There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[Ford]

External testimony from Papias in the late first or early second century (as quoted by Eusebius) also confirms Mark as author of the Gospel

Well if that's the level of evidence we're looking at then I've got testimony from my college roommate Jeff that he was abducted by aliens. He even drew an artistic rendering of the event.

Praise the Lord, the aliens are here!

 

[revivin]

They knew which names to drop to make their claims seem plausible.

Persuasive cases can also be made that the other gospels and letters of the New Testament are based on eyewitness testimony, such as, for example, the book of Acts (the continuation to the Gospel attributed to Luke which describes the history of the early church) which was in part based on Luke being a traveling companion of Paul. Certain similarities of phrasing and terminology in Paul and Luke's writings back up this assertion.

 

[revivin]

Well if that's the level of evidence we're looking at

There is just so much multiple corroboration.

The New Testament includes certain incidental details that would be hard to comprehend unless they are the result of eyewitness testimony. One example is recorded in John 19:34. After Jesus dies on the cross, John notes that 'one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.' Death by crucifixion occurred due to two primary causes: hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia (asphyxiation). One consequence of the person going into hypovolemic shock and also being asphyxiated (unable to draw in breath) was that water would collect around the pericardium, the sac surrounding the heart. Thus when the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus’ side with the spear (which was not common procedure for crucifixions) the wall of the pericardium was pierced, resulting in a flow of both blood from the heart itself and water from the surrounding sac. Even though he would have no idea why he saw blood and water pour out, John’s description of the scene is entirely consistent with modern medical conclusions about what would have happened. John would have had none of this modern medical knowledge; he merely recorded what he saw. How could John have known that if a person who had just been crucified were stabbed in the chest that blood and water would run out unless he witnessed it?​

 

[revivin]

Doublestandards

John describes himself in the first person as "I" in John stating himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved most. Due to persecution he had to be careful not to state his authorship everywhere so he could finish all 5 books as evident by his imprisonment at Patmos. There are unique markers or phrases that run throughout John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation only used by John to know it is John. John who saw Jesus alive from the dead was one of the original eyewitness Apostles, including himself as he records the various accounts. Such attributes don't fit John the Evangelist as being the author. He records he is the only Apostle present at the crucifixion. He reports in 1 John he saw Jesus alive from the dead. In Revelation he testifies again he saw Jesus resurrected. He told Polycarp, a student of John still in the first century, these things. Such high standards of historical reporting, to not accept these facts is just being ignorant. Details of this sort strongly indicate that the New Testament is a result of eyewitness testimony regarding the events it describes. Until you are willing to apply a higher standard of critique on another ancient text that you accept as being true, you should accept all this verification if you were to be intellectually honest with yourself and hold no doublestandards between ancient texts.

 

[untermensche]

They knew which names to drop to make their claims seem plausible.

Persuasive cases can also be made that the other gospels and letters of the New Testament are based on eyewitness testimony, such as, for example, the book of Acts (the continuation to the Gospel attributed to Luke which describes the history of the early church) which was in part based on Luke being a traveling companion of Paul. Certain similarities of phrasing and terminology in Paul and Luke's writings back up this assertion.

Or perhaps both were written by the same person claiming to be Paul and Luke.

When you write a story with lies in it you are not above lying about who wrote it.

 

[Ford]

How could John have known that if a person who had just been crucified were stabbed in the chest that blood and water would run out unless he witnessed it?

Maybe...and I realize this is a radical thought that never entered your mind...the person who wrote John had seen crucifixions before, which were common at the time.


I know...crazy talk, huh?

 

[revivin]

John had seen crucifixion

We know it was a physical resurrection.

This is a physical resurrection of Jesus (pdf)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Doublestandards

John describes himself in the first person as "I"

The narrator of Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas uses first-person to describe his behavior. He also, at one point in the novel, sees Hunter S. Thompson. In the third person.
This is odd, because Hunter S. Thompson IS the author of F&LiLV.
Your evidence for John being written by John is that it says he's John?
Do you also believe Ishmael wrote Moby Dick?
Did Lemuel Gulliver write Gulliver's Travels?

Excuse us if we don't quite think that it's a 'double standard' to question the authenticity of allegedly eyewitness accounts that historians do NOT offer up without some reservations.

 

[revivin]

View attachment attachment.pdf

I added the pdf.

 

[Ford]

We know it was a physical resurrection.

Oh now we've leaped from crucifixion to resurrection!

And to think it only took 2 or perhaps 3 days.

 

[revivin]

When you really thing about it in total, the NT provides the best evidence you could ask for. It couldn't have been done any better.

- - - Updated - - -

Minimal Facts Approach - Proving the Resurrection of Jesus

1. Without assuming Biblical inerrancy, what can we glean from the Scriptures? Almost all skeptical scholars who do their thesis work, are accredited and have peer review journal work done on the resurrection in the past half century (see Gary R. Habermas) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

2. In these three chapters, Paul said he spent fifteen days with Peter and also time with James, the brother of Jesus, within five years from the cross. Paul was converted two years after the cross then went away to study the Scriptures for three years after which time he returned to Jerusalem whereupon he got to know Peter and James. Later on he met up with John. And he continued to see them again over the years. They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

3. People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.

4. Therefore, it must be true they saw Jesus alive from the dead, since all naturalistic explanations have been exhausted these past two thousand years.

 

[Ford]

When you really thing about it in total, the NT provides the best evidence you could ask for. It couldn't have been done any better.

Again, if you're trying to gain converts here, you should probably leave.

If you want to preach, there are street corners readily available in your region.

 

[Keith&Co.]

View attachment 946

I added the pdf.

Habermas, Flew, Ankerberg...none of them are historians.
What was the purpose of attaching this file?

- - - Updated - - -

When you really thing about it in total, the NT provides the best evidence you could ask for. It couldn't have been done any better.

Jesus' genealogy could have been written so that it didn't contradict itself. That would have been better.

So, sorry, failed again.

 

[untermensche]

They all testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

Sure, once the first guy claimed to see the ghostly Jesus you weren't anybody unless you saw him too.

And we have no idea how or why any of them died.

 

[revivin]

The non-Christian will (a) shut his mind down, (b) misread the Bible, (c) avoid dealing with God's word, and (d) remain unable to disprove the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach. We can respond with... (A) "In the name of Jesus Christ, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved" (Acts 4.10,12). (B) If you choose to refuse God's forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ on the cross, you will be resurrected for Hell, for Jesus said, "I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life" (John 5.24).

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible

1. There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity and not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on. Therefore, the cause of the universe must exist outside of time and space. This is whom we call God. ("Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth," Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Homes.)

2. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, tells us everything in nature needs a cause. Since the universe can't come from nothing that which does not exist and can't always have existed, the cause must be immaterial, outside of time and space. Again, this is whom we call God. ("If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth," Spock on Star Trek.")

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but about something else. I am standing on this hill while you are over there arguing on another hill. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often.)

4. There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural realm, because mankind would have approximated into that past eternity, derived from it, and not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on. Therefore, there must exist necessarily that which is outside of time, space and matter that brings about the universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

TROY!
I thought you sounded familiar!

How've you been? I mean, besides the usual?

 

[revivin]

The New 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible​

Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.

Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.

A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.

The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see the 'perfect proof' has evolved. So, what, it's MORE perfect now than it was before?
Perfection changes over time?

 

[revivin]

Clay Jones writes,

In apologetics we provide argument and evidence for the truth of historic Christianity. For example, consider Jesus’ resurrection. We know that Jesus’ disciples walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, and ate with Jesus—they knew who Jesus was. They were with Jesus when he was arrested and they then scattered. The Romans then scourged Jesus, drove spikes through His wrists and His feet to nail him to the cross, and thrust a spear in His side to make sure He was dead. Then they buried Jesus.

But three days later, Jesus’ tomb was found empty and the disciples started testifying that they again walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, and ate with Jesus. And what’s really amazing is that many testified to his resurrection even to their own torture and death. We know extra-Biblically that Nero beheaded the Apostle Paul and we know from the Jewish historian Josephus that the Sanhedrin stoned to death Jesus’ brother James, who had become a leader of the Christian church.

So here’s my question: if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, then why would the first disciples willingly die for what they knew was a lie?​

- - - Updated - - -

Good question if I don't mind saying so myself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I should have known, really.
Troy has always said it's not plagiarism if you agree with the person you're quoting. Or, you know, stealing the words from without giving them credit.
So surprised i didn't guess it right away.