Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Doug Shaver]

If I were there and he was my family member, I would not believe unless I met him risen.They would have witnessed him die on the cross and have no reason for faith unless they saw him risen. None of the apostles would either.

So, faith is for when you don't have testimony that you are willing to trust?

[Sparko]

So, faith is for when you don't have testimony that you are willing to trust?

Faith is trust.

[Teallaura]

And they who were closest to him didn't believe until supposedly seeing it with their own eyes, but the rest of us are just supposed to believe them.

Considering the vast amount of information you (general) do just exactly that with every day, this is a silly argument. It's also special pleading - our society functions on its ability to take information it cannot witness and evaluate it - judiciary is of course the most obvious, but legislative bodies do exactly the same thing in their decision making processes. Then we get to science and math - Fermat ring a bell? How about gravitational waves? Both useful parts of working theories - and neither proven until relatively recently.

We do the same exact thing daily when we chose what accounts we accept or reject - not as rigorously as a court of law or a science lab, but the same precise thing.

Truth is, I've never seen you mount a decent argument - I've seen you discuss honestly at times but you also have a very bad habit of ridiculing what you don't want to address. Like what you did here - it's not only poorly considered, it's deliberately insulting - which you knew. You don't respond well when Christians do this to you, why exactly are you expecting a better result? And if you aren't, then what exactly is you purpose?

For the record, you aren't the only one that has this kind of problem - I have my own share of defense mechanisms. Yes, that's what i think you're doing here - you aren't stupid so you don't expect any positive result from ridicule and you know it serves no valid purpose. It's defensive. That doesn't necessarily mean a nerve was hit - just that you're erecting rather large walls or something got a bit too close somewhere.

[Teallaura]

I'm not sure what gave you the idea I'm frustrated.

This is a passtime, Teal. If I was frustrated, I'd do something else on my breaks. You have expressed a good deal of frustration (head pounding emoji's, other comments), so I'm merely suggesting you should consider chatting with someone else. If you respond to one of my most or address me, I will most likely respond. Unless I am wrong, my style of response appears to frustrate you.

Yeah, right - you're not frustrated so you keep asking people to not engage with you - uh-huh, sure, whatever you say, Carpe.

You might wanna reconsider calling negligence 'style', however.

[Teallaura]

There are enough nearly-identical passages to show that the later gospels were not independent accounts, but were partly copied. It is an issue when the omission is in the earliest copies, and the later copies have an ending similar enough to that of the later gospels to have been based on them. Not really - if it were already a verbal account then why wasn't it in Mark? This isn't just eyewitness testimony taken down decades later, it's eyewitness testimony that has been changed by some-one else afterwards. Unfortunately for your apologetics, you have it exactly backwards - it is Luke, who you say is addressing gentiles, that omits the details you claim Jews would get instantly, and Matthew that explicitly specifies the suicide that any Jew would understand without being told. So your explanation wouldn't stand up in court.Exactly. When Matthew uses the exact same words as Mark, something is not right. Yes.What about them? Do you think either they or Pilate would have witnessed Jesus's post-resurrection appearances? No-one is seriously disputing that Jesus was crucified.I don't need to prove why it was omitted, I just need to show there are flaws in your argument. The lack of a resurrection account in the earliest gospel is just such a flaw. If all you can do is guess at reasons to explain the flaw, then your argument for the resurrection effectively assumes the resurrection occurred - and it collapses.We do? How?Which it was, since it was in the later gospels that were written before the addition.

Mark doesn't include the resurrection.
Matthew/Luke copy Mark, and add the post-resurrection appearances (inconsistently), possibly following Paul.
Some-one copies Luke's ending into Mark.Probably not, but that's a very different argument - and one that has been covered by the rest of this thread.Very possibly. I shouldn't need to remind you of the many people today who spend their lives teaching something they know to be false.

1) I may have confused the accounts - working off the top of my head.
2) You have the burden of proof for your theory that the Resurrection is a later addition - so NO poking holes is no where near good enough.
3) I've established what I actually argued - you DON'T have the capability of refuting any argument for the Resurrection in 20 seconds - you will probably think otherwise but you're wrong.

I'm tired and sick so I'm bowing out

[One Bad Pig]

Good odds, but not guaranteed, since he doesn't specify which James and there were at least four in that area, and probably more.

With that level of skepticism, we can't know much of anything about anyone in history.

Also, Paul uses the same phrasing for the appearance to James as for his own, and implies James's encounter was also post-ascension.

He uses the same phrasing for EVERYONE in 1 Cor 15. The only encounter plausibly post-ascension was Paul's own.

It's possible they were. It's also possible they weren't.

Yeah, yeah, it's easy to just throw your hands up and pretend we can't say which was more likely.

The accounts vary and occasionally contradict, and it's clear that the tale grew and changed over time, and that the earliest gospel was altered to fit the later ones. We know that the gospel texts themselves were changed and harmonized. This is particularly true of the post-resurrection appearance passages.

Your opinion is duly noted.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, right - you're not frustrated so you keep asking people to not engage with you - uh-huh, sure, whatever you say, Carpe.

I'm not asking people to "not engage with me." I'm actually happy to engage with anyone who wishes to engage. I'm just somewhat perplexed by people who seem to find the exchanges frustrating, but they persist in engaging. If you're frustrated - perhaps you should consider posting with someone else? If not, then you'll have to live with being frustrated, I guess.

You might wanna reconsider calling negligence 'style', however.

I have no idea what this means...

[Cow Poke]

I'm not asking people to "not engage with me."

This is about me, isn't it?

[carpedm9587]

This is about me, isn't it?

Go away...

[Cerebrum123]

1) I may have confused the accounts - working off the top of my head.
2) You have the burden of proof for your theory that the Resurrection is a later addition - so NO poking holes is no where near good enough.
3) I've established what I actually argued - you DON'T have the capability of refuting any argument for the Resurrection in 20 seconds - you will probably think otherwise but you're wrong.

I'm tired and sick so I'm bowing out

[JimL]

We call it faith.

Right, but they who lived with him didn't have faith, they had to see it for themselves, and yet we are expected to believe those who themselves didn't believe.

And we have more evidence than just their word for it. At least I do. I have seen Jesus work in my life and in the lives of my family. It would not convince you but it did me. I hope one day you will have such an experience.

Perhaps you should give yourself and your family a little credit for the changes they've made. Do you also blame Jesus for the bad things that happen in life?

[Cow Poke]

Right, but they who lived with him didn't have faith, they had to see it for themselves,

Jesus actually has something to say about that - Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29

I'm good with that!

and yet we are expected to believe those who themselves didn't believe.

We are to believe God, and the Bible He wrote.

[Cow Poke]

Go away...

But, but, but, you said....

I'm not asking people to "not engage with me."

[JimL]

Considering the vast amount of information you (general) do just exactly that with every day, this is a silly argument.

It's also special pleading - our society functions on its ability to take information it cannot witness and evaluate it - judiciary is of course the most obvious, but legislative bodies do exactly the same thing in their decision making processes. Then we get to science and math - Fermat ring a bell? How about gravitational waves? Both useful parts of working theories - and neither proven until relatively recently.

We do the same exact thing daily when we chose what accounts we accept or reject - not as rigorously as a court of law or a science lab, but the same precise thing.
No, it isn't silly Tea, our eternal lives aren't dependent upon our information derived opinions, or conclusions. No one is going to hell due to their conclusion that gravity waves don't exist.

[JimL]

Jesus actually has something to say about that - Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29

I'm good with that!

Apparently the Apostles were blessed even though they didn't believe without seeing. God has double standards i guess!

We are to believe God, and the Bible He wrote.

Yes, even though the disciples who lived with him did not believe. You're good with that?