it is the Word of God, but there is no proof.

How does that take away from your faith? It is honest to state that faith is, at its essence, the belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[sm4987]

That's a big selling point for me. These guys basically ran for their lives, fearful of their own demise, when Jesus was arrested. Peter was shooting off his mouth about how he would never desert Jesus. Soon after, he denied (3 times) ever knowing the man. I believe w/o the resurrection, we'd have never heard from them again. Something happened to them that caused them to do a 180. I believe they saw the resurrected Christ. When told some had already seen Christ, Thomas said he would not believe until he could touch & see the wounds on Jesus hands & side. He saw, touched, & believed.

What about Paul? The man was a terrorist, bent on the destruction of Christians & their crazy "religion." Paul was a very learned man & a "Jew's Jew." What would cause this notorious Christian hater to later become arguably the greatest Christian missionary ever & writer of most of the Holy Scriptures? He had an encounter with Jesus!

Now, you're going to tell me this whole thing was made up to fool the uneducated masses? You can buy that if you want, but I'm not havin' any!

Well said!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JennyMominRI]

According to the gospels, Jesus was constantly in trouble with the Jewish leaders for ignoring Jewish law. He healed on the Sabbath, His disciples picked food & ate it on the Sabbath, He hung out with the dregs of society.

As far as Paul goes, his thoughts on the Law changed AFTER his Damascus Road experience. Before this, he challenged anyone to find fault with him as a Jew & a Roman citizen. Do you believe he was at fault BEFORE he became a follower of Christ?

It is acceptable to heal on the sabbath as long as it is not for trivial things..There is nothing un-Jewish about hanging out with the dregs of society either..I'll give you the food picking on the Sabbath though.. Jesus preached Judaism to Jews.. What he preached was consistant with Judiasm . Even the Golden Rule came straight from the teaching of Hillel..Yes, he saw some corruption and wanted to fix that but there was nothing un-jewish about his teachings..
Paul at fault? I wouldn't use the term at fault..I just don't get where his ideas of the application of the law comes from..They are not representitive of any school of Judaism ..Nor are his ideas of hell ,eternal damnation and original sin come from Judaism

 

[Buckalew11]

I believe that Paul is saying that if you break one law, it is akin to breaking them all. One act of disobedience makes a sinner in the eyes of God. You may keep every other law and break only one -- and because of that, you need forgiveness from God.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I believe that Paul is saying that if you break one law, it is akin to breaking them all. One act of disobedience makes a sinner in the eyes of God. You may keep every other law and break only one -- and because of that, you need forgiveness from God.

But you can't *break * all of the laws ..Some laws are not breakable...Not eating Matzoh on passover does not make one a sinner in need of a savior..
Being male, and not being able to bring doves to the temple after you give birth does not make you a sinner who broke the law..

 

[magicmato]

That's a big selling point for me. These guys basically ran for their lives, fearful of their own demise, when Jesus was arrested. Peter was shooting off his mouth about how he would never desert Jesus. Soon after, he denied (3 times) ever knowing the man. I believe w/o the resurrection, we'd have never heard from them again. Something happened to them that caused them to do a 180. I believe they saw the resurrected Christ. When told some had already seen Christ, Thomas said he would not believe until he could touch & see the wounds on Jesus hands & side. He saw, touched, & believed.

What about Paul? The man was a terrorist, bent on the destruction of Christians & their crazy "religion." Paul was a very learned man & a "Jew's Jew." What would cause this notorious Christian hater to later become arguably the greatest Christian missionary ever & writer of most of the Holy Scriptures? He had an encounter with Jesus!

Now, you're going to tell me this whole thing was made up to fool the uneducated masses? You can buy that if you want, but I'm not havin' any!

Of course, this goes right along with the whole discussion. Your point is not valid unless you have faith that the Bible is 100% fact. For all we know, the bible was the Harry Potter of its time and has just taken on a mythology all its own since then. It is the belief, the faith, of the followers that have given it the power it has. No one can prove it is the "Word of God" any more than anyone can disprove it. So to use the Bible as "proof" of anything is inherently flawed logic.

Again, I respect anyone who has faith. I am just making a point, not taking potshots at anyone's convictions.

 

[jimmiej]

It is acceptable to heal on the sabbath as long as it is not for trivial things..There is nothing un-Jewish about hanging out with the dregs of society either..I'll give you the food picking on the Sabbath though.. Jesus preached Judaism to Jews.. What he preached was consistant with Judiasm . Even the Golden Rule came straight from the teaching of Hillel..Yes, he saw some corruption and wanted to fix that but there was nothing un-jewish about his teachings..
Paul at fault? I wouldn't use the term at fault..I just don't get where his ideas of the application of the law comes from..They are not representitive of any school of Judaism ..Nor are his ideas of hell ,eternal damnation and original sin come from Judaism

According to the Bible, Jesus was reprimanded for healing on the Sabbath. You know more about that than I do.

Paul claimed to have been taken directly into the presence of Jesus, where he received a revelation. That's most likely where he changed his thinking.

 

[jimmiej]

So to use the Bible as "proof" of anything is inherently flawed logic.

For the purpose of the post in question, I'm treating it more like a history book. Why is this particular book more "flawed" than my high school history book?

 

[JennyMominRI]

According to the Bible, Jesus was reprimanded for healing on the Sabbath. You know more about that than I do.

.

Like I said,saving of life or limb takes precidence over ANY law at ANY time.. That's the way it works.. Is it appropriate to do something minor...NO But healing someone who is dying, helping a cripple walk is very appropriate.

 

[JennyMominRI]

For the purpose of the post in question, I'm treating it more like a history book. Why is this particular book more "flawed" than my high school history book?

The Bible may be more accuare than a lot of the history books i've seen insome schools

 

[magicmato]

For the purpose of the post in question, I'm treating it more like a history book. Why is this particular book more "flawed" than my high school history book?

Because your history book has all sorts of documents to back up what it is saying. Your history book, for the most part, is based on documents generated by the people who lived the events and reported them. I have yet to see any proof to back up anything said in the Bible. Where are the primary, heck, show me some secondary sources, even?

In order to be a history book, it would have to be able to be proven. We know when the Piilgrims came here, because we have proof. We know what happened at the Battle of the Bulge, because we have proof. We have original documentation.

Were your history book written in a vaccuum and there were no primary sources that could be checked, then it would no longer be a history book and it would fall into the questionable status, just like the Bible does. It *could be* true, but there is no sources, no documentation, nothing to support what is said.

If there were some disaster on our planet and all documents save one history book were destroyed, I doubt the people 2000 years from now would say "AHA! This is 100% true." They would read it and perhaps believe it to be true, but they would not hold it as unerring fact, simply due to the fact that no one could verify what was said.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

I don't know how educated of a Jew I would call him when he clearly had no understand of the Law or how it was applied.

The man was a Pharisee -- one sect of Judaism that knew the law inside out and backwards.

 

[JennyMominRI]

The man was a Pharisee -- one sect of Judaism that knew the law inside out and backwards.

I am aware that the bible claims that he was a Pharasee. That does not change that fact that most of his ideas about Judaism are not based in past or present understandings of Jewish theology. There is a reason why Judaism distanced itself from Christians when Paul came into the picture... The stuff he was teaching was simply not Jewish