Saw this question somewhere, anyone know the answer?

[Locoponydirtman]

So by answer this question, he means refute this nonsequatious logic.

 

[Magenta]

Then I guess Thomas sticking his fingers in the side of Jesus was something else, what is your thoughts on that.

Thomas said he would not believe until he did that and Jesus invited him to, but it is not recorded that Thomas actually did so.

Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where
the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25b)

When Jesus appeared eight day later, He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (v. 27)

That is immediately followed by: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

[JamOn]

You misquoted me, i said "nothing other than signs", if you stop at nothing, then we have a different meaning.

Heb 2:This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.

Signs and wonders had their place in preaching the gospel and that includes Lazarus resurrection and Jesus' own body resurrection.
Jesus' spiritual resurrection is the main thing, it did not happen so that we believe the gospel but it happened as it is necessary and thus we shall also go through if we continue in faith. It means victory.

I apologize if I didn’t mentioned that you said signs and wonders was what mattered. what I was thinking probably isn’t important

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So by answer this question, he means refute this nonsequatious logic.

That's along the lines of what *I* am wondering... coz the OP later says,

The author has read the comments and has responded as follows: The comments, by large, argue of points B,C,D,E,F. These points were intended as merely additions to the point A, which if point A cannot be refuted, resurrection does not get off the ground.
May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.
Also, I have many refutations to those who argue of point B,C,D,E,F. However, as said previously, without refuting A, those points are redundant.

Okay, so I'm in the process of trying to SEARCH for my posts re: Point A.


But I'm wondering what he would say in order to "refute" the point I made on his Point "D" (in my Post #7 [not fully developed there])?? ...that it would be a "circular argument" somehow, for the nameless writer of the Book we call "John" to have SAID OF HIMSELF that he is the writer of the Book and that he indeed witnessed His resurrection?? Is that the argument/refutation? (and NOT REALLY because other ppl have said the writer wasn't "John"?? [so what if it wasn't?? I don't believe it WAS John.])

Would like to hear a little of the refutation on my comments made on his Point "D"

 

[Locoponydirtman]

That's along the lines of what *I* am wondering... coz the OP later says,



Okay, so I'm in the process of trying to SEARCH for my posts re: Point A.


But I'm wondering what he would say in order to "refute" the point I made on his Point "D" (in my Post #7 [not fully developed there])?? ...that it would be a "circular argument" somehow, for the nameless writer of the Book we call "John" to have SAID OF HIMSELF that he is the writer of the Book and that he indeed witnessed His resurrection?? Is that the argument/refutation? (and NOT REALLY because other ppl have said the writer wasn't "John"?? [so what if it wasn't?? I don't believe it WAS John.])

Would like to hear a little of the refutation on my comments made on his Point "D"

I'm not willing to engage him on this exercise of futility. Point A falls into nonlogic the moment he states that, had Jesus affected his own resurrection from the dead it says nothing of his relationship to God or his messiahship.
When of coarse it does. It means exactly that. No one else has ever nor will ever will accomplish such a thing, nor could they. So point A falls on its face immediately.
So this is the evidence of the resurrection. All the his disciples who witnessed his resurrection were punished unto death for their testimony. If you were to be tormented to death in a most horrific manner having been an eye witness, would you maintain the lie knowing that recanting would get you released without further harm? Would you willingly go to a torturous death knowingly for a lie? Especially for men who believed that eternal damnation followed the one who lead others astray.
Yet all but one did and he endured punishment intended to kill him. Sounds like evidence enough to me.

 

[posthuman]

May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.

lol,
it's circular reasoning to accept the testimony of the eyewitnesses?

**disagree**

 

[Grandpa]

The author has read the comments and has responded as follows:

The comments, by large, argue of points B,C,D,E,F. These points were intended as merely additions to the point A, which if point A cannot be refuted, resurrection does not get off the ground.
May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.
Also, I have many refutations to those who argue of point B,C,D,E,F. However, as said previously, without refuting A, those points are redundant.

This comes down to just a choice in two opinions.

Do you agree with some guys that disagree with the eyewitnesses in the bible?

or

Do you have faith that the eyewitnesses in the bible have told the Truth of what happened?


There is a reason for choosing one of these opinions. One opinion is anti-Christ and one is not. A Christian cannot choose the anti-Christ opinion and those who are anti-Christ cannot choose the Christian opinion.

But it does come down to belief, as all opinions do. Your choice in opinions only has bearing upon you and doesn't affect the actual facts of what happened.

 

[posthuman]

The Reserection:

A)
Flawed Assumption:
Christianity takes for granted the assumption that if we indeed knew for sure that Jesus was in fact resurrected, then this would conclusively establish Jesus’ status as God/the Son of God, thereby validating everything Jesus said and taught, which would in turn set Christianity on a solid foundation – except that there’s a question as to whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead. But the entire above-assumption is flawed! That is, even if we knew that Jesus was resurrected, and that he affected his own resurrection, it still would tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus had any special kinship to God or whether or not he was the long-awaited Messiah; and without proof for those specific claims, Christianity doesn’t get off the ground.

• Christianity takes for granted the assumption that if we indeed knew for sure that Jesus was in fact resurrected, then this would conclusively establish Jesus’ status as God/the Son of God
  • the deity of Christ does not rest solely on His resurrection
  • Christ resurrected Himself (John 2:19)
• thereby validating everything Jesus said and taught, which would in turn set Christianity on a solid foundation
  • the veracity of what He said and taught does not rest solely on any particular individual believing it.
  • the veracity of what He says and teaches is independent of whether He rose
  • the foundation of 'Christianity' is Christ Himself. if you argue that the veracity of His resurrection validates all He says and teaches, then you concede that He Himself said and taught His own resurrection. if you deny He resurrected while confessing that He claimed to, you call Him a liar. just pointing this out in case you're Islamic, because, you wouldn't be being a good little Muslim in that case, would you?
• – except that there’s a question as to whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead.
  • no, there's not.
• But the entire above-assumption is flawed!
  • yeah, been detailing some flawed assumptions. see above.
• That is, even if we knew that Jesus was resurrected, and that he affected his own resurrection, it still would tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus had any special kinship to God or whether or not he was the long-awaited Messiah
  • you're wrong.
  • if He resurrected Himself ((He did, John 2:19)) then no other party was involved. this means He has conquered death. it means He is the giver of life - that He has indestructible life, that death cannot hold Him even were He to die. it means, He is life; it means, HE IS -- in other words, that Jesus is I AM THAT I AM the eternally present, timeless self-existent one. the absolute observer. by very definition, God.
• ; and without proof for those specific claims, Christianity doesn’t get off the ground.
  • the validity of The Way does not depend on catering to your demand to be personally satisfied by what evidences you personally desire.
  • there is proof. the very fact we're having this conversation two thousand years later is proof. the intervening history is proof. the written testimony of the eyewitnesses is proof. the testimony of hundreds and hundreds of millions of supernaturally persuaded people over the intervening millennia is proof. your exerting energy to scoff at it is proof. the human neuro-cardial system is proof. quantum physics is proof. photosynthesis is proof.
  • Christianity apparently got off the ground. and it wasn't because the early believers were following a charismatic warlord who was threatening unbelief with the edge of the sword. rather, Christianity has blossomed all over the world from its inception under heavy persecution while reacting peacefully and submissively -- don't bother bringing up the HRE because Catholicism is not Christianity. Christianity exploded in blossom while identifying yourself as a Christian marked you for as a target for hatred & murder.
    • this is also proof.

 

[posthuman]

The author has read the comments and has responded

please ask the author to kindly die, thus testing his own hypothesis. this will both demonstrate to us his sincerity and, if He meets Jesus of Nazareth after his death, he can verify firsthand these accounts we hear of His indestructible life, and determine by inspection whether He is in fact divine.
being as the author presents himself as having expertise in the matter which exceeds what you have gleaned to be here among us, the author is clearly especially well suited to this task. who else could we really trust to it? please tell him from post, it behooves him to die and find out for himself -- for all of us.

thanks

 

[posthuman]

B) A logical point which even a Christian would need to agree too, considering its inherent logic.
That is, even according to Christians (who accept the “Old Testament”), death came into existence as a result of very specific circumstances – this being Adam’s primordial sin, the context of which was unrestrained indulgence in physical desires. It follows that anyone who manages to completely rectify this topic, training himself to engage in physical pleasure in complete accordance with God’s will, but not at all for selfish reasons, thereby repairs the damage caused by Adam’s sin – at least as far as what’s relevant to that individual, and he can thereby become exempt of the decree of death.

• according to Christians (who accept the “Old Testament”), death came into existence as a result of very specific circumstances
  • i agree, very specific circumstances
• – this being Adam’s primordial sin, the context of which was unrestrained indulgence in physical desires.
  • no, Christians don't. that is not the context or specific circumstances the Bible describes
• It follows that anyone who manages to completely rectify this topic, training himself to engage in physical pleasure in complete accordance with God’s will, but not at all for selfish reasons,
  • it doesn't follow, because what you're describing is not the converse of Adam's sin.
  • the argument is built on false premises
• thereby repairs the damage caused by Adam’s sin – at least as far as what’s relevant to that individual,
  • no, it doesn't follow; the 'damage' of sin isn't measured instantaneously without regard for past and/or future. God is a-temporal, independent of time; He sees independently of time, knows independently of time, and measures independently of time.
    • consider a binary function S(t) where for each time t, S(t) = 1 if an person sins at time t, otherwise S(t) = 0.
      • as a general case, we can let time be divided into any arbitrarily small interval and by the well-ordering-property assign times t1, t2, ... to the natural numbers.
      • define S = the sum over all times t, that is, S = S(1) + S(2) + . . .+S(N) for some maximum, not necessarily finite time N
      • if S > 0 a person has sin.
    • consider brain cancer.
      • being in a state of remission for any length of time does not cause the damage of brain cancer to be 'repaired'
      • consider leprosy.
• and he can thereby become exempt of the decree of death.
  • non-sequitur ((see above))
  • this imposes a tacit human judgement to be equivalent to God's judgement - this is unsupportable as a general assumption, and in the specific case, relying on a false premise that it is appointed to all man once to die, and after the judgement, is decreed according to individual merit.
  • false equivocation between the death of the physical body and the death of the soul

 

[JamOn]

Thomas said he would not believe until he did that and Jesus invited him to, but it is not recorded that Thomas actually did so.

Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where
the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25b)

When Jesus appeared eight day later, He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (v. 27)

That is immediately followed by: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Some may need 100% proof to believe as far as my opinion I need 0% proof

 

[posthuman]

Thomas said he would not believe until he did that and Jesus invited him to, but it is not recorded that Thomas actually did so.

Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where
the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25b)

When Jesus appeared eight day later, He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (v. 27)

That is immediately followed by: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

And when Thomas calls Jesus Lord God, He says of Thomas 'you believe'

 

[JamOn]

You misquoted me, i said "nothing other than signs", if you stop at nothing, then we have a different meaning.

Heb 2:This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.

Signs and wonders had their place in preaching the gospel and that includes Lazarus resurrection and Jesus' own body resurrection.
Jesus' spiritual resurrection is the main thing, it did not happen so that we believe the gospel but it happened as it is necessary and thus we shall also go through if we continue in faith. It means victory.

John 11:35

 

[pottersclay]

True but still, resurrection is spiritual and not physical. You see, Jesus had to resurrect physically so that the gospel may be preached, otherwise, how would anyone dare say "...our Lord died and resurrected..." when people would confirm His rotting body in the tomb?!, it wouldn't make any sense, would it?
Even Jesus Himself said the sign of Jonah was for a perverse generation who are always after a sign instead of receiving these things by faith.

This below, was the real resurrection of Jesus:

Matt 27:50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.

Please give example of spiritual resurrection

 

[Magenta]

Some may need 100% proof to believe as far as my opinion I need 0% proof

I needed evidence and it was given to me through personal empirical experiences, and it is promised to those who sincerely seek that they shall find. Though truthfully evidence is not proof, there really is a lot of evidence, evidence which many if not most, especially those that are perishing, the natural man as it were, reject. Any who, this same subject came up with Bob and I recently, and I do not mean to be a stickler for details but I am LOL Hey, @posthuman is it true that proofs are for alcohol and math?

 

[rily51jean]

The Reserection:

A)
Flawed Assumption:
Christianity takes for granted the assumption that if we indeed knew for sure that Jesus was in fact resurrected, then this would conclusively establish Jesus’ status as God/the Son of God, thereby validating everything Jesus said and taught, which would in turn set Christianity on a solid foundation – except that there’s a question as to whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead. But the entire above-assumption is flawed! That is, even if we knew that Jesus was resurrected, and that he affected his own resurrection, it still would tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus had any special kinship to God or whether or not he was the long-awaited Messiah; and without proof for those specific claims, Christianity doesn’t get off the ground.

B) A logical point which even a Christian would need to agree too, considering its inherent logic.
That is, even according to Christians (who accept the “Old Testament”), death came into existence as a result of very specific circumstances – this being Adam’s primordial sin, the context of which was unrestrained indulgence in physical desires. It follows that anyone who manages to completely rectify this topic, training himself to engage in physical pleasure in complete accordance with God’s will, but not at all for selfish reasons, thereby repairs the damage caused by Adam’s sin – at least as far as what’s relevant to that individual, and he can thereby become exempt of the decree of death.

C)
There are two individuals that even the Christians agree had complete control over death, and yet it has never entered the mind of any Christian that either of those individuals had Divine kinship or were the long-awaited Mashiach. Eliyahu and Elisha. That is, we find that Eliyahu resurrected a child in Melachim Aleph 17:17-24 and that Elisha resurrected a child in Melachim Bet 4:32-36 – narratives that every believing Christian acknowledges happened. Although Eliyahu and Elisha resurrected someone, still, did it ever enter the thought of any Christian that because of this, either one of them is God/the Son of God or the Messiah?! Surely not. And why not? Because that’s just not the logical implication of being able to resurrect someone and having power over death.

D)
Even if the prevouis points are false. Prove it happend:
None of the resurrection accounts were definitively written by eyewitnesses. That is, the Gospel of Mark abruptly stops early-on in its resurrection narrative, and Luke’s author was, according to all opinions, not a direct disciple of Jesus who even claims to have himself seen Jesus in a resurrected state. As for the Gospels of Mathew and John that although there are those who believe that these works were written by the Apostles of those names, the mainstream opinion of scholars – even Christian ones (based on internal evidence) is that in both cases, Jesus’ own disciples who bore those names were not the ones who wrote these two volumes. And even if there are attempts to claim otherwise, still, when fighting the status quo, only definitive information is relevant. As such, since concerning Mathew and John there’s a significant scholarly belief that these Gospels were not authored by the Apostles – and thus not by direct witnesses to Jesus’ supposed arising from the dead, so this alone is enough to make any claims of “eyewitness testimony” to the resurrection inconclusive, and so useless in regards to the need for Christians to bring bonafide proof for their anti-Old Testament claims.

In any event, the open contradictions between the three Gospels that do discuss Jesus’ resurrection (whereby Mathew states that he met with his disciples in specifically the Galilee, Luke states that he met with them specifically in Jerusalem, and John says that he met with them in both), not to mention that at the point where the Gospel of Mark’s narrative ends, the Gospels of Mathew and Luke – which both built off of the text of Mark – significantly diverge, all show how vague the matter is. And here too, it should once again be emphasized that although Christians can theoretically reconcile the aforementioned
contradictions, still, as touched upon , such an “excuse for a discrepancy” is good in a vacuum, but not if you’re coming to argue on the status quo based on the supposed resurrection. In different words, the contradictions alone highlight that we’re dealing with a tradition that’s in-any-event-dubious-enough to not be usable against the status quo.

E)
When God first gave the Torah at Har Sinai (which is again, something that any believing Christian acknowledges happened), it was a nationally witnessed event, that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, saw. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection was at most witnessed by relatively few individuals whose identity is generally not known. Logic dictates that a non-nationally-witnessed-event does not have the ability to cancel out a nationally-witnessed event – period.

F)
Another point to consider is that even if Jesus arose from the dead, this tells us nothing about Jesus’ own powers (as the Christian claim that it does), since maybe he was resurrected by God, and not that he engendered his own resurrection. You claim that in arising from the dead, it shows that Jesus himself had the power to overcome death. So regarding this detail we’re noting that simply getting resurrected doesn’t prove anything about the powers of the person who gets resurrected. This can be seen clearly from the story of the individuals in Tanach that were resurrected by Eliyahu (in Melachim Aleph 17:17-24) and Elisha (in Melachim Bet 4:32-36), whereby not the slightest claim is made that the individuals that got resurrected by them were in any way special, or possessing of special powers.

You either believe, that God is, and that Jesus, is the only begotten Son of God, or you don't, regardless of what anybody else says or believes, or regardless of any of questions/problems presented above ....simple as that. A Why worry about all this other stuff? You don't owe the world proof of His actuality, His reality, ....even if you did have absolute concrete proof, from outside of the Word of God, they probably wouldn't accept or believe it anyway. Those who believe will believe, those who don't & don't want to, will not. From what is recorded in Acts 1:11-15, Jesus ascended up into Heaven, witnessed by at least 120 believers. We walk by Faith, not by sight.

 

[Magenta]

And when Thomas calls Jesus Lord God, He says of Thomas 'you believe'

Yes, this is true And while it may be reasonable to assume that Thomas did what he had said he would, it is not stated in the text that he did so, and that was my point... that it would be an assumption to say he had Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

[JamOn]

I needed evidence and it was given to me through personal empirical experiences, and it is promised to those who sincerely seek that they shall find. Though truthfully evidence is not proof, there really is a lot of evidence, evidence which many if not most, especially those that are perishing, the natural man as it were, reject. Any who, this same subject came up with Bob and I recently, and I do not mean to be a stickler for details but I am LOLHey, @posthuman is it true that proofs are for alcohol and math?

That is completely ok I understand

 

[JamOn]

it would be like me saying God created water

 

[rily51jean]

Ooo boy, I could get really long-winded here ^ ... will TRY to make my comments very brief (hard to do, on this ^ , LOL)

Let's see... where to start (sorry if this is choppy, tryin to make it short):

• I do not believe that what we call "The Gospel of John" was written by John [internal and external evidences, won't go into here]

• the writer of the Book of John [not John] was indeed "witness" to His resurrection, and was the ONLY person of whom it was said (in the text of John 20:8, in the scene of the empty tomb) "and he saw [the linen cloths (from prev. verse)] AND BELIEVED" [NOTE: this was NOT said of "Peter" who was with him, in that scene; it is ONLY said of THIS ONE GUY (one of His "disciples," to be sure," but NOT one of "the 12" or even "the 11")]; Verse 9 goes on to say, "FOR AS YET they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead" (but of THIS ONE GUY it is said that "he saw [the linen cloths] AND BELIEVED"--not said of Peter!)
  
  
  
• later that same evening (I believe fairly late), in Mark 16:14, Jesus "[Later] as they were eating, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen." ["those who had seen Him" would have included "Mary Magdalene" of whom vv.9-11 had this to say, "9 And having risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10 She having gone, told it to those having been with Him, mourning and weeping. 11 And they having heard that He is alive and has been seen by her, disbelieved." (so all of "the Eleven" were included in this "rebuke" by Jesus in the later v.14 setting---it just says "the Eleven" were the object of this "rebuke," not "that other disciple" at the empty tomb with Peter early in the day... it seems that when "he SAW [the linen cloths] AND BELIEVED" that this was because of a prior, um [lacking the word I want here] inclination/knowing/understanding, if you will--recall, this is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who is the writer of this Book/Gospel... but regardless, he is indeed witness to His resurrection, for we also see him later also in the John 21:20-23 scene [where Peter had said, "I go a fishing," v.3; and the text says, "This is now THE THIRD TIME that Jesus showed himself to his disciples [there were more than just 12 disciples, altogether, recall! (tho 7 are here in THIS scene)] AFTER that he was risen from the dead" v.14)]

...I forget what else I wanted to point out about that... oh well (it'll probably come to me )

"I do not believe that what we call "The Gospel of John" was written by John [internal and external evidences, won't go into here"]

What?....really? Why else would it be titled "The Gospel According To John"....? Not by John the Baptist, but by the Apostle John, the disciple "whom Jesus loved". I could be wrong but according to Matt. 4:21 "And going on from thence, He saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets."
that John the son of Zebedee is the Apostle John who wrote (divinely inspired, of course) The Gospel of John is the same, as that referred to as John the Divine, to distinguish him from John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin (Luke 1:36), whom Herod beheaded.