Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Question for Christians re Resurrection of Jesus

Expand Messages
  • wglmp
    Why should anyone believe in the supposed resurrection of Jesus when some of the apostles themselves did not believe it? If you look in the last chapter of
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 7 9:39 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Why should anyone believe in the supposed resurrection of Jesus when
      some of the apostles themselves did not believe it? If you look in
      the last chapter of Matthew, the claim is made that Jesus arose from
      the dead, and the Apostles went to meet him. Matt 28.17 then
      says, "And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some of them
      doubted." So why shouldn't all of us doubt? After all, we were not
      even his Disciples.
      Another strange fact that deserves our attention is that no one
      recognises Jesus after the resurrection.
      On a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:17), some of the eleven disciples
      who saw him doubted, as mentioned above.
      Mark says he appeared in a different form (Mark 16:12).
      Two disciples on the road (Luke 24:18) thought he was a stranger.
      Mary Magdalene thought he was a gardener (John 20:14, 15).
      He appeared to seven of the disciples by the Galilee (John 21:4) but
      the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
      How is it possible that after only a day and a half or as much as a
      few weeks, his closest friends could not recognise him? Perhaps after
      Simon Barabbas had been crucified instead of Jesus (as according to a
      2nd Century tradition), Jesus was in heavy disguise so that he could
      meet with his disciples as previously arranged without fear of being
      re-arrested. When he came to them in disguise they did not recognise
      him.
      The Gospels make is clear that it was Jesus who had been crucified,
      but that he had only been on the cross for a few hours. Historians of
      the day say that victims of crucifixion could suffer on the cross for
      days, so why should we suppose Jesus died after only a few hours?
      Even if he did die, his corpse was buried by only a few people, and
      that was a rush job to get it done before the Sabbath. Yet the body
      was missing before two days had passed, and nobody saw it come OUT,
      only that the tomb was empty. What if, as the New Testament says
      rumor had it, the Disciples had stolen the corpse of Jesus? What if
      the corpse had never been removed from the tomb at all, but another
      tomb, one empty because it had ALWAYS been left empty, was pointed
      out as the real tomb of Jesus?
      If I were to speculate, I might suggest it could have been one of his
      brothers passing himself off as Jesus. James was instrumental in the
      early promotion of Jesus' teachings, so maybe James pretended to be
      his half-brother Jesus for a few weeks until the word got out that
      Jesus had been resurrected, then he staged the assumption into Heaven
      with the assistance of some of the Disciples, and James went back to
      his own personality. After all, he must have known he could not get
      away with pretending to be Jesus forever, as many, many people had
      heard him (Jesus) preach.
      OTOH, We find Jesus suddenly appearing in a room when the door was
      closed. Maybe it was just a ghost? The story of Thomas putting he hand
      in Jesus' side could be ambiguous; maybe his hand actually went IN his
      side, and not just to the depth of the wound? How is this different
      than any other ghost story?
      Why believe the resurrection at all?
      It is a true statement of the New Testament that without the
      resurrection, your faith is in vain, so how can anyone believe in the
      resurrection when it seems so easy to keep throwing out question
      after question?

      Matt
    • James
      Hello. ... . Because.... the Resurrection is the Gospel and all who do not believe the Gospel are lost. If they die in that condition they will perish under
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 7 12:47 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello.

        wglmp wrote:
        >
        > Why should anyone believe in the supposed resurrection of Jesus when
        > some of the apostles themselves did not believe it?
        >
        .
        Because.... the Resurrection is the Gospel and all who do not believe
        the Gospel are lost. If they die in that condition they will perish
        under the wrath of God forever. Those Apostles who "did not believe"
        afterward Repented of their unbelief.
        .
        >
        > If you look in
        > the last chapter of Matthew, the claim is made that Jesus arose from
        > the dead, and the Apostles went to meet him. Matt 28.17 then
        > says, "And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some of them
        > doubted."
        >
        .
        True it does say that. And do you believe that what that says is the Truth?
        .
        >
        > So why shouldn't all of us doubt?
        >
        .
        Because as I just said... anybody who denies the bodily, physical
        resurrection of Messiah is lost and on the way to Hell. People who doubt
        the Scriptures are calling God a liar.... which is exactly what Satan
        did in the garden.
        "Ahh-h- No Eve... you will not surely die!".
        .
        >
        > After all, we were not even his Disciples.
        >
        .
        Speak for thyself.
        .
        >
        > Another strange fact that deserves our attention is that no one
        > recognises Jesus after the resurrection.
        >
        .
        False!
        Jn 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is
        the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his
        fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into
        the sea.

        John recognized Him.
        .
        .
        >
        > On a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:17), some of the eleven disciples
        > who saw him doubted, as mentioned above.
        >
        .
        And do you believe what it says? Do you believe the Bible... in its
        entirety is Truth? Or do you just pick and choose the parts you want to
        and reject the rest?
        .
        >
        > Mark says he appeared in a different form (Mark 16:12).
        > Two disciples on the road (Luke 24:18) thought he was a stranger.
        > Mary Magdalene thought he was a gardener (John 20:14, 15).
        > He appeared to seven of the disciples by the Galilee (John 21:4) but
        > the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
        >
        .
        False. John knew as I just showed. And even if he didn't so what? What's
        your point?
        .

        > How is it possible that after only a day and a half or as much as a
        > few weeks, his closest friends could not recognise him? Perhaps after
        > Simon Barabbas had been crucified instead of Jesus (as according to a
        > 2nd Century tradition), Jesus was in heavy disguise so that he could
        > meet with his disciples as previously arranged without fear of being
        > re-arrested. When he came to them in disguise they did not recognise
        > him.
        >
        .
        All guess work. Scripture says nothing about a "disguise".
        .
        >
        > The Gospels make is clear that it was Jesus who had been crucified,
        >
        .
        And do you believe that testimony?
        .
        >
        > but that he had only been on the cross for a few hours. Historians of
        > the day say that victims of crucifixion could suffer on the cross for
        > days, so why should we suppose Jesus died after only a few hours?
        >
        .
        Because the Scriptures say so.
        Do you believe the Bible is the word of God and is true? ALL of it?
        Do you believe in the bodily, physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus
        Christ?
        .
        >
        > Even if he did die, his corpse was buried by only a few people, and
        > that was a rush job to get it done before the Sabbath.
        >
        .
        And you believe that... right? But you deny His resurrection... right?
        So you believe the parts of the Bible that suits you and reject the
        rest... Right?
        .
        >
        > Yet the body was missing before two days had passed, and nobody saw it
        > come OUT,
        > only that the tomb was empty.
        >
        .
        False again. Messiah was in the tomb for Three days And Three Nights...
        not "two days".
        .
        >
        > What if, as the New Testament says
        > rumor had it, the Disciples had stolen the corpse of Jesus?
        >
        .
        Well the New Testament -Also- says that He was in the tomb for Three
        days and Three nights and then He arose bodily. Which part of the Bible
        do you believe/not believe.
        .
        >
        > What if
        > the corpse had never been removed from the tomb at all, but another
        > tomb, one empty because it had ALWAYS been left empty, was pointed
        > out as the real tomb of Jesus?
        >
        .
        What if the sun were a cube of ice? You speak in hypothetical
        impossibilities.
        .
        >
        > If I were to speculate,
        >
        .
        Welcome to your speculations... who cares what you think? True Christian
        s believe the Bible.
        .
        >
        > I might suggest it could have been one of his brothers passing himself
        > off as Jesus.
        >
        .
        Or maybe it was Elvis Presley eh?
        .
        >
        > James was instrumental in the
        > early promotion of Jesus' teachings, so maybe James pretended to be
        > his half-brother Jesus for a few weeks until the word got out that
        > Jesus had been resurrected, then he staged the assumption into Heaven
        > with the assistance of some of the Disciples, and James went back to
        > his own personality.
        >
        .
        IOW you think James was a liar & a deceiver.
        .
        >
        > After all, he must have known he could not get
        > away with pretending to be Jesus forever, as many, many people had
        > heard him (Jesus) preach.
        > OTOH, We find Jesus suddenly appearing in a room when the door was
        > closed. Maybe it was just a ghost? The story of Thomas putting he hand
        > in Jesus' side could be ambiguous; maybe his hand actually went IN his
        > side, and not just to the depth of the wound? How is this different
        > than any other ghost story?
        >
        .
        Because... the Scriptures testify that Messiah ate fish after His
        resurrection. Ghosts do not eat physical food.

        Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do
        thoughts arise in your hearts?
        39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
        for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
        40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
        41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
        them, Have ye here any meat?
        42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
        43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

        Are you a JW?
        .

        > Why believe the resurrection at all?
        >
        .
        Because if you don't you will die in your sin.
        .
        >
        > It is a true statement of the New Testament that without the
        > resurrection, your faith is in vain, so how can anyone believe in the
        > resurrection when it seems so easy to keep throwing out question
        > after question?
        >
        .
        Well look-a here folks. Here this chap spends almost his entire post
        decrying the testimony of the Bible and casting doubts on it and then
        turns around and tries to make a point by referring to the Bible!!!

        You're like a person who denounces Logic and then tries to disprove
        Logic by using Logical arguments.

        So again... what's your point? Who and what are you?

        James Kirby
      • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
        James Kirby, I thank you for your interest in participating, but I have to tell you that much of your response to Matt was inappropriate. The purpose of this
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 7 5:29 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          James Kirby,

          I thank you for your interest in participating, but I have to tell you
          that much of your response to Matt was inappropriate. The purpose of
          this group is reasoned, respectful discussion. I welcome your continued
          participation if you are able to respond to others' posts in that
          manner.

          In Christ's service,
          Rob Bowman
        • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
          Matt, You wrote:
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 7 6:45 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Matt,

            You wrote:

            << Why should anyone believe in the supposed resurrection of Jesus
            when some of the apostles themselves did not believe it? If you look
            in the last chapter of Matthew, the claim is made that Jesus arose
            from the dead, and the Apostles went to meet him. Matt 28.17 then
            says, "And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some of them
            doubted." So why shouldn't all of us doubt? After all, we were not
            even his Disciples. >>

            First, it is likely that the doubt in this instance did not have
            anything to do with doubting that Jesus had risen from the dead. From
            a close comparison of this passage with the other Gospels it is
            fairly evident that this was not Jesus' first resurrection appearance
            to his male disciples. By this time they were convinced that he had
            risen. Notice that in response to their doubts Jesus says and does
            nothing to convince them of the reality of his resurrection (vv. 18-
            20). Instead he asserts his universal sovereignty and commands the
            disciples to make disciples of all nations. It looks to me that what
            some doubted was the appropriateness of worshiping Jesus (note the
            first half of verse 17, which you quoted). Jesus' assertion of
            universal sovereignty is an understandable response to such doubts
            about worshiping Jesus.

            Second, if any of them did doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead,
            we should believe in the resurrection of Jesus for the same reasons
            that convinced them: he appeared to them several times, gave them
            tangible evidence of his resurrection, and transformed them from
            scared rabbits to stout-hearted missionaries. It is really not quite
            correct to say that the disciples did not believe the resurrection;
            rather, what you should say is that they did not believe it *at
            first*. This comes as no surprise to anyone, and far from proving
            that it didn't happen, proves that the disciples were not a bunch of
            gullible or superstitious men ready to believe anything with little
            or no evidence.

            You wrote:

            << Another strange fact that deserves our attention is that no one
            recognises Jesus after the resurrection. >>

            This is an overstatement to the point of being demonstrably false. On
            *some* recorded occasions, *some* of the disciples did not *at first*
            recognize Jesus. Thus, your generalization requires three important
            qualifications, which end up proving your statement to be incorrect.

            You wrote:

            << On a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:17), some of the eleven
            disciples who saw him doubted, as mentioned above.
            Mark says he appeared in a different form (Mark 16:12).
            Two disciples on the road (Luke 24:18) thought he was a stranger.
            Mary Magdalene thought he was a gardener (John 20:14, 15).
            He appeared to seven of the disciples by the Galilee (John 21:4) but
            the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
            How is it possible that after only a day and a half or as much as a
            few weeks, his closest friends could not recognise him? >>

            Your comments here miss various elements of the contexts of these
            passages that shed a different light on the lack of immediate
            recognition. Let me quote from a recent book of mine in which I
            discuss these passages:

            *****BEGIN QUOTE*****

            The only reference to Jesus' appearing in different bodies is Mark
            16:12 ("He appeared in another form"), part of the so-called Long
            Ending of Mark, a passage almost universally recognized by biblical
            scholars as a later addition to the Gospel.

            In Luke, the two disciples who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus did
            not recognize him, not because he was in a different form or body,
            but because "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" (Luke 24:16).
            Just before He disappeared, "their eyes were opened, and they
            recognized him" (v. 31). In both passages the passive verbs "were
            kept" and "were opened" are examples of the "divine passive," a
            locution common in the New Testament using the passive to refer to
            actions done by God. In other words, God kept the two men from
            recognizing Jesus right away--which implies that in the absence of
            this divine prevention they would have recognized Jesus with no
            problem.

            The Gospel of John reports two occasions when someone did not
            immediately recognize Jesus, but neither of these support the
            conclusion that he was appearing in a different body. Mary Magdalene
            mistook Jesus for the gardener; but John tells us that it was early
            in the morning, that she was crying, and that she was not looking
            directly at him (John 20:11–15). Under those conditions, it would
            have been surprising if Mary had recognized Jesus immediately. Later,
            when some of the disciples were out fishing on the Sea of Galilee,
            they saw Jesus standing on the shore but did not immediately
            recognize him (John 20:2–4). However, John tells us that it was
            daybreak and that they were two hundred cubits (about a hundred
            yards) out from the shore when they first saw him (20:4, 8)—about the
            length of a modern football field. Again, it would be surprising if
            they could identify him from that distance at early dawn.

            *****END QUOTE*****

            The above quotation comes from my book _Sense and Nonsense about
            Heaven and Hell_, co-authored with Kenneth D. Boa, and published by
            Zondervan in 2007.

            You wrote:

            << Perhaps after Simon Barabbas had been crucified instead of Jesus
            (as according to a 2nd Century tradition), Jesus was in heavy
            disguise so that he could meet with his disciples as previously
            arranged without fear of being re-arrested. When he came to them in
            disguise they did not recognise him. >>

            I don't take this suggestion seriously, and I doubt that you do,
            either. The passages give totally different explanations for their
            lack of immediate recognition of Jesus, and it is not plausible to
            accept the Gospel reports that they saw Jesus but did not immediately
            recognize him while rejecting their reports as to why.

            You wrote:

            << The Gospels make is clear that it was Jesus who had been
            crucified, but that he had only been on the cross for a few hours.
            Historians of the day say that victims of crucifixion could suffer on
            the cross for days, so why should we suppose Jesus died after only a
            few hours? Even if he did die, his corpse was buried by only a few
            people, and that was a rush job to get it done before the Sabbath.
            Yet the body was missing before two days had passed, and nobody saw
            it come OUT, only that the tomb was empty. What if, as the New
            Testament says rumor had it, the Disciples had stolen the corpse of
            Jesus? What if the corpse had never been removed from the tomb at
            all, but another tomb, one empty because it had ALWAYS been left
            empty, was pointed out as the real tomb of Jesus? >>

            These "what-if" scenarios have no real evidence for them other than
            selective, out-of-context use of the information available in the
            Gospels. You are also tossing out several incompatible theories for
            consideration without commenting on their plausibility. For example,
            the suggestion that Jesus was alive because someone else was
            crucified in his place is incompatible with the suggestion that Jesus
            had survived the crucifixion because he had been on the cross too
            short a time to die.

            What you are not noticing is that the Gospels demonstrate their
            fidelity to the facts by reporting this potentially embarrassing
            information. The early Christians would also have known that
            crucifixion victims usually lingered on the cross for days before
            dying. Mark knows this and reports Pilate's surprise at hearing that
            Jesus had died after only a few hours (Mark 15:44-45). Why, if they
            were making up the story, would they include such a detail?
            Apparently, they were NOT making it up.

            The omission of any report of people observing Jesus leaving the tomb
            is another example of the faithfulness of the Gospel writers to the
            known facts. Compare, by way of contrast, this omission with the
            fabulous account in the Gospel of Peter, which reports Jesus being
            taken out of the tomb held up by two immense angels, and followed by
            the cross (which talked!). Again, in a fable or myth, we would expect
            elaborate stories about the Romans or chief priests or disciples
            watching Jesus emerge from the tomb. The sobriety of the canonical
            Gospel accounts testifies to their concern to stick to the reported
            eyewitness accounts of the women and men disciples who actually went
            to the tomb.

            There would be no reason for Matthew to report that the Jews claimed
            the disciples had stolen the body if this had not been what Jews in
            Matthew's day were in fact claiming. And it is very doubtful that the
            Jews would have been saying this if the tomb had not in fact been
            empty. The suggestion that it was the wrong tomb also runs afoul of
            this point, because the Jewish opponents of Christianity would
            certainly have made note of the fact that the actual tomb of Jesus
            was still occupied if that had been the case. And confusing tombs
            would not engender experiences on the part of several women and men
            disciples of Jesus, not to mention Saul of Tarsus, in which they
            evidently quite sincerely believed that Jesus had appeared to them.

            You wrote:

            << If I were to speculate, I might suggest it could have been one of
            his brothers passing himself off as Jesus. James was instrumental in
            the early promotion of Jesus' teachings, so maybe James pretended to
            be his half-brother Jesus for a few weeks until the word got out that
            Jesus had been resurrected, then he staged the assumption into Heaven
            with the assistance of some of the Disciples, and James went back to
            his own personality. After all, he must have known he could not get
            away with pretending to be Jesus forever, as many, many people had
            heard him (Jesus) preach. >>

            Okay, you came up with a novel explanation, I'll give you that. I
            have never heard anyone before suggest that James faked his brother's
            resurrection by pretending to be Jesus. Just how many people do you
            think he might have persuaded with this deception? Do you think Mary
            Magdalene and Jesus' mother and the other women would have been taken
            in by this deception, or been willing parties to it? To whom,
            exactly, did James present himself as the risen Jesus, according to
            your speculation?

            You wrote:

            << OTOH, We find Jesus suddenly appearing in a room when the door was
            closed. Maybe it was just a ghost? The story of Thomas putting he
            hand in Jesus' side could be ambiguous; maybe his hand actually went
            IN his side, and not just to the depth of the wound? How is this
            different than any other ghost story? >>

            The point of Thomas being invited to touch Jesus was to satisfy his
            skepticism that Jesus had actually risen from the dead. If his hand
            had passed through the ghostly image of Jesus' side, Thomas would not
            have confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (John 20:28), but instead
            would have declared the apparition to be a ghost or demon and run!

            You wrote:

            << It is a true statement of the New Testament that without the
            resurrection, your faith is in vain, so how can anyone believe in the
            resurrection when it seems so easy to keep throwing out question
            after question? >>

            It is easy to throw out question after question about *anything*, but
            what counts is whether these questions expose any serious reasons for
            doubt.

            In Christ's service,
            Rob Bowman
          • James
            Gooday! ... . OK allow me to try again;..... Matt wrote; ... . Why should the fact that some of the apostles did not believe Christ rose from the dead be a
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 7 9:35 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Gooday!

              Robert M. Bowman, Jr. wrote:
              >
              > James Kirby,
              >
              > I thank you for your interest in participating, but I have to tell you
              > that much of your response to Matt was inappropriate. The purpose of
              > this group is reasoned, respectful discussion. I welcome your continued
              > participation if you are able to respond to others' posts in that
              > manner.
              >
              > In Christ's service,
              > Rob Bowman
              >
              .
              OK allow me to try again;.....

              Matt wrote;
              > Why should anyone believe in the supposed resurrection of Jesus when
              > some of the apostles themselves did not believe it?
              .
              Why should the fact that some of the apostles did not believe Christ
              rose from the dead be a reason why we or anybody else should -not-
              believe in His resurrection? The fact that many do not believe in the
              Creation account is no reason why I should not believe in Creation...
              and in fact I believe both Creation and Messiah's resurrection. Your
              observation gives no logical reason to not believe in the resurrection
              of Messiah so your observation is pointless.
              .
              > If you look in
              > the last chapter of Matthew, the claim is made that Jesus arose from
              > the dead, and the Apostles went to meet him. Matt 28.17 then
              > says, "And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some of them
              > doubted."
              .
              Correct. It does say that.
              .
              > So why shouldn't all of us doubt? After all, we were not even his
              > Disciples.
              .
              Irrelevant. One need not be a disciple to either believe or disbelieve
              anything about the Bible. Moreover as I just pointed out, just because
              somebody doubts truth is no reason I should doubt it.
              .
              > Another strange fact that deserves our attention is that no one
              > recognises Jesus after the resurrection.
              .
              Not true. The Apostle John for one recognized Him. John 21:7.
              .

              > On a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:17), some of the eleven disciples
              > who saw him doubted, as mentioned above.
              .
              Answered... as above. The fact that others doubt something is no reason
              I should doubt it.
              .
              > Mark says he appeared in a different form (Mark 16:12).
              > Two disciples on the road (Luke 24:18) thought he was a stranger.
              > Mary Magdalene thought he was a gardener (John 20:14, 15).
              .
              True but irrelevant.
              .
              > He appeared to seven of the disciples by the Galilee (John 21:4) but
              > the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.
              .
              False... John knew Him as pointed out above in verse 7
              .
              > How is it possible that after only a day and a half or as much as a
              > few weeks, his closest friends could not recognise him?
              .
              Answer;
              Luk 24:16 But their eyes were being held [or, restrained] [so as] not
              to know [or, recognize] Him. ALT
              Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. ASV
              & KJV
              Luk 24:16 But their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him. LITV
              Luk 24:16 But their eyes were held so that they could not know Him. MKJV
              Luk 24:16 But (15) their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. NASB
              Luk 24:16 but they were kept from recognizing him. NIV
              Luk 24:16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him.
              NKJV
              Luk 24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. RSV

              The verb is in the passive which indicates that something.. or
              someone... [GOD] was preventing them from recognizing Him.
              .


              > Perhaps after Simon Barabbas had been crucified instead of Jesus (as
              > according to a
              > 2nd Century tradition),
              .
              Tradition is in opposition to the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that
              it was the Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified, not Barabbas.
              .
              > Jesus was in heavy disguise so that he could meet with his disciples
              > as previously arranged without fear of being
              > re-arrested.
              .
              That's found nowhere in the Bible.
              .
              > When he came to them in disguise they did not recognise him.
              .
              Nor that.
              .
              > The Gospels make is clear that it was Jesus who had been crucified,
              > but that he had only been on the cross for a few hours.
              .
              True. At least 6 & possibly 7 or 8 hours.
              .
              > Historians of the day say that victims of crucifixion could suffer on
              > the cross for
              > days, so why should we suppose Jesus died after only a few hours?
              .
              Because that's what the Bible says.
              .
              > Even if he did die,
              .
              Well of course He did die for the Bible says so;
              Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
              finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
              Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that *he was dead*
              already, they brake not his legs;
              .
              > his corpse was buried by only a few people, and
              > that was a rush job to get it done before the Sabbath.
              .
              Not true. There was no "rush" to bury Him before the sabbath.

              John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the
              bodies should not ---remain upon the cross--- on the sabbath day,
              (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs
              might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

              The concern was that He not remain -on the cross- during the sabbath so
              you're quite mistaken there.
              .
              > Yet the body was missing before two days had passed, and nobody saw it
              > come OUT,
              > only that the tomb was empty.
              .
              Not true. He was in the tomb Three Days and Three Nights... just as the
              Scriptures say; not "two days". Matt 12:40
              .
              > What if, as the New Testament says rumor had it, the Disciples had
              > stolen the corpse of Jesus?
              .
              Well we know that that "rumor" was not true because the Bible says He
              arose after the third day and was seen.
              .
              > What if the corpse had never been removed from the tomb at all, but
              > another
              > tomb, one empty because it had ALWAYS been left empty, was pointed
              > out as the real tomb of Jesus?
              .
              We know that that did not happen because that notion is not found in
              the Bible.
              .
              > If I were to speculate, I might suggest it could have been one of his
              > brothers passing himself off as Jesus. James was instrumental in the
              > early promotion of Jesus' teachings, so maybe James pretended to be
              > his half-brother Jesus for a few weeks until the word got out that
              > Jesus had been resurrected, then he staged the assumption into Heaven
              > with the assistance of some of the Disciples, and James went back to
              > his own personality. After all, he must have known he could not get
              > away with pretending to be Jesus forever, as many, many people had
              > heard him (Jesus) preach.
              .
              Speculation is irrelevant seeing as none of that is found in the Bible.
              .
              > OTOH, We find Jesus suddenly appearing in a room when the door was
              > closed.
              .
              True.
              .
              > Maybe it was just a ghost?
              .
              False.

              Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do
              thoughts arise in your hearts?
              39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;
              for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
              40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
              41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
              them, Have ye here any meat?
              42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

              43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

              Ghosts do not eat physical food. It was not a ghost.
              .
              > The story of Thomas putting he hand
              > in Jesus' side could be ambiguous; maybe his hand actually went IN his
              > side, and not just to the depth of the wound? How is this different
              > than any other ghost story?
              .
              Because as I have just shown you, He was not a ghost. Neither does a
              ghost possess feet that one can hold onto!
              Mt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them,
              saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him.
              .


              > Why believe the resurrection at all?
              .
              Why Not? You have not given any logical reason to not believe it. Men
              ought to believe it.....
              Because the Bible commands it. Because it is the Gospel and those who do
              not believe the Gospel are not saved.

              Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe
              in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

              And if one does not one is not saved.

              1Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the --gospel--
              which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye
              stand;
              2 By which also ye are --saved,-- if ye keep in memory what I
              preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
              3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how
              that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
              4 And that he was buried, and that he ---rose again the third day
              according to the scriptures:---
              5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

              Therefore it is absolutely imperative that a man believe in the physical
              resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ because such is vital to his
              eternal disposition.
              .

              > It is a true statement of the New Testament that without the
              > resurrection, your faith is in vain,
              .
              True which means you're lost.
              .
              > so how can anyone believe in the
              > resurrection when it seems so easy to keep throwing out question
              > after question?
              .
              Very simple. Christians believe in the Resurrection because they have
              become the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of Truth whose ministry it
              is to lead His people into the truth and He does so by imparting an
              infallible conviction that the Bible is the Word of the Living God who
              is the God of truth and that it is the truth. Christians believe in the
              Resurrection as well as all the rest of the Bible by FAITH! Faith that
              comes from the Blessed Person of the Holy Spirit of God so it is not a
              so-called 'blind' faith. It is God-given faith and as such all
              Christians know infallibly that the Bible is the truth.... so they
              believe whatever it says.

              So what do you believe?

              Regards;
              James Kirby
            • wglmp
              ... when ... James Kirby: Why should the fact that some of the apostles did not believe Christ rose from the dead be a reason why we or anybody else should
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 9 1:38 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, James <jamesjay@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Gooday!

                > Matt wrote;
                > > Why should anyone believe in the supposed resurrection of Jesus
                when
                > > some of the apostles themselves did not believe it?

                James Kirby: Why should the fact that some of the apostles did not
                believe Christ rose from the dead be a reason why we or anybody else
                should -not- believe in His resurrection?

                Matt: IMO, that's a good reply. The fact that somebody accepted a
                claim does not mean I have to, and vice versa.

                James Kirby: The fact that many do not believe in the Creation
                account is no reason why I should not believe in Creation...

                Matt: I also believe in creation.

                James Kirby: … and in fact I believe both Creation and Messiah's
                resurrection.

                Matt: I wonder why you believe the messiah was resurrected when the
                messiah hasn't appeared yet? Do mean you think Jesus was the messiah?
                That is a question completely apart from what I asked, but we can
                discuss in another thread if you'd like to.

                James Kirby: Your observation gives no logical reason to not believe
                in the resurrection of Messiah so your observation is pointless.

                Matt: That would seem to be true. The point was, some people say one
                should believe in the resurrection of Jesus because the NT says Jesus
                was resurrected. But the NT also says the resurrection of Jesus was
                too hard for at least some of Jesus' disciples to accept, so the NT
                would seem to be insufficient evidence for belief in the resurrection.

                > > If you look in
                > > the last chapter of Matthew, the claim is made that Jesus arose
                from
                > > the dead, and the Apostles went to meet him. Matt 28.17 then
                > > says, "And when they saw him, they worshipped him, but some of
                them
                > > doubted."

                James Kirby: Correct. It does say that.

                > > So why shouldn't all of us doubt? After all, we were not even his
                > > Disciples.

                James Kirby: Irrelevant. One need not be a disciple to either believe
                or disbelieve anything about the Bible. Moreover as I just pointed
                out, just because somebody doubts truth is no reason I should doubt
                it.

                > > Another strange fact that deserves our attention is that no one
                > > recognises Jesus after the resurrection.

                James Kirby: Not true. The Apostle John for one recognized Him. John
                21:7.

                Matt: Ah, thank you. I must have missed that. Please consider
                the "nobody" to have been a generalization and not literal.

                > > How is it possible that after only a day and a half or as much as
                a
                > > few weeks, his closest friends could not recognise him?

                James Kirby: Answer;
                Luk 24:16 But their eyes were being held [or, restrained] [so as]
                not to know [or, recognize] Him. ALT
                Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
                ASV & KJV
                Luk 24:16 But their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him. LITV
                Luk 24:16 But their eyes were held so that they could not know Him.
                MKJV
                Luk 24:16 But (15) their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.
                NASB
                Luk 24:16 but they were kept from recognizing him. NIV
                Luk 24:16 But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know
                Him. NKJV
                Luk 24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. RSV
                The verb is in the passive which indicates that something.. or
                someone... [GOD] was preventing them from recognizing Him.

                Matt: Have you a suggestion why that should have been done? Why would
                the identity of the resurrected Jesus need to be hidden?

                > > Perhaps after Simon Barabbas had been crucified instead of Jesus
                (as
                > > according to a
                > > 2nd Century tradition),

                James Kirby: Tradition is in opposition to the Bible. The Bible
                clearly teaches that it was the Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified,
                not Barabbas.

                Matt: I agree. I believe I said that myself.

                > > Jesus was in heavy disguise so that he could meet with his
                disciples
                > > as previously arranged without fear of being
                > > re-arrested.

                James Kirby: That's found nowhere in the Bible.

                Matt: Depends on what you mean wasn't in the Bible. In fact, their
                meeting WAS prearranged. The fact that most or all disciples
                (depending on which event you're talking about) failed to recognize
                Jesus would seem to indicate the cause had something to do with
                Jesus, not with the disciples. The verse you cited above would seem
                to indicate otherwise. Most people seem to think the "Speaking in
                Tongues" was an ability of the apostles, but the NT seems to be
                saying the miracle was in that people HEARD the apostles in their own
                language, which would be more properly "Listening in Ears"
                than "Speaking in Tongues."

                > > Even if he did die,

                James Kirby: Well of course He did die for the Bible says so;
                Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It
                is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
                Joh 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that *he was dead*
                already, they brake not his legs;

                Matt: I agree. He died. If he needed resurrecting, he was dead. If he
                was dead, he was not God, for God does not die (see below). Ergo,
                Jesus was not God. But that's obviously a side issue. We were
                discussing whether he resurrected, not why we know he was not God.

                > > his corpse was buried by only a few people, and
                > > that was a rush job to get it done before the Sabbath.

                James Kirby: Not true. There was no "rush" to bury Him before the
                sabbath.
                John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that
                the bodies should not ---remain upon the cross--- on the sabbath
                day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that
                their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
                The concern was that He not remain -on the cross- during the sabbath
                so you're quite mistaken there.

                Matt: You seem to be forgetting the women who came to the tomb on
                Sunday morning. They were there to anoint his corpse. That should
                have been when he was buried, not days later. Therefore my claim that
                Jesus was buried in a rush.
                Besides that, the NT line that Jesus should not remain on the cross
                on the Sabbath has nothing to do with anything, and should probably
                be thrown out. It's an interpolation. The Romans would crucify a
                person and leave then there until the flesh was picked from the bones
                by carrion birds. The Romans would have had no reason to accede to
                the request of some Jews that a rabble rouser and rioter not remain
                on the cross as an example to potential future rioters. It makes no
                sense to believe they would allow Jesus to be removed for any reason.

                > > Yet the body was missing before two days had passed, and nobody
                saw it
                > > come OUT,
                > > only that the tomb was empty.

                James Kirby: Not true. He was in the tomb Three Days and Three
                Nights... just as the Scriptures say; not "two days". Matt 12:40

                Matt: The verse(s) that say Jesus was dead for three days and three
                nights must be seen as NOT true. He was in the tomb for one day and
                less than two nights. Friday evening before sunset to Saturday night
                is one day and one night, and Sunday at sunrise would have been one
                day and two nights except that Jesus had already left the tomb by
                then. One day and less than two nights, which is, as I said, less
                than two full days. It was certainly NOT three days.

                > > What if, as the New Testament says rumor had it, the Disciples
                had
                > > stolen the corpse of Jesus?

                James Kirby: Well we know that that "rumor" was not true because the
                Bible says He arose after the third day and was seen.

                Matt: That was explained as a misidentification of an imposter as the
                resurrected Jesus. The NT says there was a rumor that the Disciples
                stole the corpse. There would have been no reason for such a rumor if
                the person passing himself off as the resurrected had been positively
                identified as Jesus. Apparently, there was some doubt whether it
                really was Jesus or not.

                > > What if the corpse had never been removed from the tomb at all,
                but
                > > another
                > > tomb, one empty because it had ALWAYS been left empty, was pointed
                > > out as the real tomb of Jesus?

                James Kirby: We know that that did not happen because that notion is
                not found in the Bible.

                Matt: What? If the NT doesn't say it happened, it didn't happen?
                Then, by that line of reasoning, Jesus rarely ate, because the NT
                only specifically says he ate any means a few times. OTOH, he only
                ever fasted once, because the NT only mentions him fasting while he
                was in conversation with the Devil in the wilderness. So Jesus rarely
                ate, and yet rarely fasted. Is THAT what you're saying?

                > > Maybe it was just a ghost?

                James Kirby: False.
                Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do
                thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that
                it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
                bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed
                them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for
                joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

                Matt: They never touched him, because the NT does not say they did.
                He was mere vision, not substance. Once again, they didn't believe it
                was the same Jesus, resurrected. What they DID think they were seeing
                is not specifically stated. Maybe they thought it was an imposter.
                Maybe they were not permitted to touch him lest his make-up smear?
                Read it again: "Behold." It does NOT say, "Here, hold my hand."
                IOW, "Look, but don't touch."
                Also, I am informed that "he showed them his hands and feet" cannot
                be found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, and must therefore be
                seen as an interpolation not from the pen of the gospel's writer.

                James Kirby: Luke 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish,
                and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

                Matt: The verse that says he ate can be passed off as simply a
                disappearance of the food, since as a ghost, he did not literally
                chew and swallow anything. (Visions of the beginning of Ghostbusters,
                when ghost in the hotel at the Room Service Cart spills a plate of
                food into his wide open maw and the food falls onto the floor.)
                There is no evidence he was corporeal.

                James Kirby: Ghosts do not eat physical food. It was not a ghost.

                Matt: Not every line of text in the New Testament is literally true.

                > > The story of Thomas putting he hand
                > > in Jesus' side could be ambiguous; maybe his hand actually went
                IN his
                > > side, and not just to the depth of the wound? How is this
                different
                > > than any other ghost story?

                James Kirby: Because as I have just shown you, He was not a ghost.
                Neither does a ghost possess feet that one can hold onto!
                Mt 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met
                them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and
                worshiped him.

                Matt: Not every line of text in the NT is literally true. Another
                line from the NT (John 20:17) has Jesus telling someone NOT to touch
                him, for one reason or another.

                > > Why believe the resurrection at all?

                James Kirby: Why Not?

                Matt: Because there is no really good reason to believe it, as we can
                see by the fact that some of the disciples didn't believe it.

                James Kirby: You have not given any logical reason to not believe
                it.

                Matt: I don't really need to. It runs counter to nature, so there
                must be extraordinary evidence in favor of the resurrection in order
                to believe in it. It runs counter to the norm to believe in unicorns
                with magical abilities or properties, so it would take evidence for
                me to believe in them.

                James Kirby: Men ought to believe it..... Because it is the Gospel
                and those who do not believe the Gospel are not saved.

                Matt: You think we should believe something because we "need to"
                rather than because evidence points to belief?
                Who says we need salvation? What do you mean by "saved"? What does
                that mean to you?

                James Kirby: Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord
                Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the
                dead, you will be saved.
                And if one does not one is not saved.
                1Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the --gospel--
                which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein
                ye stand; 2 By which also ye are --saved,-- if ye keep in memory
                what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I
                delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
                Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he
                was buried, and that he ---rose again the third day according to the
                scriptures:--- 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
                Therefore it is absolutely imperative that a man believe in the
                physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ because such is vital
                to his eternal disposition.

                Matt: Where is it in the gospels where it says Jesus appeared to
                Peter, and only then to the twelve? Name the twelve Jesus appeared
                to. The gospels tell us Judas committed suicide before the
                resurrection, so how could Jesus have appeared to "the twelve"? Acts
                1 tells us it was quite some time later (after the ascension) before
                a replacement apostle was voted in.
                What does that mean, "eternal disposition"?

                > > It is a true statement of the New Testament that without the
                > > resurrection, your faith is in vain,

                James Kirby: True which means you're lost.

                Matt: What does that mean, "lost"? I know exactly where I am and
                where I am from and where I am going. I am not "lost."

                > > so how can anyone believe in the
                > > resurrection when it seems so easy to keep throwing out question
                > > after question?

                James Kirby: Very simple. Christians believe in the Resurrection
                because they have become the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of
                Truth whose ministry it is to lead His people into the truth and He
                does so by imparting an infallible conviction that the Bible is the
                Word of the Living God who is the God of truth and that it is the
                truth. Christians believe in the Resurrection as well as all the rest
                of the Bible by FAITH! Faith that comes from the Blessed Person of
                the Holy Spirit of God so it is not a so-called 'blind' faith. It is
                God-given faith and as such all Christians know infallibly that the
                Bible is the truth.... so they believe whatever it says.

                Matt: Do you agree with the NT that faith is acceptance of an idea
                based on hope without, or even against the evidence?

                James Kirby: So what do you believe?

                Matt: I have been asked that many times before, and I have composed
                several answers. The following is a compilation of most of those
                answers, which means you may find me saying the same things over and
                over.
                I believe in the existence of the Creator, be He Blessed, who is
                perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all
                that exists. I believe in God's absolute and unparalleled unity. I
                believe God is not physical, nor that He will be affected by any
                physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling. I
                believe in God's eternity. I believe it is imperative to worship Him
                exclusively and no foreign false gods. I believe that God
                communicates with man through prophecy. I believe that the prophecy
                of Moses our teacher has priority. I believe in the divine origin of
                the Torah. I believe in the immutability of the Torah. I believe in
                divine omniscience and providence. God knows man's thoughts and
                deeds. I believe in divine reward and retribution. I believe in the
                eventual arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era. I believe in
                the resurrection of the dead. I believe the God of Abraham, Isaac,
                and Jacob instituted a covenant with Noah after the Global Flood (see
                Genesis chapter 9), by which covenant men can win (earn) the favor
                of God both here on Earth and after this life, and that this Noachide
                Covenant is still in effect. By "can" I mean that it is possible for
                mere mortal men to do what God has commanded, and that Scripture
                shows both that men CAN keep the Covenant, and that they are still
                supposed to until this day. What's more, Scripture names several
                people who WERE righteous (contrary to the common expression that no
                man is righteous), and that some of the righteous people Scripture
                names were Gentiles; not only Jews can be righteous.
                I believe righteousness is a path, not a destination.
                I believe it is possible to avoid sinning.
                I further believe that we do not need Jesus to grant salvation to us,
                and in fact Scripture refutes the notion that we need Jesus.
                I do not believe Jesus was the messiah.
                I do not believe Jesus was the firstborn son of God, nor that Jesus
                was literally the son of God. Israel is the firstborn son of God. God
                said that Himself in the book of Exodus.
                I do not believe in the Devil.
                I do not believe in Hell (at least as it's often defined by
                evangelical Christians).
                I do not believe in nor advocate the initiation of force to achieve
                any goal.
                I, as a child of Noah, caretaker of our precious planet Earth, accept
                upon myself the responsibility for peace and oneness in our world, as
                accepted by Adam and by Noah, transmitted by Moses and his people
                over the ages:
                1. I will not worship anyone or anything other than the One Creator,
                who cares for the creatures of our world, renewing the Act of
                Creation at every moment in infinite wisdom, being life for each
                thing.
                In this is included prayer, study and meditation.
                2. I will not show disrespect for the Creator in any way.
                This may be seen to include respect for the beauty and life of the
                Creation.
                3. I will not murder.
                Each human being, just as Adam and Eve, comprises an entire world. To
                save a life is to save that entire world. To destroy a life is to
                destroy an entire world. To help others live is a corollary of this
                principle. Every human being that God has created is obliged to
                provide for others in need. I oppose abortion on demand except to
                save the life of the mother.
                4. I will respect the institution of marriage.
                Marriage is a most divine act. The marriage of a man and a woman is a
                reflection of the Oneness of God and His creation. Dishonesty in
                marriage is an assault on that Oneness. According to Rabbi J Markel,
                there is no prohibition against a Gentile having more than one wife.
                5. I will not take that which does not rightfully belong to me.
                Deal honestly in all your business. By relying on God, rather than on
                our own conniving, we express our trust in Him as the Provider of
                Life.
                6. I will not cause needless harm to any living thing.
                At the outset of his creation, Man was the gardener in the Garden of
                Eden to "take care of it and protect it." At first, Man was forbidden
                to take the life of any animal. After the Great Flood, he was
                permitted to consume meat -- but with a warning: Do not cause
                unnecessary suffering to any creature.
                7. I will uphold courts of truth and justice in my land.
                Justice is God's business, but we are given the charge to lay down
                necessary laws and enforce them whenever we can. When we right the
                wrongs of society, we are acting as partners in the act of sustaining
                the creation.
                I try to keep Doc Savage's Oath in mind as I walk through my life. I
                recite it to myself from time to time. I quote it for you now.
                Let me strive every moment of my life, to make myself better and
                better, to the best of my ability, that all may profit by it. Let me
                think of the right and lend all my assistance to those who need it,
                with no regard for anything but justice. Let me take what comes with
                a smile, without loss of courage. Let me be considerate of my
                country, of my fellow citizens and my associates in everything I say
                and do. Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.

                James Kirby: Regards;
                James Kirby

                Matt: Thank you for your time. I hope you can answer my questions to
                you.

                Matt
              • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                Matt: You wrote: Yes, some
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 9 6:53 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Matt:

                  You wrote:

                  << The point was, some people say one should believe in the
                  resurrection of Jesus because the NT says Jesus was resurrected. >>

                  Yes, some people do say this, but I would put it somewhat
                  differently: One should believe in the resurrection of Jesus because
                  the evidence (largely found in the NT) shows that it happened.

                  You wrote:

                  << But the NT also says the resurrection of Jesus was too hard for at
                  least some of Jesus' disciples to accept, so the NT would seem to be
                  insufficient evidence for belief in the resurrection. >>

                  As I pointed out in my previous post, what the NT says is that the
                  resurrection of Jesus was too hard for some of Jesus' disciples to
                  accept AT FIRST. This is a perfectly understandable psychological
                  observation. However, the NT does not report that any of Jesus'
                  disciples, except Judas, refused in the end to accept Jesus'
                  resurrection as fact. Eventually, the evidence convinced them.

                  You asked, with regard to Luke 24:16:

                  << Have you a suggestion why that should have been done? Why would
                  the identity of the resurrected Jesus need to be hidden? >>

                  We are not told the reason, so any answer would be a guess. My guess
                  would be that God wanted the two disciples to recognize Jesus not
                  merely by his outward appearance but to realize that the person they
                  had seen had shown in his actions and speech that he could not have
                  been anyone other than the actual Jesus. In other words, God was
                  ensuring that their testimonies could not be impeached on the grounds
                  that they might merely have seen someone who looked like Jesus.

                  You wrote:

                  << Besides that, the NT line that Jesus should not remain on the cross
                  on the Sabbath has nothing to do with anything, and should probably
                  be thrown out. It's an interpolation. The Romans would crucify a
                  person and leave then there until the flesh was picked from the bones
                  by carrion birds. The Romans would have had no reason to accede to
                  the request of some Jews that a rabble rouser and rioter not remain
                  on the cross as an example to potential future rioters. It makes no
                  sense to believe they would allow Jesus to be removed for any reason.
                  >>

                  I disagree. The Jew who made the request was a member of the
                  Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15:42-45). Joseph might
                  plausibly have warned Pilate that failing to bury Jesus before the
                  Sabbath might unnecessarily provoke the people in Jerusalem who had
                  been sympathetic to Jesus. We do have historical accounts (e.g., in
                  Josephus) of other individuals receiving a burial after dying from
                  crucifixion, so it could and did happen.

                  You wrote:

                  << The verse(s) that say Jesus was dead for three days and three
                  nights must be seen as NOT true. He was in the tomb for one day and
                  less than two nights. Friday evening before sunset to Saturday night
                  is one day and one night, and Sunday at sunrise would have been one
                  day and two nights except that Jesus had already left the tomb by
                  then. One day and less than two nights, which is, as I said, less
                  than two full days. It was certainly NOT three days. >>

                  This verse is Matthew 12:40. Now, Matthew himself knows that Jesus
                  died on the day before the Sabbath and that he had risen by early on
                  the morning following the Sabbath (Matt. 27:57, 62; 28:1). Unless
                  Matthew was dim-witted (and the evidence of the book is that he was
                  far from it), he must have been able to count to three. Apparently he
                  understood Jesus' words about "three days and three nights" in
                  something other than a simply literal fashion. Matthew also uses (or
                  reports others using) the expressions "the third day" and "after
                  three days" in the same paragraph (Matt. 27:63-64), even though a
                  pedantic literalism would understand "after three days" to mean on
                  the *fourth* day. This is exactly the same problem that faces us with
                  Matthew 12:40, which sounds like Jesus rose at the beginning of the
                  fourth day. Yet Matthew and the other Gospels make it clear that
                  Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday. This leads most exegetes to
                  conclude that "three days and three nights" should be understood as a
                  Jewish idiom in which even a short part of a day is counted as if it
                  were a whole day. For a thorough defense of this interpretation, see
                  Harold W. Hoehner's book _Chronological Aspects of the Life of
                  Christ_ (Zondervan, 1977).

                  You wrote:

                  << The NT says there was a rumor that the Disciples stole the corpse.
                  There would have been no reason for such a rumor if the person
                  passing himself off as the resurrected had been positively identified
                  as Jesus. Apparently, there was some doubt whether it really was
                  Jesus or not. >>

                  Well, OF COURSE those who had not personally seen the risen Jesus and
                  who were disinclined to believe that he had risen from the dead would
                  offer some alternate explanation. Given the fact that Jesus' body was
                  no longer in its burial location, it is not surprising at all that
                  critics would suggest that the disciples stole the body. This doesn't
                  at all imply that someone was masquerading as Jesus, or even that the
                  critics thought someone was doing this. Again, as I asked you before,
                  to whom would this person have tried to pass himself off as Jesus?
                  Who would be convinced by such a charade?

                  You wrote:

                  << They never touched him, because the NT does not say they did.
                  He was mere vision, not substance. >>

                  To the contrary, the NT explicitly mentions people touching Jesus
                  after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9; John 20:17 [lit., "stop clinging
                  to me"]; probably also 1 John 1:1), and on two occasions Jesus
                  invited someone to touch him (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).

                  You wrote:

                  << Also, I am informed that "he showed them his hands and feet" cannot
                  be found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, and must therefore be
                  seen as an interpolation not from the pen of the gospel's writer. >>

                  You were misinformed. Some manuscripts, specifically of the "Western"
                  textual tradition, omit Luke 24:40. However, all of the other
                  manuscripts include it. This is true of the earliest manuscript, P75.
                  One explanation for the manuscript variations that I think has merit
                  is that some copyists omitted this verse (and other lines in Luke 23-
                  24) because they sounded too similar to parallel statements in John.
                  See, for example, the following article:

                  http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/western.htm

                  You wrote:

                  << Not every line of text in the NT is literally true. Another
                  line from the NT (John 20:17) has Jesus telling someone NOT to touch
                  him, for one reason or another. >>

                  Again, the better translation is "stop clinging to me" (NASB)
                  or "stop holding on to me." See the following article:

                  http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/touch.htm

                  You wrote:

                  << It runs counter to nature, so there must be extraordinary evidence
                  in favor of the resurrection in order to believe in it. It runs
                  counter to the norm to believe in unicorns with magical abilities or
                  properties, so it would take evidence for me to believe in them. >>

                  The resurrection does not "run counter to nature" in the way that
                  unicorns with magical properties would. No one is saying that Jesus'
                  body magically came alive. The Bible's claim is that God raised Jesus
                  from the dead. It is not contrary to nature for nature's creator to
                  bring life to that which is dead.

                  You wrote:

                  << Where is it in the gospels where it says Jesus appeared to
                  Peter, and only then to the twelve? >>

                  Luke 24:34 indicates that such an appearance took place.

                  You wrote:

                  << Name the twelve Jesus appeared to. The gospels tell us Judas
                  committed suicide before the resurrection, so how could Jesus have
                  appeared to "the twelve"? >>

                  Paul uses the expression "the Twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5b) as a technical
                  term for the group of apostles, which normally numbered a dozen. You
                  are correct that only eleven members of that group were alive at the
                  time. Paul's use of this expression proves that his account and that
                  of the Gospels are independent of one another--which adds credibility
                  to the resurrection as an historical event.

                  You asked:

                  << Do you agree with the NT that faith is acceptance of an idea
                  based on hope without, or even against the evidence? >>

                  That is not what the NT teaches. Faith accepts truths not yet seen,
                  but this does not mean there is no evidence to support those truths,
                  let alone that there is evidence against them.

                  In Christ's service,
                  Rob Bowman
                • wglmp
                  Biblical Apologetics Group Message #2085 of 2085 Top of Form 1  Bottom of Form 1 ... because ... Please provide some. ... at ... be ... What
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 16 11:30 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Biblical Apologetics Group Message #2085 of 2085

                    Top of Form 1
                    
                    Bottom of Form 1
                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
                    <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Matt:
                    >
                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > << The point was, some people say one should believe in the
                    > resurrection of Jesus because the NT says Jesus was resurrected. >>
                    >
                    > Yes, some people do say this, but I would put it somewhat
                    > differently: One should believe in the resurrection of Jesus
                    because
                    > the evidence (largely found in the NT) shows that it happened. <

                    Please provide some.

                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > << But the NT also says the resurrection of Jesus was too hard for
                    at
                    > least some of Jesus' disciples to accept, so the NT would seem to
                    be
                    > insufficient evidence for belief in the resurrection. >>
                    >
                    > As I pointed out in my previous post, what the NT says is that the
                    > resurrection of Jesus was too hard for some of Jesus' disciples to
                    > accept AT FIRST. This is a perfectly understandable psychological
                    > observation. However, the NT does not report that any of Jesus'
                    > disciples, except Judas, refused in the end to accept Jesus'
                    > resurrection as fact. Eventually, the evidence convinced them.

                    What you suggest is still not evidence Jesus was resurrected.
                    Maybe they were sold on the idea of "professing" that James (or
                    whoever) was the resurrected Jesus, or convinced to stop openly
                    denying it.

                    > You asked, with regard to Luke 24:16:
                    >
                    > << Have you a suggestion why that should have been done? Why would
                    > the identity of the resurrected Jesus need to be hidden? >>
                    >
                    > We are not told the reason, so any answer would be a guess. My
                    guess
                    > would be that God wanted the two disciples to recognize Jesus not
                    > merely by his outward appearance but to realize that the person
                    they
                    > had seen had shown in his actions and speech that he could not have
                    > been anyone other than the actual Jesus. In other words, God was
                    > ensuring that their testimonies could not be impeached on the
                    grounds
                    > that they might merely have seen someone who looked like Jesus.

                    IMO, as guesses go, that's a GOOD one!
                    (Perhaps off-topic, why would the gospel of Jesus be hidden from the
                    Jews such that only "he elect" would accept it, rather than that it
                    be given openly to all, as the Covenant at Sinai was?)

                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > << Besides that, the NT line that Jesus should not remain on the
                    cross
                    > on the Sabbath has nothing to do with anything, and should probably
                    > be thrown out. It's an interpolation. The Romans would crucify a
                    > person and leave then there until the flesh was picked from the
                    bones
                    > by carrion birds. The Romans would have had no reason to accede to
                    > the request of some Jews that a rabble rouser and rioter not remain
                    > on the cross as an example to potential future rioters. It makes no
                    > sense to believe they would allow Jesus to be removed for any
                    reason.
                    > >>
                    >
                    > I disagree. The Jew who made the request was a member of the
                    > Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15:42-45).

                    As it was all a fictional story, that should read, "The Jew who
                    ALLEGEDLY made the request..."

                    > Joseph might
                    > plausibly have warned Pilate that failing to bury Jesus before the
                    > Sabbath might unnecessarily provoke the people in Jerusalem who had
                    > been sympathetic to Jesus.

                    To which Pilate might have answered, "GOOD! I WANT them provoked.
                    News will go out that Pilate crucifies people who start riots. That
                    way, they'll obey me."

                    > We do have historical accounts (e.g., in
                    > Josephus) of other individuals receiving a burial after dying from
                    > crucifixion, so it could and did happen.

                    Accepted.

                    > This leads most exegetes to
                    > conclude that "three days and three nights" should be understood as
                    a
                    > Jewish idiom in which even a short part of a day is counted as if
                    it
                    > were a whole day. For a thorough defense of this interpretation,
                    see
                    > Harold W. Hoehner's book _Chronological Aspects of the Life of
                    > Christ_ (Zondervan, 1977).

                    Can you tell me if he gives any evidence at all that there is such a
                    Jewish idiom of counting part of a day as a whole day?

                    > Well, OF COURSE those who had not personally seen the risen Jesus
                    and
                    > who were disinclined to believe that he had risen from the dead
                    would
                    > offer some alternate explanation. Given the fact that Jesus' body
                    was
                    > no longer in its burial location,

                    Correction: The corpse of Jesus was not to be found in the place
                    where his followers CLAIMED it had been.

                    > ... it is not surprising at all that
                    > critics would suggest that the disciples stole the body.

                    Or the disciples really did steal the body.

                    > This doesn't
                    > at all imply that someone was masquerading as Jesus, or even that
                    the
                    > critics thought someone was doing this.

                    The notion that an imposter was passing himself off as Jesus is,
                    afaik, my own invention. One is free to reject it without giving it
                    further thought.
                    However, and ancient theory (or explanation?) for the supposed
                    resurrection was that another was passed off as Jesus BEFORE the
                    crucifixion, and it was he, not Jesus, who was crucified. That person
                    was named in the ancient story, AND in the gospels. There are a
                    couple of suggested times such a substitution could have taken place.
                    One is at the Garden, when Judas supposedly pointed out Jesus to
                    authorities. Why should Judas have had to do this? Had not Jesus
                    taught daily in the Temple and spoken openly all over the place? It
                    seems fair to say that Jesus would have been readily identifiable to
                    anybody, including soldiers of the Sanhedrin and Pilate. Perhaps
                    Judas was pointing out the man chosen to take Jesus' place? Another
                    time the switch could have happened is when Pilate supposedly asked
                    the crowds whom he should release, and the people called out
                    for "Barabbas" which means "the son of the father" and could well
                    have been a call for the release of Jesus, due to his habit of always
                    praying to God as "Abba," meaning "Father."
                    Some mss provide the first name of Barabbas, and his name was Jesus!
                    A third chance to substitute an imposter was when Simon from Cyrene
                    was pressed into service to carry the cross of Jesus, at which
                    opportunity Jesus slipped away into the crowd. This is in fact what
                    the ancient stories say did happen.

                    > Again, as I asked you before,
                    > to whom would this person have tried to pass himself off as Jesus?
                    > Who would be convinced by such a charade?

                    The gullible and largely Hellenized masses. The disciples would have
                    known the difference, but they could be convinced to carry on the
                    charade "for the greater good."

                    > << They never touched him, because the NT does not say they did.
                    > He was mere vision, not substance. >>
                    >
                    > To the contrary, the NT explicitly mentions people touching Jesus
                    > after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9; John 20:17 [lit., "stop
                    clinging
                    > to me"]; probably also 1 John 1:1), and on two occasions Jesus
                    > invited someone to touch him (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).

                    I stand corrected.

                    > << Also, I am informed that "he showed them his hands and feet"
                    cannot
                    > be found in the earliest Greek manuscripts, and must therefore be
                    > seen as an interpolation not from the pen of the gospel's writer. >>
                    >
                    > You were misinformed. Some manuscripts, specifically of
                    the "Western"
                    > textual tradition, omit Luke 24:40. However, all of the other
                    > manuscripts include it. This is true of the earliest manuscript,
                    P75.

                    Page 75 of what book? Hoehner's?

                    > One explanation for the manuscript variations that I think has
                    merit
                    > is that some copyists omitted this verse (and other lines in Luke
                    23-
                    > 24) because they sounded too similar to parallel statements in
                    John.
                    > See, for example, the following article:
                    >
                    > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/western.htm

                    So, to that way of thinking, corroboration is unnecessarily
                    redundant? Is that why no two supposed "eye-witnesses" to the
                    crucifiction reported exactly the same way what the accusation Pilate
                    hung over the head of Jesus said? It's not really evidence that none
                    of them were really there at all, it's just that they each knew the
                    other guy was going to get it right, so they each just wrote
                    something that suggested what was really written?

                    > << Not every line of text in the NT is literally true. Another
                    > line from the NT (John 20:17) has Jesus telling someone NOT to touch
                    > him, for one reason or another. >>
                    >
                    > Again, the better translation is "stop clinging to me" (NASB)
                    > or "stop holding on to me." See the following article:
                    >
                    > http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/touch.htm

                    I stand corrected. We both agree that the KJV is a poor translation
                    not just of the Hebrew Bible, but the NT as well.


                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > << It runs counter to nature, so there must be extraordinary
                    evidence
                    > in favor of the resurrection in order to believe in it. It runs
                    > counter to the norm to believe in unicorns with magical abilities
                    or
                    > properties, so it would take evidence for me to believe in them. >>
                    >
                    > The resurrection does not "run counter to nature" in the way that
                    > unicorns with magical properties would.

                    No, that's true. It runs counter to nature the way someone crawling
                    out of his tomb after spending three days being dead does. Zombie
                    stories may be popular and believed in Haiti, but should NOT be
                    believed in a modernized country (my apologies to any Haitians out
                    there).

                    > No one is saying that Jesus'
                    > body magically came alive. The Bible's claim is that God raised
                    Jesus
                    > from the dead. It is not contrary to nature for nature's creator to
                    > bring life to that which is dead.

                    It _IS_ contrary to nature, because nature's Creator tends to appear
                    to stay out of nature's way and let nature take its course, which is
                    to cause the body of dead things to decompose.

                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > << Where is it in the gospels where it says Jesus appeared to
                    > Peter, and only then to the twelve? >>
                    >
                    > Luke 24:34 indicates that such an appearance took place.

                    Oh. That's news to me. Thanks for pointing it out. So, this meeting
                    with Peter and Jesus was so unimportant that it didn't rate more
                    than a passing comment, eh?

                    > You wrote:
                    >
                    > << Name the twelve Jesus appeared to. The gospels tell us Judas
                    > committed suicide before the resurrection, so how could Jesus have
                    > appeared to "the twelve"? >>
                    >
                    > Paul uses the expression "the Twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5b) as a technical
                    > term for the group of apostles, which normally numbered a dozen.
                    You
                    > are correct that only eleven members of that group were alive at
                    the
                    > time. Paul's use of this expression proves that his account and
                    that
                    > of the Gospels are independent of one another--which adds
                    credibility
                    > to the resurrection as an historical event.

                    Not so. Paul's use of the Twelve is evidence that Judas never
                    committed suicide, but in reality suffered a fall on his own property
                    and his bowels gushed out. Since Judas didn't really commit suicide,
                    that indicates the story he betrayed Jesus may not have been true
                    after all.

                    > You asked:
                    >
                    > << Do you agree with the NT that faith is acceptance of an idea
                    > based on hope without, or even against the evidence? >>
                    >
                    > That is not what the NT teaches. Faith accepts truths not yet seen,
                    > but this does not mean there is no evidence to support those
                    truths,
                    > let alone that there is evidence against them.

                    The verse actually says that faith is based on hope without or
                    against the evidence, unless you reject the KJV (and possibly some
                    other versions). Christians have been telling us this for centuries.
                    That has been a fall-back position they use when pressed for evidence
                    that there is a God, or that Jesus crawled out of his tomb, or that
                    there was a Pratorium in or near Jerusalem, or that Herod really
                    killed hundreds or thousands of kids two years old and younger, all
                    of which unbelievable things the NT (and the NT alone) says happened.
                    The classic christian response is, 'you need to take it on faith,'
                    or 'evidence makes faith superfluous, and that is why tthere is no
                    evidence.'

                    Matt
                  • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
                    Matt: I had written: One should believe in the resurrection of Jesus because the evidence (largely found in the NT) shows that it happened. You replied:
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 17 9:43 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Matt:

                      I had written:

                      "One should believe in the resurrection of Jesus because the evidence
                      (largely found in the NT) shows that it happened."

                      You replied:

                      << Please provide some. >>

                      I did (in my first reply to you on this subject). I provided evidence
                      that the Gospels were faithfully reporting facts, even those that
                      might seem embarrassing to their position. I have given other pieces
                      of evidence in support of the Resurrection as well. I'll be happy to
                      discuss this evidence in more detail.

                      You had written:

                      << But the NT also says the resurrection of Jesus was too hard for at
                      least some of Jesus' disciples to accept, so the NT would seem to be
                      insufficient evidence for belief in the resurrection. >>

                      I replied:

                      "As I pointed out in my previous post, what the NT says is that the
                      resurrection of Jesus was too hard for some of Jesus' disciples to
                      accept AT FIRST. This is a perfectly understandable psychological
                      observation. However, the NT does not report that any of Jesus'
                      disciples, except Judas, refused in the end to accept Jesus'
                      resurrection as fact. Eventually, the evidence convinced them."

                      You then responded:

                      << What you suggest is still not evidence Jesus was resurrected.
                      Maybe they were sold on the idea of "professing" that James (or
                      whoever) was the resurrected Jesus, or convinced to stop openly
                      denying it. >>

                      In the above paragraph, I was replying to a statement that you had
                      made about what "the NT...says." I explained that the NT does not
                      actually say what you had claimed. True, this doesn't mean the
                      resurrection occurred, but it does mean that your reason for
                      questioning the resurrection is flawed.

                      You asked:

                      << (Perhaps off-topic, why would the gospel of Jesus be hidden from
                      the Jews such that only "[t]he elect" would accept it, rather than
                      that it be given openly to all, as the Covenant at Sinai was?) >>

                      That's oversimplistic. Only Moses was allowed to go up Mount Sinai to
                      receive the Ten Commandments. Only Moses and select other men were
                      ever allowed to go up the mountain to enter into God's manifest
                      presence. Only one man at a time, a priest, was allowed to enter the
                      Holy of Holies. God spoke to select prophets who in turn told the
                      people what God had said, rather than God speaking to all people
                      directly. There is plenty of precedent in the Mosaic covenant for
                      revelations to some rather than to all.

                      You wrote:

                      << The Romans would have had no reason to accede to the request of
                      some Jews that a rabble rouser and rioter not remain on the cross as
                      an example to potential future rioters. It makes no sense to believe
                      they would allow Jesus to be removed for any reason. >>

                      I replied:

                      "I disagree. The Jew who made the request was a member of the
                      Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15:42-45)."

                      You responded:

                      << As it was all a fictional story, that should read, "The Jew who
                      ALLEGEDLY made the request..." >>

                      This is irrelevant to the point at hand. You had claimed that the NT
                      account "makes no sense." But it does make sense with regard to the
                      point at hand if the person requesting the burial was a member of the
                      Sanhedrin. Thus your objection fails.

                      I had written:

                      "Joseph might plausibly have warned Pilate that failing to bury Jesus
                      before the Sabbath might unnecessarily provoke the people in
                      Jerusalem who had been sympathetic to Jesus."

                      You replied:

                      << To which Pilate might have answered, "GOOD! I WANT them provoked.
                      News will go out that Pilate crucifies people who start riots. That
                      way, they'll obey me." >>

                      Sorry, but that's a bit silly. "I will deliberately provoke the
                      people to disobey me and riot so that I can teach them not to disobey
                      me and riot." That's basically what you are suggesting Pilate might
                      have been saying. To use your words, that "makes no sense."

                      I wrote:

                      "This leads most exegetes to conclude that 'three days and three
                      nights' should be understood as a Jewish idiom in which even a short
                      part of a day is counted as if it were a whole day. For a thorough
                      defense of this interpretation, see Harold W. Hoehner's book
                      _Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ_ (Zondervan, 1977)."

                      You asked:

                      << Can you tell me if he gives any evidence at all that there is such
                      a Jewish idiom of counting part of a day as a whole day? >>

                      Yes.

                      You wrote:

                      << Correction: The corpse of Jesus was not to be found in the place
                      where his followers CLAIMED it had been. >>

                      It is highly implausible that the Romans would have allowed Jesus'
                      body to have been buried but fail to note and keep track of the
                      location of the burial.

                      You wrote:

                      << However, and ancient theory (or explanation?) for the supposed
                      resurrection was that another was passed off as Jesus BEFORE the
                      crucifixion, and it was he, not Jesus, who was crucified. That person
                      was named in the ancient story, AND in the gospels. There are a
                      couple of suggested times such a substitution could have taken place.
                      >>

                      All such explanations are belated attempts by non-Christians, more
                      than a century (and in most cases many centuries) after Jesus' death
                      and reported resurrection, to offer a counter-explanation for what
                      happened. In other words, there isn't a shred of first-century
                      evidence for these explanations.

                      You wrote:

                      << One is at the Garden, when Judas supposedly pointed out Jesus to
                      authorities. Why should Judas have had to do this? Had not Jesus
                      taught daily in the Temple and spoken openly all over the place? It
                      seems fair to say that Jesus would have been readily identifiable to
                      anybody, including soldiers of the Sanhedrin and Pilate. Perhaps
                      Judas was pointing out the man chosen to take Jesus' place? >>

                      Ridiculous. After dragging the wrong man from Gethsemane to Pilate,
                      don't you think the poor fellow would have protested that he wasn't
                      Jesus of Nazareth at all? Your own point about Jesus having been seen
                      daily in the temple refutes the suggestion that the man taken into
                      custody and crucified was someone other than Jesus. The Sanhedrin
                      would not have gone along with the Romans crucifying someone else and
                      allowing Jesus to go free. Judas led the soldiers to Jesus and
                      identified him by his notorious kiss because it was dark and the
                      soldiers may have had difficulty picking Jesus out under those
                      circumstances (if they could even have found him without Judas's
                      help, which is unlikely).

                      You wrote:

                      << Another time the switch could have happened is when Pilate
                      supposedly asked the crowds whom he should release, and the people
                      called out for "Barabbas" which means "the son of the father" and
                      could well have been a call for the release of Jesus, due to his
                      habit of always praying to God as "Abba," meaning "Father." Some mss
                      provide the first name of Barabbas, and his name was Jesus! >>

                      Again, if such a "switch" had taken place, the Sanhedrin would have
                      protested. Barabbas's name is certainly ironic, but again, why would
                      the Gospels include this information if it supposedly gave away the
                      plot to have someone killed in Jesus' place?

                      You wrote:

                      << A third chance to substitute an imposter was when Simon from
                      Cyrene was pressed into service to carry the cross of Jesus, at which
                      opportunity Jesus slipped away into the crowd. This is in fact what
                      the ancient stories say did happen. >>

                      Again, these "ancient stories" centuries after the NT Gospels as
                      creative fictive alternative accounts of what happened. There is no
                      evidence from the first century to support them.

                      I asked you:

                      "Again, as I asked you before, to whom would this person have tried
                      to pass himself off as Jesus? Who would be convinced by such a
                      charade?"

                      You replied:

                      << The gullible and largely Hellenized masses. The disciples would
                      have known the difference, but they could be convinced to carry on
                      the charade "for the greater good." >>

                      This has no connection with reality. There are no reports of
                      Hellenized masses seeing someone passing himself off as the risen
                      Jesus. The reports are of Jesus appearing to male and female
                      followers and family members, as well as to the rabbi Saul of Tarsus
                      when he was an opponent of Christianity.

                      I wrote:

                      "You were misinformed. Some manuscripts, specifically of
                      the 'Western' textual tradition, omit Luke 24:40. However, all of the
                      other manuscripts include it. This is true of the earliest
                      manuscript, P75."

                      You asked:

                      << Page 75 of what book? Hoehner's? >>

                      P75 is not a page in a book. It is the name of a papyrus manuscript
                      (Papyrus #75).

                      It's late and I don't have time to respond to all of the rest of your
                      post. I will comment on this question:

                      << So, this meeting with Peter and Jesus was so unimportant that it
                      didn't rate more than a passing comment, eh? >>

                      Not at all. It receives no more elaboration evidently because Peter
                      did not pass on to the church any detailed account of his encounter
                      with Jesus. This may have been because the meeting had a painful
                      aspect to it, since Peter had denied Jesus three times during his
                      trial. Thus, the point of the appearance to Peter alone may have been
                      largely private or personal, an opportunity for Jesus to extend
                      forgiveness and restoration to Peter. The fact that no NT Gospel
                      regales us with a story of Peter's encounter with Jesus, as important
                      as it indeed probably was, is once again evidence of the restraint of
                      the Gospel authors, who evidently stuck to the testimonies that had
                      actually come down to them.

                      If I have time later, I may try to reply to a couple of other points.

                      In Christ's service,
                      Rob Bowman
                    • Paul Leonard
                      Just my thoughts. The NT was not in existence when Jesus was resurrected. The disciples that did not believe, were doubting the testimony of some men and
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 17 10:15 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Just my thoughts.

                        The NT was not in existence when Jesus was resurrected. The disciples that did not believe, were doubting the testimony of some men and women. After sufficient testimony from eye witnesses and in 500 cases the personal viewing of Jesus after his death, the doubting stopped by those disciples. Judas being  dead by then, is of no value in the issue of doubt. The NT faithfully records both how they felt right after the resurrection and how they felt after the evidence was presented to them.

                        --- On Wed, 9/17/08, Robert M. Bowman, Jr. <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                        From: Robert M. Bowman, Jr. <faithhasitsreasons@...>
                        Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Question for Christians re Resurrection of Jesus
                        To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 9:43 PM

                        Matt:

                        I had written:

                        "One should believe in the resurrection of Jesus because the evidence
                        (largely found in the NT) shows that it happened."

                        You replied:

                        << Please provide some. >>

                        I did (in my first reply to you on this subject). I provided evidence
                        that the Gospels were faithfully reporting facts, even those that
                        might seem embarrassing to their position. I have given other pieces
                        of evidence in support of the Resurrection as well. I'll be happy to
                        discuss this evidence in more detail.

                        You had written:

                        << But the NT also says the resurrection of Jesus was too hard for at
                        least some of Jesus' disciples to accept, so the NT would seem to be
                        insufficient evidence for belief in the resurrection. >>

                        I replied:

                        "As I pointed out in my previous post, what the NT says is that the
                        resurrection of Jesus was too hard for some of Jesus' disciples to
                        accept AT FIRST. This is a perfectly understandable psychological
                        observation. However, the NT does not report that any of Jesus'
                        disciples, except Judas, refused in the end to accept Jesus'
                        resurrection as fact. Eventually, the evidence convinced them."

                        You then responded:

                        << What you suggest is still not evidence Jesus was resurrected.
                        Maybe they were sold on the idea of "professing" that James (or
                        whoever) was the resurrected Jesus, or convinced to stop openly
                        denying it. >>

                        In the above paragraph, I was replying to a statement that you had
                        made about what "the NT...says." I explained that the NT does not
                        actually say what you had claimed. True, this doesn't mean the
                        resurrection occurred, but it does mean that your reason for
                        questioning the resurrection is flawed.

                        You asked:

                        << (Perhaps off-topic, why would the gospel of Jesus be hidden from
                        the Jews such that only "[t]he elect" would accept it, rather than
                        that it be given openly to all, as the Covenant at Sinai was?) >>

                        That's oversimplistic. Only Moses was allowed to go up Mount Sinai to
                        receive the Ten Commandments. Only Moses and select other men were
                        ever allowed to go up the mountain to enter into God's manifest
                        presence. Only one man at a time, a priest, was allowed to enter the
                        Holy of Holies. God spoke to select prophets who in turn told the
                        people what God had said, rather than God speaking to all people
                        directly. There is plenty of precedent in the Mosaic covenant for
                        revelations to some rather than to all.

                        You wrote:

                        << The Romans would have had no reason to accede to the request of
                        some Jews that a rabble rouser and rioter not remain on the cross as
                        an example to potential future rioters. It makes no sense to believe
                        they would allow Jesus to be removed for any reason. >>

                        I replied:

                        "I disagree. The Jew who made the request was a member of the
                        Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15:42-45)."

                        You responded:

                        << As it was all a fictional story, that should read, "The Jew who
                        ALLEGEDLY made the request..." >>

                        This is irrelevant to the point at hand. You had claimed that the NT
                        account "makes no sense." But it does make sense with regard to the
                        point at hand if the person requesting the burial was a member of the
                        Sanhedrin. Thus your objection fails.

                        I had written:

                        "Joseph might plausibly have warned Pilate that failing to bury Jesus
                        before the Sabbath might unnecessarily provoke the people in
                        Jerusalem who had been sympathetic to Jesus."

                        You replied:

                        << To which Pilate might have answered, "GOOD! I WANT them provoked.
                        News will go out that Pilate crucifies people who start riots. That
                        way, they'll obey me." >>

                        Sorry, but that's a bit silly. "I will deliberately provoke the
                        people to disobey me and riot so that I can teach them not to disobey
                        me and riot." That's basically what you are suggesting Pilate might
                        have been saying. To use your words, that "makes no sense."

                        I wrote:

                        "This leads most exegetes to conclude that 'three days and three
                        nights' should be understood as a Jewish idiom in which even a short
                        part of a day is counted as if it were a whole day. For a thorough
                        defense of this interpretation, see Harold W. Hoehner's book
                        _Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ_ (Zondervan, 1977)."

                        You asked:

                        << Can you tell me if he gives any evidence at all that there is such
                        a Jewish idiom of counting part of a day as a whole day? >>

                        Yes.

                        You wrote:

                        << Correction: The corpse of Jesus was not to be found in the place
                        where his followers CLAIMED it had been. >>

                        It is highly implausible that the Romans would have allowed Jesus'
                        body to have been buried but fail to note and keep track of the
                        location of the burial.

                        You wrote:

                        << However, and ancient theory (or explanation? ) for the supposed
                        resurrection was that another was passed off as Jesus BEFORE the
                        crucifixion, and it was he, not Jesus, who was crucified. That person
                        was named in the ancient story, AND in the gospels. There are a
                        couple of suggested times such a substitution could have taken place.
                        >>

                        All such explanations are belated attempts by non-Christians, more
                        than a century (and in most cases many centuries) after Jesus' death
                        and reported resurrection, to offer a counter-explanation for what
                        happened. In other words, there isn't a shred of first-century
                        evidence for these explanations.

                        You wrote:

                        << One is at the Garden, when Judas supposedly pointed out Jesus to
                        authorities. Why should Judas have had to do this? Had not Jesus
                        taught daily in the Temple and spoken openly all over the place? It
                        seems fair to say that Jesus would have been readily identifiable to
                        anybody, including soldiers of the Sanhedrin and Pilate. Perhaps
                        Judas was pointing out the man chosen to take Jesus' place? >>

                        Ridiculous. After dragging the wrong man from Gethsemane to Pilate,
                        don't you think the poor fellow would have protested that he wasn't
                        Jesus of Nazareth at all? Your own point about Jesus having been seen
                        daily in the temple refutes the suggestion that the man taken into
                        custody and crucified was someone other than Jesus. The Sanhedrin
                        would not have gone along with the Romans crucifying someone else and
                        allowing Jesus to go free. Judas led the soldiers to Jesus and
                        identified him by his notorious kiss because it was dark and the
                        soldiers may have had difficulty picking Jesus out under those
                        circumstances (if they could even have found him without Judas's
                        help, which is unlikely).

                        You wrote:

                        << Another time the switch could have happened is when Pilate
                        supposedly asked the crowds whom he should release, and the people
                        called out for "Barabbas" which means "the son of the father" and
                        could well have been a call for the release of Jesus, due to his
                        habit of always praying to God as "Abba," meaning "Father." Some mss
                        provide the first name of Barabbas, and his name was Jesus! >>

                        Again, if such a "switch" had taken place, the Sanhedrin would have
                        protested. Barabbas's name is certainly ironic, but again, why would
                        the Gospels include this information if it supposedly gave away the
                        plot to have someone killed in Jesus' place?

                        You wrote:

                        << A third chance to substitute an imposter was when Simon from
                        Cyrene was pressed into service to carry the cross of Jesus, at which
                        opportunity Jesus slipped away into the crowd. This is in fact what
                        the ancient stories say did happen. >>

                        Again, these "ancient stories" centuries after the NT Gospels as
                        creative fictive alternative accounts of what happened. There is no
                        evidence from the first century to support them.

                        I asked you:

                        "Again, as I asked you before, to whom would this person have tried
                        to pass himself off as Jesus? Who would be convinced by such a
                        charade?"

                        You replied:

                        << The gullible and largely Hellenized masses. The disciples would
                        have known the difference, but they could be convinced to carry on
                        the charade "for the greater good." >>

                        This has no connection with reality. There are no reports of
                        Hellenized masses seeing someone passing himself off as the risen
                        Jesus. The reports are of Jesus appearing to male and female
                        followers and family members, as well as to the rabbi Saul of Tarsus
                        when he was an opponent of Christianity.

                        I wrote:

                        "You were misinformed. Some manuscripts, specifically of
                        the 'Western' textual tradition, omit Luke 24:40. However, all of the
                        other manuscripts include it. This is true of the earliest
                        manuscript, P75."

                        You asked:

                        << Page 75 of what book? Hoehner's? >>

                        P75 is not a page in a book. It is the name of a papyrus manuscript
                        (Papyrus #75).

                        It's late and I don't have time to respond to all of the rest of your
                        post. I will comment on this question:

                        << So, this meeting with Peter and Jesus was so unimportant that it
                        didn't rate more than a passing comment, eh? >>

                        Not at all. It receives no more elaboration evidently because Peter
                        did not pass on to the church any detailed account of his encounter
                        with Jesus. This may have been because the meeting had a painful
                        aspect to it, since Peter had denied Jesus three times during his
                        trial. Thus, the point of the appearance to Peter alone may have been
                        largely private or personal, an opportunity for Jesus to extend
                        forgiveness and restoration to Peter. The fact that no NT Gospel
                        regales us with a story of Peter's encounter with Jesus, as important
                        as it indeed probably was, is once again evidence of the restraint of
                        the Gospel authors, who evidently stuck to the testimonies that had
                        actually come down to them.

                        If I have time later, I may try to reply to a couple of other points.

                        In Christ's service,
                        Rob Bowman

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.