Innerrantcy

Originally posted by Nemesio
And as for the last bit of information, what are some first century sources that say that Christ was not resurrected?

I dunno. Not many I guess. Did you read the part where I said that the Resurrection is a matter of
faith? I would never try to compel you to believe otherwise.

I didn't read this, but maybe this would help you:
http://www.inf ...[text shortened]... rrier/resurrection/

It sounds like someone who has done research into this issue.

Nemesio[/b]

So you know of no texts from the first century that says that Christ was not resurrected? But we do have texts from the first century saying that he was resurrected, no?

Forgive me for not engaging a web site with the word "infidel" in it. I can give you two guesses as to who the author of it is. That is why I have tried to find the most neutral of sources which is Wiki. This is both good and bad in that Wiki is more objective than say a Muslim site or Christian site who have something to prove, however, Wiki has a finite amount of information on topics it covers, therefore, it makes researching certain topics problematic.

Originally posted by whodey
So you know of no texts from the first century that says that Christ was not resurrected? But we do have texts from the first century saying that he was resurrected, no?

Well, given that 'not being resurrected' would be the assumed state for a person who was crucified,
I'm not all that surprised. In any event, I'm not saying there aren't any because, as I said, it's not
really a focus of my research. If there were 5000 documents that said Jesus was resurrected, and
none that said He wasn't, belief in such a supernatural event is a matter of faith.

Forgive me for not engaging a web site with the word "infidel" in it. I can give you two guesses as to who the author of it is.

If the author's argument is sound, then what difference does it make what website it was found on?
If you don't read it and evaluate it, then you have no way of knowing if it is in fact grinding an axe.

That is why I have tried to find the most neutral of sources which is Wiki. This is both good and bad in that Wiki is more objective than say a Muslim site or Christian site who have something to prove, however, Wiki has a finite amount of information on topics it covers, therefore, it makes researching certain topics problematic.

Wiki is by no means neutral. Each individual article reflects the bias of its own author. And, if you
check the article history, very often controversial topics like religion have articles that are highly
edited (i.e., written by one person, edited by another, deleted and reëdited by a third, and so on,
often to the point of profound frustration).

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Well, part of the reason is that Christ is quoted as saying that Peter was the stone or pebble upon whom he would build his church. I view this prophetic word to have great significance. In essence, he was handing a torch, if you will, to St. Peter. So if one could prove that St. Mark was not a disciple then yes, you could say it would give less authoirity/significance to the text that he wrote. However, I do not see how it is provable, rather, it is merely one of speculation and of faith.

All the more reason to give St Mark (an otherwise unknown minor disciple of Jesus) some authority. Certainly, if he wanted to claim the authority, he could have. Why wouldn't he?

You know, it seems there is no getting around it. God requires faith. There is no proving anything about him, including the Bible that was inspired by him, although there are and continue to be "evidences" for the truth about his word and for his existence.

Yes, which is why I don't participate much in threads like 'Is there a God?' or 'Was Jesus REALLY
resurrected?'

This thread was 'inerrancy.' Inerrancy is an easy thing to disprove, since a single example suffices.
'Did not hear' and 'did hear' suffices, thus the claim to inerrancy is false.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes, which is why I don't participate much in threads like 'Is there a God?' or 'Was Jesus REALLY
resurrected?'

This thread was 'inerrancy.' Inerrancy is an easy thing to disprove, since a single example suffices.
'Did not hear' and 'did hear' suffices, thus the claim to inerrancy is false.

Nemesio

But the claim "There is significant historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected" is disprovable (as was I think done by the author at the website you quoted earlier.) Also claims along the lines of "The existence of God has been proven" can also be disputed effectively.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the claim "There is significant historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected" is disprovable (as was I think done by the author at the website you quoted earlier.) Also claims along the lines of "The existence of God has been proven" can also be disputed effectively.

You are daft if you think the author proved anything. If you are of the opinion that he did prove something, in your own words say how using the sources he cited.

Originally posted by whodey
You are daft if you think the author proved anything. If you are of the opinion that he did prove something, in your own words say how using the sources he cited.

Look, whodey, you asked for something, I gave it to you. I'm sorry you
think that the author was incompetent or didn't make is case or had
flawed reasoning, but it is a topic I don't care all that much about to
begin with. Belief in the Resurrection, were there 1000 sources on both
sides, would be a matter of faith in the absence of a video camera and
and autopsy. The default position -- that people don't rise from the
dead -- is pretty damn defensible of itself just based on modern-day
observation, so if you're surprised that non-Christians need a little more
than a few stories that derive from a generation after the event, then
there really isn't much I can do for you.

But that's not the topic of this thread, so I think you're getting bogged
down with something ancillary to the issue at hand.

Nemesio