Showing that Christian deconstruction has little to do with reason or reality.
Tuesday, July 30, 2024
An Undivided Heart
David asks for an “undivided heart” (verse 11). A divided heart can have many forms. There is the insincere heart, in which what is said out loud is not matched by the inner attitude (Psalm 12:1). There is the irresolute heart, which cannot fully commit itself (James 1:6–8). Even hearts regenerated by the Spirit and loving God retain much of their older willful resentment of his authority (Romans 7:15–25). David’s goal is not psychological healing for its own sake, but to “fear” God—to give him joyful, awe-filled love with his entire being. The way to this new heart is not introspection but deliberate worship (verse 12). “I will praise you,” he says.
Sunday, July 28, 2024
Jesus the Messiah
This is high Christology - the claim that Jesus makes regarding himself being the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish Messianic promises. There are things that are going to unfold and happen in Jerusalem when Jesus gets there. It’s like Jesus us saying to his disciples, “You’ve heard of these things before. You’ve longed for these things to happen. Now’s the time.”
1. In Genesis, God gave specific promises to the tribe of Judah regarding the covenant God made between himself and Israel. For example, Genesis 49:10 says “The scepter will not depart from Judah.” There was a man named Jesse who was of the tribe of Judah. Jesse had a son named David.
2. Isaiah 11:1 says “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” The word “Branch” is commonly used to refer to the Messiah. The idea is that from Jesse, who is from the tribe of Judah, there’s going to come a “Messiah” who will bear fruit. There’s going to be a lasting kingship through David.
3. In Jeremiah 23:5 God said that he will raise from David’s line “a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely.”
4. In the book of Isaiah we see references to someone called “the servant of the Lord.” Which means, “Messiah.” “Anointed One.” The Greek words for “the Messiah” are “the Christ.”
5. Isaiah 42:1-4 say that the Messiah will not stop [i.e. falter] until he brings justice to the earth.
6. Isaiah 49 says that the “servant of the Lord” has the mission of re-gathering the tribes of Israel to bring them back to God.
7. In Isaiah 49:6 God says he will not only re-gather Israel. “I will make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”
8. Isaiah 50:6 speaks of the Messiah’s voluntary suffering: I gave my back to those who strike me, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I did not hide my face from disgrace and spitting
9. In Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 we read that the Messiah will be highly exalted but first will suffer terribly. He will actually be disfigured in his suffering. The words here say the people of Israel didn’t get it. They thought he was suffering for his own sins and wickedness. They didn’t realize he was bearing their sins, suffering for them, and by his wounds there was healing for them. Then these verses speak of his death and his continued life after that.
53 Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due? 9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul [r]an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
This makes it absolutely clear Jesus is the Messiah; it’s undeniable.
10. Narrowing it down; in 2 Chronicles 7;19 God says if Israel’s sin reaches a certain level he will destroy the temple [Solomon’s], exile the people, and leave them in a state of judgment.
19 “But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. 21 This temple will become a heap of rubble. All who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ 22 People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.’”
God says to the people of Israel – “Forsake me… and I will destroy the temple in Jerusalem. - All of this happened in history.
11. The prophet Daniel prays in Daniel 9 that God would have mercy.
- God gives Daniel a revelation about the temple being rebuilt.
- Before this new temple is destroyed, Daniel is told that several things are going to happen.
- This includes the bringing of everlasting atonement – the final dealing with sin.
12. The Second Temple is built.
- The prophet Haggai lives to see this second temple built.
- But it’s nothing like the first temple, Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s temple was a stunning physical structure, far more imposing than the second temple. It also had the glory of God there. When sacrifices were offered, fire came down and consumed them.
- The second temple didn’t have the presence of God or the divine fire.
13. BUT… Haggai said the glory of the second temple would be greater than the glory of the first temple:
"For thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts. The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the Lord of hosts
God would fill the second temple with his glory. But when God says he’ll fill the temple with glory, He’s talking about filling the temple with His presence.
14. Then the prophet Malachi, says God Himself… will come to his temple and purify some of his people and bring judgment on others. Malachi uses a Hebrew term that always refers to God himself – the Lord – he will come to this Second Temple.
15. The second temple was destroyed in AD 70. The prophesied visitation of God had to take place before the second temple was destroyed. So guess what’s happening, e.g., a passage like John 7. "37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ.”
16. The prophecy of Haggai is fulfilled when Jesus enters the temple courts and says things like “I am the light of the world,” and “If you are thirsty, come to me.”
Friday, July 26, 2024
Justified True Belief
1) A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if: P is true, and
2) S believes that P is true, and
3) S is justified in believing that P is true
Necessity and sufficiency - A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event.
A belief is any claim that you accept. A true belief is any claim you accept that corresponds to how things are in the world, and a justified true belief is a true belief that has proper evidence.
Thursday, July 25, 2024
The Three Laws of Logic
As good critical thinker should be well acquainted with the three founding principles of informal logic, the form of logic generally used in debates and arguments.
Understanding of basic logic is important to effectively be able to get across your reasons for being holding the views you have, as well as being able to identify flaws and fallacies in your interlocutor's arguments. So, a good idea to quickly go over the three “laws” of informal logic, how they work and why they are important.
It is one of the pivotal assumptions of western civilization is that there are certain fundamental principles which govern human thinking. They are considered as fundamental in the sense that without these laws, reasoning cannot take place.
In western tradition, the concept of laws of thought can be traced back to Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the eminent Greek thinker, who is considered to be the pioneer of western logic. Before him, the geometricians and the arithmeticians used proofs in their respective domains. Aristotle was the first to extend the study of formal proof in the domains beyond the realms of geometrical and mathematical thinking. He was also the first to investigate the patterns embedded in human reasoning and the way in which reasoning is processed.
As part of his project, Aristotle was trying to describe the basic laws by which human thought (and reasoning) can occur. laws so fundamental that obedience to them is both necessary and sufficient condition for correct thinking. These three laws have traditionally been called:
1) The Law of Identity: “A is A” or “Anything is itself”. If a statement is true, then it is true. It asserts that every statement of the form pp is true, that is it is a tautology.
2) The Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or not A. Any statement is either true or false – asserts that every statement of the form p V p is true, it is a tautology.
3) The Law of Contradiction: Nothing can both be A and not A. No statement can be both true and false – asserts that every statements of the form pp is false.
These are now explained below:
Law of Identity
By law of identity, we mean that everything is the same with itself and different from another, e.g., B is B and not B. It says that if any statement is true, then it is regarded only as true. It also means that every statement of the form pp must be true, so the statement is a tautology. Aristotle also talks about the laws of identity.
It has been also said that each thing like of universal or a particular is composed of its own unique set of features. Things, which have the same essence refers to the same thing, whereas things that have different essence refers to the different thing. Those who violate the law of identity are engaged in the informal logical fallacy, we mean equivocation.
Law of Non-Contradiction
This law of non-contradiction comes under the domain of logic. It says that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”. This definition is given by Aristotle.
It also says that no statement can be both true and false. So, it has been said that every statement of the form p⋅~p must be false, then that statement is regarded as self-contradictory. It has been said that the law of non-contradiction or the principle of non-contradiction means the same thing. It also states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. By the law of non-contradiction, we mean an expression of mutually exclusivity.
Law of Excluded MiddleThe law of excluded middle comes under the domain of logic. It also means the principle of excluded middle.
- It says that either the proposition should be regarded as true or its negation should be regarded as true.
- It is also known as the law or principle of the excluded third.
- It says that a statement is either true or false.
- It has been said that there is no middle ground between being true and being false.
This law excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. It has been also state that every statement of form pv~p must be true, then that every such statement is regarded as tautology.
Pushbacks:
The law of identity has been attacked on the ground that things change, and are always changing. Thus, for example, statements that were true of the United States when it consisted of the 13 original states are no longer true of the United States today with 50 states. But this does not undermine the principle of identity. The law of identity is true, and it does not interfere with our recognition of continuing change.
The law of non-contradiction has been attacked by on the ground that the world is replete with the inevitable conflict of contradictory forces. The reply is that there are conflicting forces in the real world is true, of course – but to call these conflicting forces “contradictory” is an ambiguous use of that term. Labor unions and private owners of industrial plants may indeed find themselves in conflict – but neither the owner nor the union is the “negation” or the “contradictory” of the other. The principle of contradiction understood in the straightforward sense in which it is intended by logicians is unobjectionable and perfectly true
The saw of excluded middle has been objected to on the ground that it leads to a “two valued orientation” that is, everything in the world must be either “white” or “black”. This objection also arises from the misunderstanding. Of course, the statement “This is black” cannot be jointly true with “This is white” – where “this” refers to exactly the same thing. But although these two statements cannot both be true, they can both be false “This” may be neither black nor white; the two statements are contraries, not contradictory. The contradictory of the statement “This is White” is the statement “it is not the case that this is white” and one of them must be true and the other false. The principle of excluded middle is inescapable.
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
The Consensus of the Experts Say.....
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the "consensus" is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus, the consensus took one hundred and twenty-five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant, ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Related:
The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.” From John Kay’s 2007 op-ed “Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus“:
Objection H - Then we can dismiss anything that more than three religious scholars agree on? Good to know.
Reply: I didn't say anything about dismissing scholars; I said get down into the data and their arguments.....
Objection K - This all screams as an excuse to dismiss this consensus rather than put the work in ot actually takes to challenge the consensus in the academic community.
Objection L - Consensus kind of is evidence as far as you the layman is concerned, lest you throw expert knowledge in the bin and give in to the Dunning Kruger effect. Now of course it isn't "proof" and is in no way a winning argument, but it can certainly be used in conjunction with the supporting evidence that lead to the consensus in the first place.
Reply: First, if I have the data, evidence, and argument, and critically examine them, why would I need a scholarly consensus?
A Rebuttal to "A Rebuttal to Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine"
This is a response to this rebuttal of my original Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine that I posted on Reddit
The Aionios Argument
Objection A: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living; furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire. The "consuming fire" is God himself (Heb. 12:29)
Reply: First problem is that Hebrews 12:29 uses the word "katanaliskó" not aionios; the former means "to use up", the latter means "agelong, eternal" - this seems to be equivocating on what is in the text.
Secondly if we use the this defintion of Aionios that is proposed then we will have a problem with the following veres:
Matthew 18:8, “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”
Matthew 25:41, “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;”
Are we to think that Matthew when says that people are being cast "into the eternal fire", he means that they are cast into God!?!?!
So on those 2 points we can reject this proposed rebuttal.
Objection B: When aionios modifies words like "life," "glory?" "righteous-ness," "salvation," "wrath," and "punishment," could it not be that the writers are simply speaking of these things as coming from God, and being manifestations of His character or attri-butes, which are eternal?
Reply: "could it not be" is not a a convincing argument. To be convincing it should be the best explanation. No reason is given why that is the best explantion, and given the problem with being cast "into the eternal fire" - i.e. God; one can reject this until, at least a cogent argument is presented.
Objection C: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living;...
Reply: One can, as countless other Christians have in the past, read this warning and heed it. So, this definately can be a lesson for the living!
Objection D: ....furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire.
Reply: So what? How does the fact that the day of judgment has not yet been imposed mean that everyone is saved?
Argument 2 - the Two Ways argument
Objection E: The problem with these texts is the attempt to make them a reference to eternal fates in the afterlife. In fact, the condition of those in the afterlife isn’t mentioned explicitly anywhere in the entire OT. The fate of the wicked after death is nowhere mentioned in the entirety of the OT.
Reply: We have the New Testament to refer. See Annihilationism and Revelation 20
1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]
2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]
3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]
4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15] [See the link above for the full argument.]
Objection F: I would like to add, that there’s an assumption that if God brings a judgement, that the purpose of that judgement is apparently anything other than disciplinary, and isn’t for the purpose of purification. I would like to argue that this assumption is wrong in a future post.
Reply: I have assumed nothing; if that is where the text leads, then I follow.
Argument 3 - the no righteous judgment argument
Objection G: this is an outright straw man. I don’t know of any evangelical universalists that believe God doesn’t exercise judgment upon sinners. The only difference is the universalist believes that God’s judgement upon sinners is for the purpose of reconciliation, and ultimate restoration.
Reply: Perhaps I should rephrase the title of the argument, but it seems you reacted to the title, not the actual argument: Revelation offers a picture of God’s righteous judgment against a sinful world, in overt rebellion against himself, as the bowls of his wrath are poured out in Revelation 16. The Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil are later seized by the Lord and unrepentant sinners are thrown into “the lake of fire” - which is the second death.
Argument 4 - wise and foolish virgins argument
Objection H: this argument rests upon a futurist interpretation of the Gospel accounts. I am a preterist concerning Matthew 24-25 (most of 25).
Reply: Above. you went on about what you thought I assumed. Yet here you assume preterism, and that is the lens upon which you interpret the Bible. If one is going to offer an objection based on preterism they should at least be able to articulate why it is the correct view.
Argument 5 - the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy
“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” I Corinthians 15:20-22 NKJV
This is immediately before the passages quoted in the OP. Directly in the same context. Now, unless there’s a valid reason to conclude that the all in Adam isn’t the same all in Christ, then presumably all will be resurrected to life.
Reply: The first part of 1 Cor 15:22 is clear. All the descendants of Adam die physically. The phrase in Adam all die means that all who are in Adam die physically. We are all in Adam. The second part of the verse depends on the meanings of the expressions "in Christ" and shall be made alive.
Does in Christ here refer exclusively to believers, as it typically does throughout Paul’s writings when he is referring to those who are in Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:18; 2 Cor 5:17; 12:2; Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 2:13; Phil 1:1)?
Third, the promise of everlasting life to the believer is an exclusive promise. Only those who believe have that life (John 3:14-18, 36; 5:39-40).
Fourth, the Scriptures are clear that there is no such thing as people dying in unbelief, then later gaining everlasting life (John 8:24; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:15).
Objection J: The resurrection of the lost means that all of creation has been reclaimed by Christ. For some inexplicable reason, OP has concluded that those in the lake of fire are enemies of God. Why? Christ has already reclaimed them, they belong to Him, even as they’re going through the process of purification before entering into the new Jerusalem. That’s the hinge OP’s entire argument hangs upon, but there’s really no reason to conclude that those Christ has resurrected are His enemies anymore.
Reply: Again see Annihilationism and Revelation 20; we have good reason to conclude that those in the lake of fire are enemies of God.
Argument 6 - God delaying the day of judgment argument
Objection K: the assumption that OP is making is that every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event. It could be, it could not be, but that’s the point of contention.
Objection L: Is Peter speaking of an impending national judgement at the hands of the Romans, or a still future eschatological judgement dealing with the afterlife?....Presuming OP affirms eternal Conscious Torment, this presents a problem. It would strongly suggest that, if a future judgement, then Annihilationism would be the exegetically appropriate interpretation. Given OP’s final link, I assume he doesn’t affirm Annihilationism. This is a problem for him if he wants a futurist interpretation of 1 Peter, as well as maintain ECT.
Argument 7 - the removal argument
Objection L: I’m sorry to bang this drum again, but, having a preterist interpretation provides no issue between this passage and universalism. This event already happened when the old religious system of Israel was obliterated. The church “kingdom that cannot be shaken” was in fact not shaken when Israel was almost annihilated.
Objection M: “For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29 NKJV. As I’ve mentioned, what the purpose and nature of this fire is would have to be examined, but if this fire indeed is a purifying fire,...
Saturday, July 13, 2024
The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal
This is a rebuttal of an argument presented on Reddit; This is an outline of the argument presented:
Two claims
- That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical.
- The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
(These are reiterated in the conclusion)
Sources that Christian use (the Gospels and Acts) do not meet the criteria that historians use, which are:
- Numerous
- contemporary [to the time question]
- independent
- Impartial
- consistent with other sources
Christian sources have the following issues
A - Are of a late date
B - Are not eyewitness accounts
C - are anonymous
D - akin to the telephone
E - Use only one source
F - Are contradictory
G - are biased
Further points
I - Salem witch trials, and eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout
J - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”
K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism
The rebuttal
A - Are the Gospels and Acts late?
First there is no argument presented for this. Selected scholars are cited, and a conclusion is drawn. I could cite scholars who hold to a pre 70 A.D. date New Testamant . But the problem with this whole line of argumentation is that consensus isn’t critical thinking. Here is Bart Erhman: I need to say that again: scholarly consensus is not evidence. But big but – if you have a view that is different from the view of the scholarly consensus, given the circumstance of who maintains the consensus, you probably should have some pretty amazing evidence of your own.
So, it comes down to who has the best explanation for the available data. But we cannot evaluate which argument the best explains data because there is NO argument presented, only the conclusions of selected scholars that are presumed to be correct.
Remember the scholarly consensus was that the Hittites were a fictious people since there was no archaeological or historical evidence to support their existence. Except for the Biblical record and that “biased” piece of fiction certainly couldn’t be trusted in this matter. Until it could be This is one of many examples where the “scholarly consensus” was proven wrong. So we have no reason to simply accept any scholarly consensus
As I argued here]the Gospels and Acts, the entire New Testament, in fact, is early. In short the Jewish War in 66 , the Neronian persecution of the late 60s , the fall of Jerusalem in 70; there is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths. Easy to explain if none of the their deaths had yet to happen.
A question
Do atheists/critics here also rail against the “myth” of Alexander the Great? If not, why not?
Alexander the Great lived ~356-323 BCE, but we only know about him due to:
Diodorus Siculus' Library of History - c. 30 BCE [350 yrs later]
Quintus Curtius Rufus' Histories of Alexander the Great - c. 40 CE [360 yrs later]
Plutarch's Life of Alexander - c. 100 CE [425 yrs later]
Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander - c. [450 yrs later]
Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus - c. 200 CE [525 yrs later]
This seems to be a double standard fallacy that is consistently used by atheists/critics; Judging the historicity of Jesus by one measure and the historicity of others ancients by a different standard.
B - Are not eyewitness accounts
The only “argument” presented is the scholarly consensus of a late date. And thus any eyewitness would be long dead. However since we have good reason to believe that the New Testament was written early – see above – then there is no reason to discount the plentiful eyewitness accounts of the Risen Jesus
C - are anonymous
Anonymity of the sources is not a death sentence for a historical document and should not be used as some kind of indictment of any anonymous ancient text.
If rejecting an anonymous document is a standard used historians, I am have not been able to confirm it, in fact, historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. See Gottschalk, A Guide to Historical Method p 169 – If you have a source controverting this please provide it.
Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument concerning the “anonymous” Gospels. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” full argument here
If we have people arbitrarily attaching names to the Gospels throughout the centuries, why is it that we don’t see that in the extant documents? Why do we see only “Matthew” attached to Gospel attributed to him? And the same for Mark, Luke, and John?
Evans summarizes, *“There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions"* Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts, page 53
D - akin to the telephone game
The Bible was not translated similarly to how the telephone game is played. The telephone game is designed to be confusing for the sake of fun. The Biblical authors did everything they could to preserve the accuracy of the biblical texts.
Oral traditions were involved in preserving some biblical texts, but this does not mean the oral traditions were not scrutinized and transmitted correctly. Similar to how a martial art is taught, repetition was used and perfection was expected by Jewish teachers.
Oral culture is a culture in which stories are learned and passed on primarily by word of mouth. Those people tend not to rely on written accounts. Because the United States and Western Europe are not oral cultures, many people in these cultures struggle to understand how facts can be reliably communicated orally. But there is ample evidence that people who do live in oral cultures are capable of seemingly near-impossible feats of memory and accuracy.
The telephone game:
a) the message is heard and passed along one person at a time,
b) there are no controls over the message,
c) there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.
All of this makes it fundamentally different from the oral transmission of the Gospels:
a) The biblical stories were relayed in communities (not one-to-one),
b) when the stories were shared in community, many people knew the stories and would correct mistakes relayed in the retelling,
c) the people retelling the stories had a strong personal interest in the truthfulness of what they were saying, especially when persecution of the church increased.
The telephone game is irrelevant to how the oral tradition worked.
E - Use only one source
The further back in time one travels, the thinner the source material becomes. Sources for WWII are vast beyond the ability of anyone to master them. Sources for the Napoleonic era is abundant and more than adequate. Sources for the Hundred Years War are meager and somewhat fragmentary. For the Carolingian Period, one really needs to dig deep to adequately cover any topic. The Roman Empire is a jigsaw puzzle missing a significant number of pieces. Ancient civilizations are lucky to have one source to an event.
Let one example suffice: the details of the demise of Pliny the Elder while he was attempting to rescue a group of Pompeiians when Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD are known from **one source only** - the report written by his son, Pliny the Younger, who was also present that day.
So to have one source for a historical event is not unheard of in history. And to reject the Gospels and Acts on the basis is to be guilty of the Special pleading fallacy
The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem are vastly overstated; see this harmony of the Gospels and see how dissimilar they actually are.
Secondly, the similarities are better explained as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses relating the same events.
F - Are contradictory
For every alleged contradiction there are better explanations of the passage in question. But let’s look at the specific contradictions mentioned.
Note: A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.
Many atheists/critics fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Many also fail to realize that these independent writers are at liberty to mention every detail, or as few as they want.
What is also fun to note is that atheists/critics will allege that the Gospel writers “copied” one another, then in the same breathe show differences, which undermines their first point!
Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself, or did Simon of Cyrene carry it (John 19:17, Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26)?
Both carried the cross. John 19:17 does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone the **entire** distance or that **only** Jesus carried the cross, it says he bore his own cross, which He did. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true. John not adding that detail doesn’t equal a contradiction.
Did both thieves mock Jesus, or did only one of them mock him, and the other come to his defense (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27:44, and Luke 23:40-43)?
While Luke 23:39 does say “ One of the criminals…” this is not the same thing as ONLY one of the thief reviled Jesus. Recording how one person was doing something is **not** the same thing as saying ONLY one person did something..
Luke seems to be relating what was specifically said by one of the thieves. Both men can be reviling Jesus in the beginning but later one of the thief has a change of heart.
What did the women see in the tomb, one man, two men, or one angel (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and Matthew 28:2)?
First, wherever there are two angels [or men] , there is also one! The fact that Mark only referenced the angel (“man”) who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic. The fact that Matthew only referenced one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.
Even though Luke did not specifically refer to the two men as angels, the fact that he described these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” (Luke 24:4) should have been a dead giveaway. Moreover, he was addressing a predominantly Gentile audience, Luke no doubt measured his words carefully so as not to unnecessarily give rise to their pagan superstitions.
Finally, after reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, any critical thinker has ample data to determine that the “man” described by Mark was an angel; that the “men in clothes that gleamed like lighting” were angelic; and that Matthew’s mention of only one angel does not preclude the possibility that another was present.
Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem, or did they immediately leave and go to Galilee (Luke 24:49-53, Acts 1:4, and Matthew 28:16)?
Three times in Matthew, it is recorded that certain disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Jesus in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt 26:32; 28:7, 10). In Matthew 28:16 we see that the disciples went to Galilee. So, Jesus desired to meet with his disciples in Galilee. His disciples obeyed. Jesus did not rebuke them.
But, according to Luke 24:33-43, he also desired to meet with them in Jerusalem. The two places are about three days journey from one another. People can't be in the same place at the same time, so this is a contradiction, right?
We must remember that the resurrection accounts of Jesus are coming from different, independent witnesses, So, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus met with his disciples in both places - but at different times. It appears that on Easter Day, he met with all of the disciples (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as the Gospel writers Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25).
We know that Jesus appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on earth after his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-7). Matthew, Luke, and John only mention some of the more prominent instances. Though Luke does not mention the trip to Galilee, in Acts 1:3 he states that there was a forty day period before Jesus' ascension. A lot can happen in forty days; including a three day trip.
(1) Assuming Jesus' words were stated on Easter Day, they were not stated in an absolute sense, but with an implied contingency (as determined from the other 3 Gospel accounts), given a future planned meeting in Galilee.
(2) The words in Luke 24:44 could have been stated on Day 40. The disciples did in fact stay in Jerusalem for ten more days, until Pentecost, as Luke himself relates in Acts 1:13.
It's merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44 on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11). At times information is just skipped; just like we skip it today.
Both statements can be true. Just because information is omitted in one statement does not make the other statement false. In Luke 24, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee were omitted, but commented upon by both Matthew and John. However, notice that Luke never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day of his resurrection until the day he ascended up into Heaven. Acts 1:3 leaves a lot of room for a lot more activity (cf. John 21:25).
G – are biased
This objection eats itself. Everyone is biased. If the objection is to rejected any and all biased accounts, then all accounts must be tossed.
I - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”
When Christians say, or at least this Christian says, the supernatural what is meant is that a physical only model of the world is illogical we have good reason to think that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God
Anything "supernatural" must be in that context.
J - eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout
This was “A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations”
On one hand we have someone who was
1) unknown to the witnesses,
2) who was seen only for a few seconds, and
3) who changed his appearance - a slight mustache during the crime but not in the lineup film
Versus Jesus who
1) walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for 42 months, then
2) post Resurrection, who walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for a time and
3) didn’t change His appearance [though He did hide who He was for some, temporarily]
So we are comparing apples to oranges here. For an analogy to be a valid analogy the comparison between two objects must be similar. Given the above there is too much dissimilarity for this to be a reasonable or justifiable analogy.
K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism
Reason is the basis of knowledge not empirical observation. And we know that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-defeating, so any who hold to that idea need to address how they ground goal-oriented, critical thinking in a physical-only model of the world where all things are caused by the antecedent physical condition acting in accordance with the physical laws.
Those that do not hold to Philosophical Naturalism, I’d ask what then is the objection to something acting outside the bounds of the physical laws?
Conclusion:
The two claims revisited:
1 - That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical.
First, we see the OP attempted to Poison the well (a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an opponent). Here it’s suggested that all Christians have are assertions not arguments grounded in facts. Why do that unless one is not confident of one’s view being able to compete and an intellectual discussion?
Secondly, the main (only?) argument is basically a presumption of naturalism or as Ruse puts it “but to act as if [naturalism] were” while evaluating data.
Thirdly, given the arguments linked above we do have good reason to think that, sans the presumption of naturalism, the Resurrection of Jesus is historical.
2 - The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Given the above we do have good reasons to think that the evidence presented in the Gospels and Acts are exactly what was the criteria that historians use:
• Numerous
• contemporary [to the time question]
• independent
• consistent with other sources
I left out “impartial” since no one is impartial.
I think this argument was an example of skeptical thinking, but skeptical thinking is not critical thinking It’s a low bar to sow doubt. The higher bar is to offer a better explanation for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus).
Objection A - human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws occured. There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims
Reply - First, can you explan why its "obvious" human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws?
Second I'm not saying not saying that any human testimony can establish a suspension of natural laws; I am saying that since a physical-only model of reality is illogical, and that God is the best explanation for reality, and that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God thus thest Best explaination for the facts surround Jesus is that He rose from the dead.
Objection B - There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims
Reply - I guess you didn't read the “floodgate” problem above
Objection C - What puzzles me is that an omniscient god could have anticipated skeptical reaction and preempted it by arranging conditions such that the resurrection was extraordinarily well attested.
Reply: There is more than enough evidence, but nothing can overcome, chronic skepticism - a suspicion about everything, that's a sickness. Suspicion means you've made a foregone conclusion; that's why one should be a critical thinker not skeptical thinker.
Objection D - Jesus could have been a real person who was mythologized after his death.
How does one then explain the empty tomb? Various theories are examnied here
Objection E - You are presupposing that the Bible must be accurate
For investigatory purposes one must assume that a text or testimony is accurate. For example, when police take statements regarding an incident they assume that the statements are true and accurate then they can look for inconsistencies errors etc. Assuming the document is the beginning of the investigation, not the end. If one concludes that the document is true and accurate then there must be solid reasons for it.
Objection E -You trying to control the narrative of what exactly is a "contradiction."
It's the law of non contradiction [one of the fundamental laws of logic] connect contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. If you think you have a better attested definition please provide it
The Gospels Not Anonymous Accounts
This is going to be news to countless social historians of the religions of the ancient Mediterranean basin who investigate archaeological and textual work without always knowing the specifics of the exact agents involved. Indeed, these historians are investigating the society that shaped the agents, even if they do not know most of the agents’ names (and all that this means).
They collect, analyze, and interpret evidence from a variety of sources—monuments and tombs, literary texts and shopping lists—in order to learn something important about the socio-historical circumstances in which people, like Paul, lived, moved, and had their being. The historian of antiquity, then, can learn much about the past from the ‘Letter to the Romans’ whether or not that text was actually written by Paul.
Here is the takeaway point: even if we grant that the books and letters of the New Testament are anonymous, we can still gather important historical information from those texts. Anonymity of the sources is not a death knell for historical studies, and should not be used as some kind of sweeping indictment of texts. We can know what happened to Jesus and his disciples two thousand years ago, using the New Testament documents as our sources.
Part of Hengel’s argument is that the authorship of the four gospels was unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by the middle of the second century, and the only way for this to have happened was for the church to have known for quite some time who wrote the Gospels. If the authors’ names were truly not attached to their writings, multiple names would have been attached (as is the case with Hebrews).
To state it simply: if nobody knew for six decades who wrote the Gospels, the second-century witness wouldn’t have been unanimous. Rather, it would have been highly contested, and we’d have records of that. Instead, we find the traditional names as the only names.
This is especially significant when we realize that the Gospels spread throughout the Roman Empire as Christianity exploded onto the scene, and yet everywhere we look, the same four names are attached to the same four gospels. The ancient world was obviously not as well-connected as we are today. If people in one area arbitrarily attached the name “Matthew” to the first gospel, it would be an astoundingly rare coincidence for ALL people in ALL other countries to do the same. And yet in different countries throughout the ancient world, “Matthew” was always attached to the first gospel.
Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” In papyrus 75, a papyrus from the middle of the third century, we read “on leaf 47 (recto), where Luke ends (at Luke 24:53), the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν [“Gospel according to Luke”]. Below these words is a blank space, the equivalent of two to three lines. Below this space follow the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάνην [Gospel according to John and then the opening verses of the Gospel of John.”
Evans summarizes, “There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions" (Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts page 53).
It would have been nice if there were ancient publishers that had statements of authorship and dates of writing, but there weren't. Rather, we must rely on historical evidence, but in the case of the Gospels the evidence is ample. We can comfortably believe that the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is accurate, and that means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in a place to know who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught.
Eyewitnesses of The Risen Jesus
The writers document that Jesus told these men repeatedly that He called them for the purpose of being “His witnesses,” and to distribute a record of all He had said and done; “everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
Eyewitnesses Who Saw The Risen Jesus:
- Mary Magdalene: John 20:11-17
- Mary/Salome: Matthew 28:9-10
- Peter: Luke 24:34
- Two Disciples: Luke 24:13-32
- 10 Apostles: Luke 24:33-49
- 11 Apostles: John 20:26-30
- 7 Apostles: John 21:1-14
- 12 Apostles: Matthew 28:16-20
- 500 at one time: 1 Corinthians 15:6
- James: 1 Corinthians 15:7
- 11 Apostles: Acts 1:4-9
- Paul: 1 Corinthians 9:1, Acts 9:3-6, Acts 9:17, 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 18:9-10, Acts 22:12-21, Acts 23:11, Acts 26:12-18
Contrary to critics who seek to impugn the reliability of the authors for the New Testament, the writers themselves state repeatedly that what they are recording, they saw with their eyes, heard with their ears, and they are telling the truth.
There are 387 uses of the Greek word, ὁράω (“We saw, we have seen,” In the New Testament. Clearly the writers of the New Testament are stating emphatically, they saw Jesus and they are eyewitnesses.
The Koine-Greek text is very specific in this regard, the writers using the precise word, ὁράω, to define what they saw:
Paul said: Am I not as free as anyone else? Am I not an apostle? Haven’t I seen (ὁράω) Jesus our Lord with my own eyes? ~1 Corinthians 9:1
There are eight places in the New Testament where Paul states that he saw (ὁράω) Jesus; two additional places where Ananias and Barnabas state that Jesus appeared to Paul:
- Paul’s statement: 1 Corinthians 9:1
- On the road to Damascus: Acts 9:3-6
- Ananias said that Paul saw Jesus: Acts 9:17
- Barnabas said that Paul saw Jesus: Acts 9:27
- At Corinth: 1 Corinthians 15:8
- At Corinth: Acts 18:9-10
- At Jerusalem: Acts 22:6-10
- While praying at the Temple: Acts 22:12-21
- At the Roman barracks: Acts 23:11
- Before King Agrippa: Acts 26:12-18
The last meeting Paul had with Jesus, in Acts 26:12-18 (above), Jesus said the following to Paul:
Jesus told Paul: “But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.” ~Acts 26:16
Peter said: that he had seen the risen Jesus with his own eyes.
“For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes. ~2 Peter 1:16
This is a reference by Peter to the Transfiguration of Jesus that Peter, James, and John also saw, as recorded in Matthew 17:1-6, Mark 13:26, and Luke 9:28-32. On that day Jesus showed these three men what He will look like when He returns to establish His kingdom on earth. Moses and Elijah were also with Jesus during this transfiguration.
In Mark’s Gospel, we find this text that Mark recorded as Peter recounted to him, what took place on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is this event that Peter recorded first through Mark his scribe, that Peter later cites again as the moment when he saw Jesus with His eyes and truly believed.
The Evidence Mark Was The Scribe Of Peter
Peter later wrote in 1 Peter 1:19 that this experience of seeing Jesus, as He appears after His resurrection, forever convinced him that all the prophets had written about the Messiah was penned only for Jesus.
“Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place.” ~1 Peter 1:19
John Said: “We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands…We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard…” ~1 John 1:1-4
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning (Jesus) the Word of life…” ~1 John 1:1
James saw the risen Jesus, as recorded by Paul, who said that James also saw Jesus with his eyes after His resurrection, and finally all 12 of the Apostles saw Jesus alive, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:
“I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures had said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures had said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.” ~1 Corinthians 15:3-7
Mary saw Jesus crucified: “Standing near the cross were Jesus’ mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary Magdalene.” ~John 19:25
Mary was the first to see the risen Jesus: “Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance.”…Mary was standing outside the tomb crying…She turned to leave and saw someone standing there. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. …“Mary!” Jesus said. She turned to him and cried out, “Rabboni!”.~John 20:1-16
Two Disciples, on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, saw Him alive with their own eyes as they were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus.
28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” ~Luke 24:13-34
Matthew records eleven of the original Apostles who saw Jesus alive on the third day after He was crucified. Paul is added later in the book of Acts. In order to be a true Apostle of Jesus, they had to see the risen Jesus:
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” ~Acts 1:21-22
- Simon, called Peter
- Andrew (Peter’s brother)
- James (son of Zebedee)
- John (James’ brother)
- Philip
- Bartholomew
- Thomas
- Matthew (the tax collector)
- James (son of Alphaeus)
- Thaddaeus
- Simon (the zealot)
- Paul of Tarsus, later.
As Matthew is recorded in the New Testament as one of the Apostles whom Jesus chose to be His witness, it is certain that Matthew saw Jesus with his own eyes, alive after being crucified.
Jesus was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I (Paul) had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. ~1 Corinthians 15:4-8
These Men And Women Who Saw Jesus Alive After Dying On The Cross, Said They Are Witnesses Of The Risen Jesus
Peter: 32 “God raised Jesus from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this.” ~Acts 2:32 (NLT)
Jesus told these men that they are His witnesses and He wanted them to tell the whole world about what they had seen Jesus accomplish.
So when the apostles were with Jesus, they kept asking him, “Lord, has the time come for you to free Israel and restore our kingdom?” He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” ~Acts 1:6-8
In describing their eyewitness testimony of Jesus. There is no ambiguity in what these writers meant; they saw Jesus with their eyes, they heard Him with their ears, they wrote a truthful testimony.
Sunday, July 7, 2024
Why do you not engage in debates on Reddit?
Compliant: You post on Reddit all the time and yet, you don't engage in any discussions? Why? Are you afraid that your view or arguments won't hold up?
Answer:
I would love to have an intelligent discussion on Reddit or elsewhere. The problem with Reddit is the downvotes.
According to Reddit, if you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the conversation, then downvote it. Voting is supposed to be based on whether one thinks a comment is constructive to the conversation or discussion. It is NOT a like or dislike button.Here's the issue with downvotes
2) If you have low karma or go negative, it can restrict where you can participate due to community restrictions.
3) Some communities remove or filter content from those with low karma, and especially those with negative karma, the latter being an anti-troll measure.
4) you aren’t able to post in some places; either your post is removed or a time limit gets put on your next post or comment.
5) Being Shadowbanned, which means your account is basically stuck in the spam filter site-wide and all your content is automatically filtered out as a "bad faith" user.
Authors aren’t obligated to respond to anything, they are writing for free, giving content to you, you should be appreciating them, not the other way around, it takes more time to write than it does to read... or downvote
You have no obligation to respond to any comments made in any thread you start...you don't owe them jack.
Replies aren't expected for the most part. If someone put a lot of effort into to their answer, it's nice to recognize that.
Jesus appears to be saying:1) having “ears to hear.” is different from just having ears; it's those who truly listen, are open and seek understanding 2) Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. He warns against wasting time or effort on those who clearly have no interest; they won't appreciate it and may attack you for it.
Metzer vs Erhman
I know a lot of critics like to cite Erhman when trying to show that the NT is somehow faulty but.... “ Bruce Metzger is one of the great sc...
-
Definition: Determinism , a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are caus...
-
These 7 facts prove that slavery as outlined in the Bible was indebted servitude, not chattel slavery. Definitions Chattel slavery - al...
-
I hear the " There is no evidence for God " line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; t...