missjo:


Guys, dawn of Sunday morning is when the tomb was found empty by the Marys.
Every other instance of resurrection you guys are making is pure conjecture because NO ONE actually saw the hour it happened, much less Mark.

The assumption by the early church is that Jesus rose very early Sunday morning because they didn't want to defile the idea of a holy Jewish Sabbath.

But we all good here, are we not?

So Mark was wrong?

missjo:

Fair assessment.
I would rather everyone understood it like this and not just stand on authority that it was a Sunday resurrection.

It is actually on the authority of the Bible that many of us who understand it like this do. When John calls Sunday the Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10, he does so under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and when you put that together with everything else I've told you, it only comes through that the Lord rose from the dead early on Sunday morning.

As I said, I don't care to argue about this or to quarrel about it. I consider it painfully obvious that the Lord died on Friday and rose on Sunday. But I won't break fellowship with anyone for believing different. It is only important to keep in mind that every error or lie that we believe costs us something spiritually. So, keep that in mind in the choices that you make here.

XxSabrinaxX:

There is a big difference between can not and have not. I've seen no evidence which proves Africans are in anyway inferior to any other humans one the planet. ------

In the nineteenth century there was Shaka Zulu, ,called "the Black Napoleon" who conquered an empire the size of Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka

From the 11th to the 15th century there was the city of Great Zimbabwe. Look it up.

Finally, because of racist nonsense, many white people especially fail to grasp that ancient Egypt was an AFRICAN culture.

It's simply not credible to me that a person who found his/her way to this forum could possibly be as wilfully ignorant as your last few posts suggest. Considering our past encounters, Ihedinobi3, I'd have expected better.

There seems to be only two explanations; As far as this topic is concerned, you are (A) really as ignorant as you seem to be Or (more likely) (B) you're trying to be a common or garden variety TROLL. In either case, I decline to waste any more time on you on this issue.

The fact that you call stars "fiery balls of gas hanging on nothing" means that I can pretty much discard everything you say going forward.

Thanks for playing.

I think that you get it finally.

Of course I completely believe that the sun is a giant ball of fiery gases and that all planets are more or less spherical rocks, many of them with a molten core. The Earth certainly is. And I have no doubt that the African is as human as the Caucasian and could build the same techs too. In fact, Africans were involved in the building of the space techs that did things that no nation is finding so easy to repeat today. And I did not need your history lesson, since I learned about Shaka the Zulu about twenty years ago in secondary school. That you should even begin to think that I might believe otherwise does demonstrate how gullible you can be. And I did tell you from the beginning that this argument was only a mirror of yours about God.

I have no interest in your challenges about God's Existence because they sound exactly like these challenges I have just put up about the nature of the universe. It is not difficult to deny evidence and play dumb about stuff about which you want to play dumb. Really, it's the easiest thing in the world for man to do by nature. If you don't like the truth, you merely pretend that it is not true. Even babies can do that (witness the myriad Facebook videos of tiny tots denying the obvious, for proof). It doesn't take a great intellect. In fact, as you can see from my demonstration, incredibly dumb arguments are more effective for such a thing than very sophisticated and intelligent ones, which is why atheistic arguments get crazier and crazier the more invested the atheist gets in atheism, proving the truth of Romans 1:18-32.

There is nothing more obvious than God's Existence. It is the one thing that needs absolutely no proof, because there is no other sane way to explain the existence of the universe around us and our own selves, which is why the Bible says that the universe itself is the proof. But that does not mean that we lack the ability to play dumb and pretend that what is real is not. We most certainly have that ability. Many people who realize that it is impossible to reasonably reject God's Existence make the compromise of pretending that He is something that He is not. That is also insane, but at least, it is not as insane as pretending that God doesn't exist. In the end, however, both positions have the same result: the Lake of Fire for all rebels.

So, as I said before, I can't be bothered to keep running the gauntlet for you and your cohorts whenever you get bored. I'm sure there are other believers who are willing to deal with it, but with you and others whom I have debated exhaustively on this platform, I really have nothing more to say about the matter. You don't want to believe that God exists? By all means, don't. It's no hair off my back. You do? By all means, do. I"ll be happy for you, but it really is your gain, not mine.

LordReed:


According to your timeline the women who were to dress his body did not go to the grave for 3 days - Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Why does the text not say so? The text gives the almost unquestionable idea that they only had one day, Saturday, of separation.

In succession to the previous post. Yes, they literally had only one day in between two sabbaths, thursday evening to friday evenig to buy the spices and saturday evening to sunday evening to embalm His body

missjo:

Hi LordReed, it's been a minute since I contributed to religious discussions here but please allow me to share what I have studied on this. The topic of the death & resurrection is of great interest to me.

First of all, the answer to your question is an emphatic YES, the prophesy of three mornings(daylight) and three evenings(night) was fulfilled LITERALLY.

By the old Jewish system of days & nights, a new day began at sunset (6pm) instead of midnight (12am) as we observe presently.
Jesus the Christ died on a wednesday between the hours of 12noon and 3pm (Matt 27:45-56).

How can we be sure it was a Wednesday?
Because of this passage:
John 19:31 King James Version (KJV)
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 Sabbath being referred to here does not speak of the regular Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but rather the high day of the passover (as emphasized by John in his use of parenthesis to explain) also called a Sabbath. This "high day" was held on Thursdays.

Between 3pm and 6pm of Wednesday is the period where Joseph of Arimathea besought Pilate to release the body of Jesus to him for burial (Matthew 27:57-61). All of this could very well have taken approximately 3hours and by the time Jesus was laid in the tomb, it was already a little bit past 6pm of Wednesday.

Now if we start counting from 6pm on Wednesday (remember a new day starts at 6pm), then:
6pm Wednesday - 6pm Thursday = Day 1
6pm Thursday - 6pm Friday = Day 2
6pm Friday - 6pm Saturday = Day 3
Every day of the above is complete with 24hours of evening and morning (Note that the old testament bible records a full day by referring to it as evening and morning, never as morning and evening; another proof that a new day starts at 6pm).

The particular time and hour that Jesus arose can not be ascertained because no one witnessed it. The soldiers who kept watch outside the tomb only witnessed the earthquake and the angel rolling back the stone covering of the tomb which happened to grant Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James, access into the sepulchre (this happened very early on Sunday morning).

John 20:1 calls it the first day of the week (Sunday) and he wrote that it was still dark (probably about 5am).
Mathew 28:1 says it in much the same way calling it the end of the Sabbath (Saturday) as it began to dawn on the first day of the week (Sunday).

As at the time these two women got there, he had already risen some time after sunset on Saturday evening without the knowledge of the soldiers outside who stood guard. As far as they were concerned, the body of Jesus was still in the tomb by the time the two Marys got there at about 5am on Sunday morning.

Fairly accurate presentation but note that , the high day sabbath was a sabbath not fixed on thursdays but any day each year the first day of the feast of passover/unleavened bread happens to fall on. Thursday that year (30ad), on other years it falls on other days. Secondly the jews count evening and then morning for a 24hr cycle till today, its not an old system of counting days. And please know that you're accurate. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise with vague explanations no matter how confident they sound for our God is a God of precision and detail. You may look at my previous posts on this.

Finallydead:


In succession to the previous post. Yes, they literally had only one day in between two sabbaths, thursday evening to friday evenig to buy the spices and saturday evening to sunday evening to embalm His body

That is not what the bible states. It states quite clearly they rested on the sabbath (singular) not on the sabbaths and the day between the sabbaths.

Finallydead:


Yeah bro. Consider one thing i wrote in my post. That's the key. Jews don't count days the way we do. A jew's day begins at sundown( first part of day) and at sunrise is the beginning of the latter part of the day. That's to say, they count evening and then morning, for a full 24hour cycle. That means weekly sabbath begins friday evening and ends saturday evening. That also means first day of the week begins Saturday evening and ends sunday evening. Read the texts with this in mind and it all makes perfect sense. Take note that Jesus had already risen long before dawn of Sunday so whem they came to His tomb, in all accounts, He was not there but appeared to them on their way after they were intimated by the angel at the tomb

These are other translations of Matthew 28


T4T translation. 1- After ◄the Sabbath/the Jewish day of rest► ended, on Sunday morning at dawn, Mary from Magdala town and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2- Suddenly there was a strong earthquake. At the same time an angel from God came down from heaven. He went to the tomb and rolled the stone away from the entrance so that everyone could see that the tomb was empty. Then he sat on the stone.


Easy English translation.  1-   Early, on the first day of the week, Mary from Magdala and Mary the mother of James got up early. They went to the hole in the rock where Joseph had buried the dead body of Jesus.

2- At that moment, the ground moved about. One of God’s angels came from heaven and he went to the rock. He rolled the big stone away from outside the hole and then he sat on top of the big stone.

The word dawn used by Matthew is a Greek word which means to begin to illuminate or for light to come upon.



This disproves your claim of it being on Saturday evening and of it being hours before Mary got there, with these scriptures it must have happened minutes before she got there. 


If you don't have scripture back ups for your claim then don't bother quoting me.

missjo:


Guys, dawn of Sunday morning is when the tomb was found empty by the Marys.
Every other instance of resurrection you guys are making is pure conjecture because NO ONE actually saw the hour it happened, much less Mark.

The assumption by the early church is that Jesus rose very early Sunday morning because they didn't want to defile the idea of a holy Jewish Sabbath.

But we all good here, are we not?

It wasn't an assumption, scriptures attest to it.


Easy English translation of Matthew 28:  1-   Early, on the first day of the week, Mary from Magdala and Mary the mother of James got up early. They went to the hole in the rock where Joseph had buried the dead body of Jesus.

 2  At that moment, the ground moved about. One of God’s *angels came from *heaven and he went to the rock. He rolled the big stone away from outside the hole and then he sat on top of the big stone.

The word dawn used by Matthew is a Greek word which means to begin to illuminate or for light to come upon.



This disproves your claim of it being on Saturday evening and of it being hours before Mary got there.

Remember when Mary met Jesus, He told her not to touch Him, cos He hadn't ascended to God, which proved that she saw Him immediately He rose from the grave.

Praivit0:



These are other translations of Matthew 28


T4T translation. 1- After ◄the Sabbath/the Jewish day of rest► ended, on Sunday morning at dawn, Mary from Magdala town and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2- Suddenly there was a strong earthquake. At the same time an angel from God came down from heaven. He went to the tomb and rolled the stone away from the entrance so that everyone could see that the tomb was empty. Then he sat on the stone.


Easy English translation.  1-   Early, on the first day of the week, Mary from Magdala and Mary the mother of James got up early. They went to the hole in the rock where Joseph had buried the dead body of Jesus.

2- At that moment, the ground moved about. One of God’s angels came from heaven and he went to the rock. He rolled the big stone away from outside the hole and then he sat on top of the big stone.

The word dawn used by Matthew is a Greek word which means to begin to illuminate or for light to come upon.



This disproves your claim of it being on Saturday evening and of it being hours before Mary got there, with these scriptures it must have happened minutes before she got there. 


If you don't have scripture back ups for your claim then don't bother quoting me. 

Read again. Never disputed what the scripture said. They got to the tomb at dawn (the beginning of the 2ND half cycle of the first day of the week) and found he was ALREADY risen(risen since saturday evening, the beginning of the 1ST half cycle of the first day of the week by jewish count) without rolling away the stone as he didn't need to, not that he was JUST rising. The angel rolled the stone away for them to show them he WASN'T there. What he did between those twelve hours, the bible doesn't say there and we don't even need to bother about that (though it could be when he went and preached to the spirits in Abrahams bosom (1Pet 3:19) OR not). But we know he then appeared to them on the way to meet the disciples. Their getting to the tomb at dawn doesn't in any way disprove his rising before then, get it?

AND PHYSICALLY TO LAY THE FUNDATION FOR RESURRECTION.

missjo:
Lmao.. I still hold on to the Saturday resurrection count

www.nairaland.com/attachments/10413669_7841724tmpcam1920483428jpeg4051f0a369991f2cdcce15c8f8ec25ba_jpeg7a7104c612079062376b61153b8c841b
missjo, when you're sheeple sleep you enjoy the drummer's music but when you are woke, you're meant to begin understand the drumming and lyrics. The drummer is thinking what the foxtrot uniform charlie kilo is she dancing to that makes her think this way, lol

Now, missjo, please give me a breakdown of the times of days and nights that Jesus was buried for. Also tell me the reason why Jesus should be resurrecting on the Sabbath and not on the firsr day of the week after the Sabbath

missjo:
But like Ihedinobi pointed out, this is not one of those things we should dwell on. At the end of all things, our saviour resurrected and that's what matters

Lol smart arse, yes of course, like Ihedinobi pointed out, this is not one of those things we should dwell on. At the end of all things, our saviour resurrected and that's what matters. Only that you're being heretical about the resurrection day.

XxSabrinaxX:

There are thousands of records from the 1st Century CE. Even from the beginning of the Century and before. The problem historically for Christians is that there is NO mention of the jesus figure until the earliest of the Epistles, which of course do not convey the same message as the much later stories in the Gospels which have been dated in the case of Mark to about 75CE at the earliest.

And yet those "thousands" of records are only a small part of everything that was written in that period. But that is somewhat besides the point. Of these "thousands" of records we have, which ones would have mentioned Jesus but did not? The primary historians were Romans who were mostly concerned about, well, Rome. A lower-class guy off in a distant province who didn't pose any real problems to the Romans and got killed early in his life would have been negligible to them, even if there were reported miracles.

The claim that Mark would be at the "earliest" 75CE is inaccurate. Certainly, there are reasonable arguments to be made for that or even later dates, but there are also reasonable arguments to be made for dates decades prior to that. Earlychristianwritings.com, hardly a conservative source, gives an estimated date range of 65-80 for Mark.

but not one note, message or side note about this jesus figure. Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it, None of the attendees at the Sermon of the Mount. None seems to have witnessed the 500 plus zombies preaching around Jerusalem never mind the 'darkness at midday etc which was meant to accompany the lost weekend of the jesus figure.

This is an odd claim. You say none of them "Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it." What's the basis for them not mentioning it? Lack of written statements by them? Even if they did do that, regular erosion has removed most documents from that era.

Further there is no record of ANY of the disciples in subsequent history, except in Second Century tales.

No record? The First Epistle of Clement refers to both Peter and Paul.

The Gospel of Thomas was used as the foundation of the Christian Church in Kerala State, India and was used exclusively until the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th Century....

While it is true that tradition states Thomas visited India, I cannot find any evidence of this claim that the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was used at all by the Christian Church in Kerala, let alone it being the foundation or exclusive holy book prior to the 16th century.

Rubbish. The letters were to christians who may or may not have been using texts with no mention of the birth narrative, or, no mention of the resurrection. These were common in the early 1st century, and we know that because their use was later attacked by the Pauline church. The birth and death narratives were later additions probably in the late 1st century and some we know to the mid second or even 3rd Centuries.

The point is that one cannot claim Paul's lack of mentioning such things in the letters is somehow indicative of them being false or unknown when he would have little reason to mention them given he had already gone and preached to them in the past. That is when he would have shared any such information, not in the letters that were meant as correction or advice and thus a re-iteration of the gospel would be superfluous.

PS: The website you've been linking says that Apollo astronauts traveled to the moon.

Care to explain?

The Apollo astronauts mentioned there did travel to the moon, so I've no idea what your complaint is here.

RandomGuy48:
And yet those "thousands" of records are only a small part of everything that was written in that period. But that is somewhat besides the point. Of these "thousands" of records we have, which ones would have mentioned Jesus but did not? The primary historians were Romans who were mostly concerned about, well, Rome. A lower-class guy off in a distant province who didn't pose any real problems to the Romans and got killed early in his life would have been negligible to them, even if there were reported miracles.

at least 12 other Messiahs and Prophets were mentioned by the Romans and others in the 1st century. Just in case your English skills inexplicably fail you here's a quick list
Abu Isa
Abraham Abulafia
Athronges
Simon bar Kokhba
Moses Botarel
Egyptian (prophet)
Eve Frank
Jacob Frank
Judah ben Shalom
Shukr Kuhayl I
Lukuas
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Menahem ben Judah
Mordecai Mokiach
Solomon Molcho
Moses of Crete
Nehemiah ben Hushiel
Judah Leib Prossnitz
Jacob Querido
David Reubeni
Simon of Peraea
Theudas
Sabbatai Zevi

All these guys have INDEPENDENT corroboration...look at the list anyone missing?
Maybe a prophet who attracted crowds of thousands? Who had Zombies preaching Jerusalem, who had 500 witnesses to his ascension? All of them utterly silent on the matter.., not one mention from anyone else in Jerusalem, Rome, anywhere? yet these unmemorable guys get a mention?

The one historian I corresponded with who maintained a pre Destruction of Jerusalem (70CE) position for the Authorship of the anonymous text known as 'Mark also pointed out that early versions of Mark did not contain a physical Resurrection or Ascension story. In fact the consensus seems to be that 'Mark' was based on the writings of Paul but retold in a Hellenistic storybook fashion as a very human yet magical figure based on earlier Greek and Syrian figures, not Pauls "being of the spirit", or an actual Jewish figure of the time.

Also your part about dating the writing of the manuscripts bears no consequences about the existence or not of the supernatural...

This is an odd claim. You say none of them "Not one of the 5000 people fed on bread and fish thought to mention it." What's the basis for them not mentioning it? Lack of written statements by them? Even if they did do that, regular erosion has removed most documents from that era.

Are you telling me that there would have been absolutely no people, Romans or Jews, with the writing skills when 500 zombies were roaming the city? Jerusalem? Really?

No record? The First Epistle of Clement refers to both Peter and Paul.

This anonymous document of course would refer to both Peter and Paul...as figures described in the Christian texts available at the turn of the 1st century.
In fact the existence of the writer of the Epistles (let's call him 'Paul') is not disputed.
Peter is 'mentioned' in Clement, and his alleged martyrdom, which was the stuff of tales and myth in the late 1st and early second century. But nothing to corroborate, merely an allusion to common folklore of the time.

1 Clement is dated to about 96CE and therefore not a contemporary record.

While it is true that tradition states Thomas visited India, I cannot find any evidence of this claim that the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was used at all by the Christian Church in Kerala, let alone it being the foundation or exclusive holy book prior to the 16th century.

What did you do? Google your toilet?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/apr/15/books.guardianreview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians

The point is that one cannot claim Paul's lack of mentioning such things in the letters is somehow indicative of them being false or unknown when he would have little reason to mention them given he had already gone and preached to them in the past. That is when he would have shared any such information, not in the letters that were meant as correction or advice and thus a re-iteration of the gospel would be superfluous.

Please do not ascribe motivations to someone you do not know. Facts are facts. Not one mention...even in Paul.

The fact remains that; there is not ONE contemporary mention of the Jesus figure as described in the gospels. none.

No amount of well written english apologetics will change that. It is an historical fact.

The Apollo astronauts mentioned there did travel to the moon, so I've no idea what your complaint is here.

You quoted Tektonics, the christian apologist haven.

My favourite Tektonic article concerns comparisons between Jesus and Apollonius. You will no doubt, I am sure, be familiar with it RandomGuy48

Apollonius vs Jesus. Who. Will. Win?

Not surprisingly Tektonics strives to deny any real similarities between the life of this Pythogorean pagan saviour figure and their own Jesus. They don't deny the striking similarities, the virgin birth, the itinerant preaching and the claims to knowledge about a supreme deity, the persecution, trial and crucifiction (Jesus resurrected but Apollonius just survives, as many others have been recorded as doing.)

But they write off Apollonius because his story includes the advice of not taking hot baths, his having confronted a hobgoblin and chased it off with insults, as well as a satyr he puts to sleep by offering it wine, his claims to being able to speak all human and bird languages.

All this,Tektonics claims, are nothing as dignified as what is found in the gospels, "the Gospels lack the outrageous and dramatic flair that is found in the story of Apollonius. Thus they should not be used in comparison."

Well I dont know, but stories about Jesus walking on water, having a mother who was immaculately conceived and never having tasted death, changing water into wine, driving demons, like Legion, out of a human victim into the bodies of pigs and driving them over a cliff, withering plants on demand for not bearing fruit out of season, advising all not to bother with washing hands before a meal, whose death caused an earthquake, and an unnatural darkening at noon, and whose resurrection awoke long dead denizens of the cemetary he was in, inviting doubters to manually probe his fatal wounds and then floating up into the sky out of sight in front of 500 nameless, assumingly illiterate, witnesses, all certainly smacks of outrageous and dramatic flair to me.

Neither story deserves to be considered any more truthful than the hundreds if not thousands of similar miracle stories that emerged in the early centuries.

Most important difference between Jesus and Apollonius is that while Jesus declared faith the way to finding god, Apollonius declared it was 'nous' (knowledge) because his deist version of an supreme god was the ultimate form of nous.

So you've been warned. There is likely to be a test (and not multiple choice) to get into heaven and it will be based on general knowledge. Better study up sinners.

And just to show you how unbiased I am in historical terms and how I loathe apologetics that are spouted by someone who does no fucking research at all:

Paul was in good company as a writer who just did not mention all those miracles.....
Here is a list of 1st Century writers we could reasonably expect to have mentioned Jesus and just didn't. They are all available in any good library or online.
Seneca The Younger (4 BCE - 65 CE)
Very prolific writer. So much so that later christians actually forged documents and letters from Seneca mentioning Christ, because, well, he just didn't. Not once. And he would have.
Philo (20 BCE - 50 CE)
Philo Judaeus:
He wrote books about Jewish religion and history, and would have mentioned Jesus Christ had he known of him.
Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul,
he had family in Jerusalem,
he wrote a about the times and peoples in Jerusalem, Samaria and Judea as well other places,
he wrote a fairly critical commentary on Pilate
He developed the concept of "Logos" (an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God" (Wikipedia)
Pliny The Elder (23 - 79 CE)
Another Roman writer, prolific and a tattle tale. Also an amateur astronomer who doesn't mention the Star of Bethlehem, the darkness at the Crucifixion or jesus at all. He does mention many other individuals including; writers,politicians, revolutionaries,poets and artists. He would have mentioned this "extraordinary "son of god" if he had heard of him.
Petronius (c. 27 - 66)
Was a professional taker of the piss. He was the Roman equivalent of SNL, the "Life of Brian " and "The Holy Grail" a la Monty Python. Nothing was sacred to him. He wrote the Satyricon covering just about every event and important person of the times including crucifixion (no jesus jokes) a Guarded tomb (no Jesus jokes or references) and another tomb scene where someone sees a person they mistake for a resurrection (no jesus jokes or references) All very strange considering he wrote about (and it is bloody funny) Sophocles, Cato, Pompeii, Hannibal and assorted Governors and politicians. Strange that he didn't mention the new christian cult of Jesus as both Peter and Paul were (according to the NT) in Rome preaching at the time, but he did mention bathtimes,dinner, wine, Arabs and Lawyers.
Lucan (39 - 65)
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century. In this large poem he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing. He :
mentions an event from 56 CE,
refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
referred to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world, refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.
Feel free to copy with or without acknowledgement for the education of those poor souls that insist there is indeed contemporary independent evidence of the Jewish Jesus character.

Oh and anyone who wants to really debate this subject I have a list of approx 100 or so writers up to the 2nd Century CE (including some christians) that could have mentioned those amazing happenings of approx 28 - 33 CE, but, unaccountably, did not

This list makes up a fraction of the "thousands of pieces of work we have from the 1st Century CE"....and not one mention of the jesus figure as described in the gospels...

In perspective, that is like Optimus Prime actually appearing in Trafalgar square,at midday in the week, repeatedly transforming, and then doing donuts around Nelson, and not one Newspaper, Radio Station, TV reporter or columnist (never mind Jo public) writing a single damn thing about it. LOL

Ihedinobi3:

I think that you get it finally.

Of course I completely believe that the sun is a giant ball of fiery gases and that all planets are more or less spherical rocks, many of them with a molten core. The Earth certainly is. And I have no doubt that the African is as human as the Caucasian and could build the same techs too. In fact, Africans were involved in the building of the space techs that did things that no nation is finding so easy to repeat today. And I did not need your history lesson, since I learned about Shaka the Zulu about twenty years ago in secondary school. That you should even begin to think that I might believe otherwise does demonstrate how gullible you can be. And I did tell you from the beginning that this argument was only a mirror of yours about God.

I have no interest in your challenges about God's Existence because they sound exactly like these challenges I have just put up about the nature of the universe. It is not difficult to deny evidence and play dumb about stuff about which you want to play dumb. Really, it's the easiest thing in the world for man to do by nature. If you don't like the truth, you merely pretend that it is not true. Even babies can do that (witness the myriad Facebook videos of tiny tots denying the obvious, for proof). It doesn't take a great intellect. In fact, as you can see from my demonstration, incredibly dumb arguments are more effective for such a thing than very sophisticated and intelligent ones, which is why atheistic arguments get crazier and crazier the more invested the atheist gets in atheism, proving the truth of Romans 1:18-32.

There is nothing more obvious than God's Existence. It is the one thing that needs absolutely no proof, because there is no other sane way to explain the existence of the universe around us and our own selves, which is why the Bible says that the universe itself is the proof. But that does not mean that we lack the ability to play dumb and pretend that what is real is not. We most certainly have that ability. Many people who realize that it is impossible to reasonably reject God's Existence make the compromise of pretending that He is something that He is not. That is also insane, but at least, it is not as insane as pretending that God doesn't exist. In the end, however, both positions have the same result: the Lake of Fire for all rebels.

So, as I said before, I can't be bothered to keep running the gauntlet for you and your cohorts whenever you get bored. I'm sure there are other believers who are willing to deal with it, but with you and others whom I have debated exhaustively on this platform, I really have nothing more to say about the matter. You don't want to believe that God exists? By all means, don't. It's no hair off my back. You do? By all means, do. I"ll be happy for you, but it really is your gain, not mine.

LOL. Your little verbose does not impress me. You can't seem to help exposing your ignorance. There is a vast difference between challenges to a god and the scientific explanation of the universe. All of the god claims can not be evidenced or proven, while all scientific claims can be tested and proven.

If truly there is nothing more obvious than your god's existence, then demonstrate it and quit clowning yourself. I am not stalling or attempting to distract, I want your presentation which you claim is powerful evidence. Failure to do so just proves you're all noise, Ihedinobi3.

XxSabrinaxX:

LOL. Your little verbose does not impress me. You can't seem to help exposing your ignorance. There is a vast difference between challenges to a god and the scientific explanation of the universe. All of the god claims can not be evidenced or proven, while all scientific claims can be tested and proven.

If truly there is nothing more obvious than your god's existence, then demonstrate it and quit clowning yourself. I am not stalling or attempting to distract, I want your presentation which you claim is powerful evidence. Failure to do so just proves you're all noise, Ihedinobi3.

As it is, I only came to this thread to answer the question whether the Lord Jesus was dead for three days and three nights. I never offered to you any claim that I need to defend. In fact, it was you who came with a claim that the Lord Jesus never existed, and somehow I'm the one who's all noise?

As I said, you are already in an insane position. It can't get better when we discuss it. I truly don't care what you want to believe, Sabrina. It's really your prerogative to believe anything you please. If you're really itching for a chance to mock a believer, find someone else. I have no time or energy for you.

Ihedinobi3:

As it is, I only came to this thread to answer the question whether the Lord Jesus was dead for three days and three nights. I never offered to you any claim that I need to defend. In fact, it was you who came with a claim that the Lord Jesus never existed, and somehow I'm the one who's all noise?

As I said, you are already in an insane position. It can't get better when we discuss it. I truly don't care what you want to believe, Sabrina. It's really your prerogative to believe anything you please. If you're really itching for a chance to mock a believer, find someone else. I have no time or energy for you.

I'm in an insane position? SMHLOL . You walked into this thread making unevidenced assertions. People dont magically come to back to life after they've been dead long enough for fucking rigor mortis to set in for crying out loud, man. When you got called out, you then outdid yourself with the claim that there is no such thing as outer space. Pretty soon you will be claiming the earth is flat

You have made positive claims and have attracted the burden of proof. This is because you have affirmed a negative, which makes your claims positive in logical discussion.

There are trolls who come on the site just to piss people off. They know their arguments are bogus and it does not matter to them. There are trolls that actually believe the crap they say. You, Ihedinobi3, are the former. When pressed to the wall with logic and reason you resort to inane comments like... "LOL. You mean a billion sparkles and dots and a yellow disc on the dome, don't you?" This was your argument for the universe! Not even a six year old child would go there. OR the part you stated "The Paint is very shiny". Do you see how hard you're trying? You just say things that are blatantly false or extremely ignorant. You refuse to concede points when points are made and once pinned down will employ thought terminating cliches like the "I don't care" stunt you tried to pull

You are just playing a game of "BAIT THE ATHEISTS." Its kind of your modus operandi, I've observed. Nothing we say will have impact on you as you pay no attention at all to anything said. You are not interested in the exploration of facts or what is true. You just want to feign faux superiority or claim a "stronger" position and you have no leg to stand on so you argue dishonestly, just like every other Christian apologist that has ever come onto the site.

If you don't want to demonstrate your outlandish claims, its fine mate. I'm really not forcing you to. It's a free world . Now have some milk and cookies and skedaddle back to your room.

XxSabrinaxX:

I'm in an insane position? SMHLOL . You walked into this thread making unevidenced assertions. People dont magically come to back to life after they've been dead long enough for fucking rigor mortis to set in for crying out loud, man. When you got called out, you then outdid yourself with the claim that there is no such thing as outer space. Pretty soon you will be claiming the earth is flat

You have made positive claims and have attracted the burden of proof. This is because you have affirmed a negative, which makes your claims positive in logical discussion.

There are trolls who come on the site just to piss people off. They know their arguments are bogus and it does not matter to them. There are trolls that actually believe the crap they say. You, Ihedinobi3, are the former. When pressed to the wall with logic and reason you resort to inane comments like... "LOL. You mean a billion sparkles and dots and a yellow disc on the dome, don't you?" This was your argument for the universe! Not even a six year old child would go there. OR the part you stated "The Paint is very shiny". Do you see how hard you're trying? You just say things that are blatantly false or extremely ignorant. You refuse to concede points when points are made and once pinned down will employ thought terminating cliches like the "I don't care" stunt you tried to pull

You are just playing a game of "BAIT THE ATHEISTS." Its kind of your modus operandi, I've observed. Nothing we say will have impact on you as you pay no attention at all to anything said. You are not interested in the exploration of facts or what is true. You just want to feign faux superiority or claim a "stronger" position and you have no leg to stand on so you argue dishonestly, just like every other Christian apologist that has ever come onto the site.

If you don't want to demonstrate your outlandish claims, its fine mate. I'm really not forcing you to. It's a free world . Now have some milk and cookies and skedaddle back to your room.

I'm not surprised that you now tell bald-faced lies as a matter of course.

If I made any claim on this thread, it was just that the ancient Hebrews used inclusive counting, and there is historical evidence for that right in the Bible and elsewhere. The thread itself assumed that the resurrection actually happened. Respondents were only supposed to demonstrate that the prophecy by the Lord Jesus regarding how long He would be dead was fulfilled in the Bible.

You are the one who came in with insults because I still believe in the Lord Jesus. I offered nothing to you prior. You made claims that the Lord Jesus never existed and then demanded that I disprove the claims. It's typical of atheists.

As for what I did, clearly you were not even reading the things you were responding to: I did claim that the earth is flat. Of course, I was trolling you, like you complained that I was doing. But that was because you were trolling me with your crazy arguments. I actually said,

"That's exactly the same as your argument above"

to demonstrate that my argument about a flat earth and outer space was just a mirror reflection of yours about God.

When you accuse me of baiting atheists, I wonder what you are really thinking. I am on a thread where a biblical question was asked and where I have been limiting my responses to the Bible. Yet, somehow I'm baiting atheists. Hilarious.

XxSabrinaxX:

at least 12 other Messiahs and Prophets were mentioned by the Romans and others in the 1st century. Just in case your English skills inexplicably fail you here's a quick list
Abu Isa
Abraham Abulafia
Athronges
Simon bar Kokhba
Moses Botarel
Egyptian (prophet)
Eve Frank
Jacob Frank
Judah ben Shalom
Shukr Kuhayl I
Lukuas
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Menahem ben Judah
Mordecai Mokiach
Solomon Molcho
Moses of Crete
Nehemiah ben Hushiel
Judah Leib Prossnitz
Jacob Querido
David Reubeni
Simon of Peraea
Theudas
Sabbatai Zevi

All these guys have INDEPENDENT corroboration...look at the list anyone missing?
Maybe a prophet who attracted crowds of thousands? Who had Zombies preaching Jerusalem, who had 500 witnesses to his ascension? All of them utterly silent on the matter.., not one mention from anyone else in Jerusalem, Rome, anywhere? yet these unmemorable guys get a mention?

Well, the first thing I notice quickly is how many of these people who, according to you, were "mentioned by the Romans and others in the 1st century" actually lived after the first century. Take a look: Abu Isa (8th century), Abraham Baulafia (13th), Simon bar Kokhba (2nd), Moses Botarel (15th), Eve Frank (18th), Jacob Frank (18th), Judah ben Shalom (19th), Shukr Kuhay l (19th), Lukuas (2nd), Mordecai Mokiach (17th/18th), Solomon Molcho (16th), Moses of Crete (5th century), Nehemiah ben Hushiel (timing is a bit ambiguous but connected to a 7th century revolt), Judah Leib Prossnitz (17th), Jacob Querido (17th), David Reubeni (16th), Sabbatai Zevi (17th).

Did the Romans have access to time travel? Come now!

Additionally, Menahem ben Hezekiah, from what I can tell, was mentioned only in the Talmud. While the oral tradition underlying the Talmud goes back to the first century, the document itself is from later and thus cannot be counted towards this. Some believe he is the same as Menahem ben Judah, however, in which case it would still be improper to list him, as he shouldn't be counted twice.

With that in mind, the only ones left are Athronges, the Egyptian (prophet), Menahem ben Judah, Simon of Peraea, and Theudas. All of these "unmemorable" guys were leaders of insurrections or rebellions that required some level of military action from the Romans. None of this was the case with Jesus. This thus confirms my earlier points that the historians would have been a whole lot more interested in people who actually caused problems for Rome in uprisings than someone who was not of concern to the military.

Are you telling me that there would have been absolutely no people, Romans or Jews, with the writing skills when 500 zombies were roaming the city? Jerusalem? Really?

Uh, no, that wasn't what I said at all. My point was that because simple weathering and erosion have erased virtually all writings from that time period, trying to claim that none of them wrote it down is absurd because even if they did, the papers no longer exist. So this continued claim of them not writing it down is without merit, because if they had, we still wouldn't have those papers.

Also, I'm curious where this "500 zombies" claim you keep throwing out comes from. I assume this is in reference to Matthew 27:52-53, but it gives no number, nor does it say that they looked different than the living.

What did you do? Google your toilet?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/apr/15/books.guardianreview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians

Let's return to what your claim was:

XxSabrinaxX:
The Gospel of Thomas was used as the foundation of the Christian Church in Kerala State, India and was used exclusively until the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th Century....

And then my response was:

RandomGuy48:
While it is true that tradition states Thomas visited India, I cannot find any evidence of this claim that the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" was used at all by the Christian Church in Kerala, let alone it being the foundation or exclusive holy book prior to the 16th century.

So, with that context in mind, let's look at your links. Do either of them say anything at all about the "Gospel of Thomas"? No. They merely repeat what I noted, that tradition states Thomas visited India. The links do mention the "Acts of Thomas" (generally thought to be written in the third century) but that is a completely separate document from the "Gospel of Thomas". Further, neither link says anything about it being the foundation of the church or the only text it used.

My favourite Tektonic article concerns comparisons between Jesus and Apollonius. You will no doubt, I am sure, be familiar with it RandomGuy48

Apollonius vs Jesus. Who. Will. Win?

Not surprisingly Tektonics strives to deny any real similarities between the life of this Pythogorean pagan saviour figure and their own Jesus. They don't deny the striking similarities, the virgin birth, the itinerant preaching and the claims to knowledge about a supreme deity, the persecution, trial and crucifiction (Jesus resurrected but Apollonius just survives, as many others have been recorded as doing.)

But they write off Apollonius because his story includes the advice of not taking hot baths, his having confronted a hobgoblin and chased it off with insults, as well as a satyr he puts to sleep by offering it wine, his claims to being able to speak all human and bird languages.

So looking it up, I assume you're referring to this article, as you don't link it:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/apollonius.php

To claim they "write off" Apollonius on the basis you describe is silly. Those are mentioned, but you seem to be ignoring the larger points it makes, including what it identifies as "the most important point", which is that "The stories of Apollonius were written some 150 years after the crucifixion of Jesus". So if there was any borrowing going on, there's a strong likelihood is was going in the other direction, towards Apollonius.

Speaking of that site, in regards to the list of writers who supposedly should have mentioned Jesus but didn't, perhaps I shall come back and do a more thorough examination later, but in the meantime I will post this link again:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.php

In fact, interestingly, the various references you claim appear to be a slightly edited version of a source that was already answered by that page (scroll down to the "Reply" heading). Though I will note something not mentioned there: We do not have the full Satyricon by Petronius. It exists only in a fragmented manuscript which is missing a good amount of material. To complain about how Jesus is not mentioned in a work we do not have a full copy of seems presumptive.

Also, everyone, just so you know: Sabrina is taking posts from this forum and posting them on an atheist forum, pretending to be a Christian there. Then she takes their responses and posts them as her own here.

I figured this out because of some of the odd portions of her posts made me try to search out to see if she was copying them. And lo and behold, she was! And not just in this topic either--she's pulling this deceit in multiple topics, both here and over there.

RandomGuy48:
Also, everyone, just so you know: Sabrina is taking posts from this forum and posting them on an atheist forum, pretending to be a Christian there. Then she takes their responses and posts them as her own here.

I figured this out because of some of the odd portions of her posts made me try to search out to see if she was copying them. And lo and behold, she was! And not just in this topic either--she's pulling this deceit in multiple topics, both here and over there.

What other forum is this and what moniker does she post under there? Could you please provide the details?

Dear Seun, OAM4J, mukina2,

I have just confimed that posts that we are making here in the Religion section are being lifted and posted at atheistrepublic.com by people pretending to be Christians there and someone is also lifting posts from there and reposting here, namely, XxSabrinaxX, who has another moniker IAmSabrina. It may be in order to close out her accounts until he/she is willing to have honest conversations with other people here.

Cheers.

Ihedinobi3:

Right. If you can believe that, then you must believe that there's a giant ball of gases hanging on nothing out in space that wakes you up every morning. For the paltry sum of 250K USD, Virgin Galactic can give you a close-up view of it too. I promise it will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for you. You won't regret it!

We have absolutely no evidence that there is a ball of fiery gases hanging out in space around which the earth revolves. There are painted discs and shiny dots and sparkles fixed on the solid dome of the sky that rotates around the fixed plane of the earth. But there is absolutely no evidence of any giant balls out in space.

Finally, there is no such thing as space travel. There is just a massive conspiracy to deceive Africans into thinking that they are an inferior race incapable of building technology that can go to space. Not a single soul witnessed any human landing on the moon. Not a single human being has ever reached the Great Dome of the sky. All the stories you've heard were made up by Hollywood sci-fi screen writers and novelists who never even saw a rocket in their lives. All the "news videos" were made in a top-secret underground studio in Hollywood. Each "news" article and video contradicts the one before it. There isn't a single eyewitness, just more and more complex stories that contradict each other with no shred of proof that there are giant balls of fiery gases in space.

That's exactly the same as your argument above.

and for this, well done Sir.

Sabrina, busted! Is it true?

Looooooooool.

Ihedinobi3:


There is nothing more obvious than God's Existence. It is the one thing that needs absolutely no proof, because there is no other sane way to explain the existence of the universe around us and our own selves, which is why the Bible says that the universe itself is the proof. But that does not mean that we lack the ability to play dumb and pretend that what is real is not. We most certainly have that ability. Many people who realize that it is impossible to reasonably reject God's Existence make the compromise of pretending that He is something that He is not. That is also insane, but at least, it is not as insane as pretending that God doesn't exist. In the end, however, both positions have the same result: the Lake of Fire for all rebels.

your seriously indoctrinated and you don't even know it. If nothing is more obvious than God's existence then it wouldn't be a debate between different religions.
Religious people are people who think "Rain rain, go away, come and rain another day, little children want to play" will work for stopping the rain. You have the presupposition of a God because that's what you were taught, that's what you were taught and that's what everyone around you believes in. Humans are so selfish we think the whole universe was made specifically for us by a God who made us in his image (Is that a coincidence? no, it's not a surprise humans dreamed of a God who is manlike).
Please go and read the history of your bible, HOW it was put together, WHO decided what to add and take out. In fact, go as far back as learning about the jews and how they stole the God "El' which belonged to a local tribe and then changed it to Yeshua (YHWH). Read about how the king of Israel converted the Israelites and all surrounding tribes to worshipping one God so it was easier to control the people.

Its honestly a shame to see my people defending the same bible/religion the colonizers gave us in exchange for our fellow brothers and sister so they can use them as slaves. Now my people are mentally enslaved, defending the book and praying to the imported God introduced to our forefathers. Religion is nothing but a ploy to control the masses and it still exactly what is still holding us back in Nigeria. We have a habit of believing people just based on their words, this is why the cunning whites have given us "hope" in exchange for our African treasures.
You people PLEASE go and research into how these destructive books go into our hands. We are now willingly enslaving ourselves to the God of the whites and the God of the Arabs. When will we wake up and realize we are being EXPLOITED?

CRITICAL THINKING AND EDUCATION IS THE ONLY CURE TO THIS SICKNESS
ITS NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT THE POOREST COUNTRIES ARE THE MOST RELIGIOUS.

XxSabrinaxX:

Yet, I give you a billion stars in the night sky as well as our own sun. All of it observable, measurable, predictable, and easily validated by every sense known to man. Please demonstrate the same for your god.

Intelligence Varies Greatly. Your Level Of Intelligence Is Not Crazy Yet, you Are Still A Logical Thinker thats The Reason You Can Not Understand Anything Related to God. When Your Intelligence Hits "I Know Nothing" then You Will Understand God.

LordReed:
The bible says it was to fulfil a prophecy so was it fulfilled?

Yes it was fulfilled.

He was in the grave , the place of death, for what may have been approximately 63 hours.

Kobojunkie:
Yes it was fulfilled.

He was in the grave , the place of death, for what may have been approximately 63 hours.

You are quite late to the party. LoLz.

LordReed:
You are quite late to the party. LoLz.

Well, he did literally meet the "3 days and 3 nights in the grave to rise on the third day" prophecy by being in the grave for over 60 hours but less than 72 hours.

Kobojunkie:
Well, he did literally meet the "3 days and 3 nights in the grave to rise on the third day" prophecy by being in the grave for over 60 hours but less than 72 hours.

On what day of the week did he die?

LordReed:
On what day of the week did he die?

He died on the First day of the festival of unleavened bread which happened to fall on a Thursday in AD 33.

IamPlato:
Intelligence Varies Greatly. Your Level Of Intelligence Is Not Crazy Yet, you Are Still A Logical Thinker thats The Reason You Can Not Understand Anything Related to God. When Your Intelligence Hits "I Know Nothing" then You Will Understand God.

If you are not a logical thinker then you are of the devil. The pharissee were "Torah worshippers" because they believed without thinking..

If you study instead of "believe" what Jesus said through out the gospel you'd come to understand why he was referred to as the Logos. Jesus was very logical.

Here is a scenario:

bunch of illogical men picked of stones to murder an adulteress.

Jesus, who happened to be there at the right time, stopped them saying "he who is without sin" cast the first stone".

That statement up there is a logical one. "A sinner cannot condemn a sinner"...because then justice would be trampled upon.

The prophecy was 12 noon on Friday to 12 noon on Monday.