Creation

[Jayne]

20 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

"I don't debate books.

Was that evidence collected in the same book? I mean, do you have extra biblical evidence that there was a resurrection of any kind?

Another question concerning the NT. Why were the 12 surprised (and a bit skeptical) soon after hearing from the ladies that He has risen?

 siegi

 

You don't debate books?  You are debating one now.  Why not read Strobel? What have you got to lose?

Evidence of a resurrection outside the Bible?  Outside the Bible would be a historian, biographer [after the fact], or some such. But....how about the Roman historian Tacitus? Here he is explaining why Nero persecuted Christians.

"Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...."

Tacitus Annals 15.44

 

[siegi91]

10 minutes ago, Jayne said:

You don't debate books?  You are debating one now.  Why not read Strobel? What have you got to lose?

Evidence of a resurrection outside the Bible?  Outside the Bible would be a historian, biographer [after the fact], or some such. But....how about the Roman historian Tacitus? Here he is explaining why Nero persecuted Christians.

"Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...."

Tacitus Annals 15.44

 

Tacitus does not say anything here about evidence of a resurrection of any kind. Unless I am blind. Unless you think that reporting persecution of believers of X resurrection entails that X resurrected, which is an obvious non sequitur.

Therefore, I am not sure what your point is.

And I am not debating books. I am debating people who are quoting books or other documents. Like you did just now.

That of course, does not entail that I will not read those books.

 siegi

Edited December 2, 2018 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

48 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

I don't debate books.

It would be pretty dumb if me to suggest you debate with a book. You seem to be interested in the topic, so I’m offering a resource for you from someone more conversant on the topic than me.

51 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

Another question concerning the NT. Why were the 12 surprised (and a bit skeptical) soon after hearing from the ladies that He has risen? That is something I really do not understand and let me think that the depiction of those events does not correspond to actual reality.

Even though they spent 3 years with Jesus, I suspect they still expected that Jesus would bring an end to Jewish oppression and establish a kingdom in earth. They didn’t understand the impact of Jesus’s life and teaching until after His death and resurrection.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, siegi91 said:

Do you think that dying for belief X, makes X even slightly more plausible?

I ask because I heard of a group of people who committed collective suicide, including women and children, because they firmly believed that an alien starship hiding behind a comet would pick their souls up.

 siegi

 

Yes, but no one dies for something they know isn't true, particularly if he is the one who made up the story in the first place.   

Secondly, the disciples didn't die for  belief.  They died for what they claimed was based on personal experience they claimed to be absolutely true.  They claimed to have eaten with Jesus, to have experienced Him alive.   So their claims were not based on belief but on experience that could not be refuted by their enemies.   

Keep in mind that Jesus' burial location was well known to the authorities and if Jesus was not raised, they could have easily produced the body and ended any claims of a resurrection.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

No, not that, either. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first pair selected by God to impart a spiritual aspect. I don’t know about their parents. Adam and Eve could have been a “conduit” to other Homo sapiens, including their parents. Or maybe not...

No, the Bible presents them as the first human beings, period.   That's the only truly Christian and biblical view on the matter.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, siegi91 said:

 

Another question concerning the NT. Why were the 12 surprised (and a bit skeptical) soon after hearing from the ladies that He has risen? That is something I really do not understand and let me think that the depiction of those events does not correspond to actual reality.

 siegi

 

Which actually bolster's the Bible's credibility with regard to the resurrection.   The disciples weren't expecting a resurrection.   The disciples weren't even expecting Jesus to die.   They were expecting a Messiah who would overthrow the Romans and establish the kingdom of God on earth.   Jesus' death was not part of what they were expecting and when Jesus died, their messianic hope died, as well. 

They were living in absolute fear of the authorities and aware of the possibility that the authorities would come after them and crucify them, and they were in hiding in fear of their lives.   

God's plan was not their plan and the fact that Jesus came to be a Savior was not at all on their radar.  They were skeptical as anyone would be.  Abd they were fearing for their lives.

It was a personal encounter with the risen Jesus that changed them.  They touched him, ate with him talked with him for 40 days after His resurrection.  And it was that personal experience that changed them from being afraid of death, to being willing to face down the worst that the Romans or anyone else could do to them and they died for what they claimed to be incontrovertibly true.  Their enemies could not refute their claims, so all they could do was silence them.   But they failed, ultimately, because they continue to speak to us through the NT. 

[siegi91]

22 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Which actually bolster's the Bible's credibility with regard to the resurrection.   The disciples weren't expecting a resurrection.   The disciples weren't even expecting Jesus to die.   They were expecting a Messiah who would overthrow the Romans and establish the kingdom of God on earth.   Jesus' death was not part of what they were expecting and when Jesus died, their messianic hope died, as well. 

They were living in absolute fear of the authorities and aware of the possibility that the authorities would come after them and crucify them, and they were in hiding in fear of their lives.   

God's plan was not their plan and the fact that Jesus came to be a Savior was not at all on their radar.  They were skeptical as anyone would be.  Abd they were fearing for their lives.

It was a personal encounter with the risen Jesus that changed them.  They touched him, ate with him talked with him for 40 days after His resurrection.  And it was that personal experience that changed them from being afraid of death, to being willing to face down the worst that the Romans or anyone else could do to them and they died for what they claimed to be incontrovertibly true.  Their enemies could not refute their claims, so all they could do was silence them.   But they failed, ultimately, because they continue to speak to us through the NT. 

Yes, but let us recap the preconditions:

1) Jesus announced during His ministry that He will be betrayed, that He will be convicted, killed and that He will return on the third day. That is, according to my information, in the NT. So, if the 12 did not expect His death, it follows logically that they thought He lied, or just was sort in a bad mood.

2) He did not only announced that, but He precisely predicted what would happen. Including Peter/Simon denying  Him when asked by the authorities. Together with other precise predictions involving roosters and such.

3) Jesus performed, during His ministry, several miracles that should have provided enough evidence of His divine status

4) At the time of His death, unbelievable things happened. Earthquakes, eclipses, and a multitude of dead saints raising from their tombs and wandering round town. That thing alone should have made it apparent that resurrections are possible (the saints just did that), and that the master was really what he claimed to be.

So. what happens instead? The 12 turn into rational skeptics overnight.

I don't know you, but if I had been one of them I would have thought: wait a minute, the master anticipated everything with exact precision, and look what happened at His death. So, isn't that maybe likely that what He said about the third day will also happen?

I would have probably called the Roman Empire equivalent of the CNN (or Fox) to just wait outside His tomb to get the event live.

But no. They were surprised and skeptical at the start, instead.

It is quite obvious that this does not compute.

 siegi

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by siegi91

[Guest shiloh357]

37 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

Yes, but let us recap the preconditions:

1) Jesus announced during His ministry that He will be betrayed, that He will be convicted, killed and that He will return on the third day. That is, according to my information, in the NT. So, if the 12 did not expect His death, it follows logically that they thought He lied, or just was sort in a bad mood.

No, that doesn't follow logically, particularly if one understands that they had a different idea for what the Messiah was supposed to do.   They were not looking for a Savior.  They were looking for a king.    But the biblical prophecies portrayed both a suffering Messiah and a Warrior/King Messiah.   Given their current situation at the time, they were more inclined to desire a king over a savior.  On that basis, they didn't expect Jesus to die and didn't accept Jesus' words when He prophesied of His own death.  They were blind to His purpose.   

Quote

2) He did not only announced that, but He precisely predicted what would happen. Including Peter/Simon denying  Him when asked by the authorities. Together with other precise predictions involving roosters and such.

Yes, he did.  And it happened just the way he said it would.   Jesus also stated that one of them would betray him and he also stated that Peter would deny him.   And it happened exactly how Jesus said it would happen.   They had no power to change that.  And when the chips were down, when Jesus was facing a crucifixion sentence, his followers, even Peter who vowed to stay with him, they all left him and went into hiding.  That's actually according to prophecy.  It again, demonstrates the credibility of the Bible.

Quote

 

3) Jesus performed, during His ministry, several miracles that should have provided enough evidence of His divine status

4) At the time of His death, unbelievable things happened. Earthquakes, eclipses, and a multitude of dead saints raising from their tombs and wandering round town. That thing alone should have made it apparent that resurrections are possible (the saints just did that), and that the master was really what he claimed to be.

So. what happens instead? The 12 turn into rational skeptics overnight.

 

Yes, that is exactly what happened.  And it happened that way because miracles don't create faith, and they don't sustain us in times of tragedy.   Miracles and supernatural events don't bring us closer to God.  The disciples had been with Jesus for three and a half years and they had seen Jesus raise the dead, exercise personal power over nature, and Peter James and John were with Jesus when he was transfigured before them and they saw Moses and Elijah standing next to Jesus and heard the very voice of God out of heaven.   You would think that would have sealed the lid shut, but none of the miracles they witnessed were enough to sustain them when they were fearing for their lives.   Miracles are a very poor substitute for a personal relationship with God Himself.   It was only when Jesus appeared to them alive after He was raised, that their faith was restored and even made stronger than ever before to the point they were willing to die for the truth and fact of the Gospel and the fact of the resurrection of Jesus.  

 

Quote

I don't know you, but if I had been one of them I would have thought: wait a minute, the master anticipated everything with exact precision, and look what happened at His death.

You might have.   But Jesus' death wasn't the end of the story.   Jesus was raised from the dead and NO ONE was able to refute their claims that Jesus was raised.

Quote

 

So, isn't that maybe likely that what He said about the third day will also happen?

I would have probably called the Roman Empire equivalent of the CNN (or Fox) to just wait outside His tomb to get the event live.

But no. They were surprised and skeptical at the start, instead.

It is quite obvious that this does not compute.

 

What doesn't compute is your inaccurate recollection of what the Bible says.  I mean, come on...  Comparing the Roman Empire to CNN????   That's just nonsense and hardly an intellectual or rational response.   The fact is that a Roman garrison of 16 men were placed in front of the tomb and the tomb was sealed with a Roman seal that meant death for anyone who broke the seal that was not authorized to do so.   These were highly trained, well disciplined men who knew that failure in the line of duty was the death penalty. 

The enemies of Jesus and the disciples and the Roman empire were not able to produce the body of Jesus, despite knowing where it was buried and so far, no modern skeptic has ever been able to do so either.

[Jayne]

3 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Tacitus does not say anything here about evidence of a resurrection of any kind. Unless I am blind. Unless you think that reporting persecution of believers of X resurrection entails that X resurrected, which is an obvious non sequitur.

Therefore, I am not sure what your point is.

And I am not debating books. I am debating people who are quoting books or other documents. Like you did just now.

That of course, does not entail that I will not read those books.

 siegi

I wasn't citing a document to talk about Nero or persecution of Christians.  I mentioned that to give a background from which he was coming from.  Yes, you missed it.

Tacitus says that "Christus" suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pontius Pilate and that a "mischievous superstition" about him, Christ, broke out, was momentarily checked, but broke again in Judea and Rome.

It was a thing that broke out everywhere soon after that people still believe today.  To you, I gave you a non sequitur.  To me, a woman a logic, science, and faith, I understand that this "mischievous superstition" is speaking of a push in the belief the resurrection and ergo, perhaps it has some credibility according to the explosion of Christians from that time forward.  From a upper room of no more than 2 dozen people to billions upon billions of people who see logic and order in the message and facts of the Bible - couldn't there be a shred of truth to it?

I think that makes me more open-minded than you.  At least I have a "what if this is true" mindset.  And the archaic documents that made their way into a book called the Bible that I have read for decades have convinced me.

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Jayne

[siegi91]

13 hours ago, Jayne said:

I wasn't citing a document to talk about Nero or persecution of Christians.  I mentioned that to give a background from which he was coming from.  Yes, you missed it.

Tacitus says that "Christus" suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pontius Pilate and that a "mischievous superstition" about him, Christ, broke out, was momentarily checked, but broke again in Judea and Rome.

It was a thing that broke out everywhere soon after that people still believe today.  To you, I gave you a non sequitur.  To me, a woman a logic, science, and faith, I understand that this "mischievous superstition" is speaking of a push in the belief the resurrection and ergo, perhaps it has some credibility according to the explosion of Christians from that time forward.  From a upper room of no more than 2 dozen people to billions upon billions of people who see logic and order in the message and facts of the Bible - couldn't there be a shred of truth to it?

I think that makes me more open-minded than you.  At least I have a "what if this is true" mindset.  And the archaic documents that made their way into a book called the Bible that I have read for decades have convinced me.

 

 

 

Yet, it does not say anything about a resurrection.

So, my case stands. Apart from the Bible, there is no evidence of any resurrection. Persecution, imprisonment, death, maybe. But these are things that happen, especially in the Roman Empire, and do not require, unlike resurrections, special evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which, it seems, is to be found only in one book, with an agenda anyway.

And sorry, I do not find indirect evidence convincing. Explosion of Christianity? Yes, but that was yesterday. Here in Germany Christianity is evaporating and Islam is exploding. Does that increase the plausibility of Allah? Hardly. In North Europe things are even worse. I would say the upper half of Europe will be totally de-christianized in a few generations. In Scandinavia, for instance, the Christian religion has the same exact status as things like Copyism (a new religion that consider copying files a sacred act).

So, something for your missionaries (I promise we will not use arrows to keep them out). I mean it, I am not a fan of Islam, to put it mildly.

And I am open minded. But open minded does not mean believing, or even considering,  things whose only evidence is in a book that wants to advertise a certain creed anyway. That is, incidentally, the complain I receive when I show skepticism about things like astrology or homeopathy. 

Show me something more solid evidence, and I will be in.

 siegi

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by siegi91