I have a question

[MonaGonna]

Christ returned in the same body He left in. But a change had occurred to that body between the time He was last seen and His return. No one had ever seen a glorified body before. He looked unique.

When He first appeared to the disciples Thomas wasn't there. Thomas didn't believe the disciples when they told Him Christ had risen from the dead. It had nothing to do with recognition of Christ. Thomas recognized Jesus as soon as Thomas saw Him, and called Him, Lord, and God, and was admonished for his lack of faith.

Jesus appeared to over 500 in Galilee. And Paul was quick to point out in case anyone questioned the appearance, that most of those who saw Jesus were still alive at the time of Paul's writing. They would have been quick to denounce Paul had it not been true.

Two of the Temple priests that had died, and also came back with Christ went home to see their families. That is where the Pharisees found them, removed them to the Temple, interrogated both separately and were told the same thing. The man they had killed was indeed the Messiah.
I have their testimonies if you'd like to read what they had to say.

In a glorified body you can eat if you like or not. In fact you could eat an orange from the inside out. Christ cooked fish for breakfast.
Sanders was right about the ghost part. Christ will retain His mortal, glorified body forever which is why God made sure not one of Jesus' bones were broken.


Some times Wikipedia falls short.

Sorry to break your buzz but the earliest piece of the bible that was found dates to a couple of hundred years after the events.

 

[Chuckt]

Some times Wikipedia falls short.

Sorry to break your buzz but the earliest piece of the bible that was found dates to a couple of hundred years after the events.

No.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

They had the Bible because they continued in the oral Bible or the "apostle's doctrine" which means teaching. The gospels were written on parchment but they wore out.

Even liberal bishop John A. T. Robinson argued in his Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament was written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D.[4] And liberal Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen, trained in Bultmann’s critical methodology of form criticism, says, “As a Western scripture scholar, I am inclined to doubt these [Gospel] stories, but as historian, I am obligated to take them as reliable.... The biblical texts as they stand are the best hypothesis we have until now to explain what really happened.”[5]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text-Part 4 - JASWiki

 

[pacer]

When He first appeared to the disciples Thomas wasn't there. Thomas didn't believe the disciples when they told Him Christ had risen from the dead. It had nothing to do with recognition of Christ. Thomas recognized Jesus as soon as Thomas saw Him, and called Him, Lord, and God, and was admonished for his lack of faith.

Let us not put words into the Bible that are not there. It does not say Thomas recognized Jesus immediately and called him Lord and God. It was only after Jesus invited Thomas to touch his wounds did Thomas acknowledge him and called him My Lord, My God.

Jesus appeared to over 500 in Galilee.

Will the 500 please stand up?

A question that any reasonable person would ask when such an astounding claim as a simultaneous mass sighting is made is, “who exactly witnessed the event?” Therefore we would ask Rhodes the same question: Who exactly were those 500 who witnessed Jesus’ resurrected form? How on earth would anyone from the alleged 500 go to Paul and question the claim when he does not identify who those 500 were? Throughout Christian literature on this subject specifically covering the claim of 500 witnesses many of them essentially puts forward the exact same rhetoric, that is, none of the 500 critiqued or challenged Paul’s claim. We beg your pardon but such rhetoric is clearly absurd. Consider the following analogy:

 

[pacer]

“As for the account of Christ being seen by more than five hundred at once, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five hundred who say it for themselves. It is, therefore, the testimony of but one man, and that, too, of a man who did not, according to the same account, believe a word of the matter himself at the time it is said to have happened. His evidence, supposing him to have been the writer of the 15th chapter of Corinthians, where this account is given, is like that of a man who comes into a court of Justice to swear that what he had sworn before is false. A man may often see reason, and he has, too, always the right of changing his opinion; but this liberty does not extend to matters of fact..”" [7]

Is Paul even a trustworthy source to begin with especially when we are relying on him as a sole witness to a particular incident? M. Anton Mikicic writes:

“In the New Testament, Paul, who never met Jesus (Jesus died before Paul’s conversion) is in some debate with other early Christian leaders like James, Jesus’ sibling according to the gospels, as to who is preaching the “true” Jesus. So there were obviously two inconsistent points of view. Paul also defends himself against accusations he’s a liar, which suggests to me that someone called him one.

Paul’s own words suggest he felt if the end result was saving souls for the next world, it didn’t matter what you did in this world to accomplish it, including lying.” [8]

Will the 500 please stand up?

 

[MonaGonna]

Some times Wikipedia falls short.

Sorry to break your buzz but the earliest piece of the bible that was found dates to a couple of hundred years after the events.

No.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

They had the Bible because they continued in the oral Bible or the "apostle's doctrine" which means teaching. The gospels were written on parchment but they wore out.

Even liberal bishop John A. T. Robinson argued in his Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament was written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D.[4] And liberal Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen, trained in Bultmann’s critical methodology of form criticism, says, “As a Western scripture scholar, I am inclined to doubt these [Gospel] stories, but as historian, I am obligated to take them as reliable.... The biblical texts as they stand are the best hypothesis we have until now to explain what really happened.”[5]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text-Part 4 - JASWiki

Your link isn't based on facts. Amazing how gullible people are.

 

[Chuckt]

Sorry to break your buzz but the earliest piece of the bible that was found dates to a couple of hundred years after the events.

No.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

They had the Bible because they continued in the oral Bible or the "apostle's doctrine" which means teaching. The gospels were written on parchment but they wore out.

Even liberal bishop John A. T. Robinson argued in his Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament was written and in circulation between 40 and 65 A.D.[4] And liberal Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen, trained in Bultmann’s critical methodology of form criticism, says, “As a Western scripture scholar, I am inclined to doubt these [Gospel] stories, but as historian, I am obligated to take them as reliable.... The biblical texts as they stand are the best hypothesis we have until now to explain what really happened.”[5]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text-Part 4 - JASWiki

Your link isn't based on facts. Amazing how gullible people are.

Dr. John Ankerberg has a degree. The other people in the article do have a degree and positions in the church. What degrees do you have to tell anyone that it isn't based on any facts?

 

[MonaGonna]

No.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

They had the Bible because they continued in the oral Bible or the "apostle's doctrine" which means teaching. The gospels were written on parchment but they wore out.



The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text-Part 4 - JASWiki

Your link isn't based on facts. Amazing how gullible people are.

Dr. John Ankerberg has a degree. The other people in the article do have a degree and positions in the church. What degrees do you have to tell anyone that it isn't based on any facts?

What does having a degree have to do with anything? Your shit is either based on facts or it's not. Theirs isn't. It's an opinion.

 

[Chuckt]

Your link isn't based on facts. Amazing how gullible people are.

Dr. John Ankerberg has a degree. The other people in the article do have a degree and positions in the church. What degrees do you have to tell anyone that it isn't based on any facts?

What does having a degree have to do with anything? Your shit is either based on facts or it's not. Theirs isn't. It's an opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, you are an anonymous poster with no credentials and may as well be posting in your pajamas.

 

[MonaGonna]

Dr. John Ankerberg has a degree. The other people in the article do have a degree and positions in the church. What degrees do you have to tell anyone that it isn't based on any facts?

What does having a degree have to do with anything? Your shit is either based on facts or it's not. Theirs isn't. It's an opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, you are an anonymous poster with no credentials and may as well be posting in your pajamas.

Still has nothing to do with them not having any actual proof. If someone in their PJs can see through them, why can't you?

 

[Chuckt]

What does having a degree have to do with anything? Your shit is either based on facts or it's not. Theirs isn't. It's an opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, you are an anonymous poster with no credentials and may as well be posting in your pajamas.

Still has nothing to do with them not having any actual proof. If someone in their PJs can see through them, why can't you?

Because they went to college, they have credentials, the paper is peer reviewed, the show is on television in different markets which means it has gained acceptance and the paper has been documented by other scholars and you don't have the facts.

 

[MonaGonna]

I went back to read the link again, and sorry, it's total crap, they say the burden rests on others to disprove christ's resurrection. Until, then, it's real. Sorry, that's not the way it works.
Anyways, the earliest fragment they date to 62AD, 30 years after Jesus died. So it's all hearsay.

 

[Chuckt]

I went back to read the link again, and sorry, it's total crap, they say the burden rests on others to disprove christ's resurrection. Until, then, it's real. Sorry, that's not the way it works.
Anyways, the earliest fragment they date to 62AD, 30 years after Jesus died. So it's all hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony.

 

[MonaGonna]

I went back to read the link again, and sorry, it's total crap, they say the burden rests on others to disprove christ's resurrection. Until, then, it's real. Sorry, that's not the way it works.
Anyways, the earliest fragment they date to 62AD, 30 years after Jesus died. So it's all hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony.

 

[The Irish Ram]

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ...

 

[The Irish Ram]

More eyewitnesses, immediately after the resurrection:

Rabbi Addas, Rabbi Finees, and Rabbi Egias, three men who had come from Galilee, testifying that they had seen Jesus taken up into Heaven, risen up in the middle of the multitude of chief of the Jews, and said before the priests and the Levites, who had been called together to the council of the Lord:

"When we were coming from Galilee, we met at the Jordan a very great multitude of men, fathers who had been some time dead... And behold, suddenly there appeared coming down from Mount Amalech a very great number, as it were 12 thousand men who had risen with the Lord. And although they recognized many there, they were not able to say anything to them for fear and the angelic vision; and they stood at a distance gazing and hearing them, how they walked along singing praises, and saying, "The Lord has risen again from the dead, as he had said; let us all exult and be glad, since he reigns forever."

Jewish court of law = a fact is established by 2 or more eyewitnesses.
And they didn't count women and children, so you could comfortably enlarge the multitude seen with Christ by 3.

Karinus and Leucius are two of the previously dead who returned to earth with Christ. Both Sanhedrin priests at the time of their deaths, testified that Christ had appeared to them in Hades, preached to all, and that those who had earlier responded to God were miraculously given new bodies and resurrected when Christ rose from the grave.

 

[hobelim]

Jewish court of law = a fact is established by 2 or more eyewitnesses.
And they didn't count women and children, so you could comfortably enlarge the multitude seen with Christ by 3.

Karinus and Leucius are two of the previously dead who returned to earth with Christ. Both Sanhedrin priests at the time of their deaths, testified that Christ had appeared to them in Hades, preached to all, and that those who had earlier responded to God were miraculously given new bodies and resurrected when Christ rose from the grave.

If they were Sanhedrin they were bound by pharisaic beliefs that Jesus described as whitewashed tombs and unmarked graves. In other words, dead. So yes, Jesus preached to the dead and two of them heard his voice (a miracle!) and came out of their graves as Jesus ascended bodily into heaven before their eyes as he went through daily life.

It is not possible for people to come out of their graves in any other way.

Sober up sister, you seem to have run amok with the communion wine....

 

[The Irish Ram]

They were bound by pharisaic Law. They were convinced about who Christ was. Their heads belonged to Moses. Their hearts belonged to Jesus.
The stones in front of the graves of the souls in Abraham's bosom rolled back during the earthquake that occurred when Christ died on the cross, because those souls were going to need their bodies back. If only 2 came back with Him, that would be enough to convince me, but multitudes means many. If you are right then Addas, Finees, and Egias were wrong.

Irenaeus described the event very well I think:

"This event was also an indication of the fact, that when the holy soul of Christ descended to Hades, many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies so when the Word of God became one with flesh, by a physical and hypostatic union, the heavy terrestrial part, having been rendered immortal, was borne up into heaven, by the divine nature, after the resurrection."

Another way a body will be coming out of it's grave is by being raptured at the sound of a horn with Christ saying, "Come hither." from the clouds.

Hate wine, but can commune with the Lord over morning tea and drink it in remembrance of what Christ did for me every day.

 

[Chuckt]

I went back to read the link again, and sorry, it's total crap, they say the burden rests on others to disprove christ's resurrection. Until, then, it's real. Sorry, that's not the way it works.
Anyways, the earliest fragment they date to 62AD, 30 years after Jesus died. So it's all hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony.

I signed my name by fax machine when I put an offer in to buy my house. It was a copy.
You believe the things you see on the news and it is from a reporter and not always from the people they talk to.
When you track a package from UPS, you get an electronic copy of the signature if possible.

These are all things people accept by faith.

I also took Western Civilization and my professor was schooled at Yale but he taught at my college which was different. There are reasons I can put together that show that several people here are making unsubstantiated claims against Christianity based on doubt but not on the facts.

None of you researched it and know more about the facts.
How many of you took a Western Civilization class?
How many of you have actual theories based on history?
How many books have you read that would stand up as credible in a history class?

The reason you used the word "crazy" is because you don't have an alternate theory which means you don't know.

You don't want to be confused by the facts but you want the facts to conform to what you believe which is nonsense or "crazy".

 

[The Irish Ram]

These are all things people accept by faith.

Yep. And even with the tiniest bit of faith in Christ, so much can be accomplished.
I learned something here. I couldn't believe how many Christian people think that their sins are going to be judged in Heaven. Wouldn't that suggest that Jesus was useless and His work on the cross worthless?
And yet how faithful and strong of them to still want to follow the Lord, in spite of what they think the consequences are! It's like the little 14 yr old girl that agreed to have a son out of wedlock when the consequence was being stoned to death.

So my question to them is, how is God going to judge your sins when He has amnesia concerning every single sin you committed while you were here??

Isaiah 43:25 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.

HEBREWS 8:12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more.

Total, and complete. Forgive and forget is what you get from your Father that loves you. Mercy for your short comings, and no knowledge of any sinning while you were here.

Heaven is a sanctuary city for sinners. A safe place. Where sinners are accepted because of what Christ did, not what the sinners did.

 

[Chuckt]

These are all things people accept by faith.

Yep. And even with the tiniest bit of faith in Christ, so much can be accomplished.
I learned something here. I couldn't believe how many Christian people think that their sins are going to be judged in Heaven. Wouldn't that suggest that Jesus was useless and His work on the cross worthless?
And yet how faithful and strong of them to still want to follow the Lord, in spite of what they think the consequences are! It's like the little 14 yr old girl that agreed to have a son out of wedlock when the consequence was being stoned to death.

So my question to them is, how is God going to judge your sins when He has amnesia concerning every single sin you committed while you were here??

The dead sea scrolls were found last century and it was a match for the manuscripts we have today. If they don't want to believe in Jesus then they can be judged by the accuracy of the law and they will have even Moses condemning them because only Jesus could keep the law. It is their choice.