Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
edit that its: in the hizzizzouse

You mean Chuck's House of course.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That's racist.

I don't know about that; here, let me google it.

And google Chuck as well and get some divine intervention from him. 😉

Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong, he has it correctly laid out. I Googled.

Good call.

Originally posted by queeq
Good call.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
o i know it was 😄

Don't let it go to your head. 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't let it go to your head. 😛

Chuck?

Originally posted by queeq
Chuck?

THen I guess tha asnwer to your question is: no one.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only in the minds of those people who believe he is alive, but so is King Tut still alive in the minds of those who wish to believe that. You create your own reality, and to you the idea of Jesus being alive is real.

I believe in the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course, Bible critics are quick to point out that all sorts of ancient myths contain resurrection stories. The Egyptians talked about the repeated resurrections of Osiris the god of life, death, and fertility. Later, Greeks told tales about Persephone the earth goddess, who was responsible for life, death, and rebirth. In fact, most ancient pantheistic religions contained some sort of resurrection myth.

So what makes Bible believing Christians so sure that Jesus' resurrection is factual?

In order to answer this question, we must first understand that there are a few contemporary sources outside the New Testament who mention Christ. For example, the annals of Tacitus (15.44), a non-Christian Roman historian who lived from 56 to 117AD, clearly records the existence of a man called “Christus” (Latin for Christ) from whom those troublesome Christians derived their name. And Josephus (37 to 100+ AD), a Jewish historian with no Christian affiliation, wrote the following:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats.... He was Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

No serious scholar can deny that a man named Jesus lived in the neighborhood of Jerusalem during the first half of the first century. No serious scholar can deny that within a very few years of this man's death, thousands of people had become completely convinced that Jesus had risen from the grave. With the exception of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus then committed suicide, ten of the remaining eleven Apostles were all murdered for their faith. Only John lived to be an old man, though history is silent as to how he met his end.

Some critics assert that Jesus never rose from the dead – that He is still in His grave somewhere in Palestine. They insist the disciples were so heartbroken when they discovered Jesus had lied to them – since He had predicted His resurrection [Luke 18:31-33] – that they stole His body and hid it. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus is nothing more than an ancient religious conspiracy by a group of overzealous devotees. But what does the evidence say?

Remember, all four Gospels are brutally honest in their portrayals. The Apostles were a bunch of babbling idiots whose egos often wrote cheques their bodies couldn't cash. As they were leaving the last supper with Jesus, they all vowed insistently that they would never abandon their Master, even if it meant death [Mark 14:27-31]; but when soldiers came to arrest Jesus, every one of the disciples ran away. Following the crucifixion, they cowered together behind the locked door of someone's house, wondering when the authorities would come for them [John 20:19]. These men where gutless through and through. It is inconceivable that they would have had the gumption to steal Jesus' body, never mind fight off the Roman guards at the tomb [Matthew 27:65]. But more than this, it is utterly unbelievable that these eleven cowards would then be willing to face torture and death for something they knew to be a lie. Yet the evidence clearly shows that each of them suffered dearly for testifying that they had seen Jesus risen. The only reasonable explanation for such heroic courage is the actuality of the resurrection. The Lord had told them that because He lived, He would cause them to live beyond death, in heaven [John 14:1-3].

Other critics foolishly suggest that the Apostles simply experienced some sort of mass hallucination when they thought they saw Jesus alive after His burial [Luke 24:35-49]. But this makes no sense at all. Firstly, each of the eleven Apostles, along with a number of women, would have to have hallucinated exactly the same thing, since they all told the same story about it – and that's not how hallucinations work. Secondly, present at Jesus' post-resurrection appearance was the Apostle Matthew, a tax collector. Revenue agents have many faults, but they DON'T hallucinate!

Unlike the wild fantasies of Greek mythology, the Gospel writers are very concerned to present their material in the realm of reality. The brothers Grimm make no pretense of an audience, since their work is clearly fable. Either the New Testament writers are reporting historical fact, as they claim, or they are dastardly liars, as Bible critics claim. Thankfully for us, there is absolutely no substantive evidence pointing to the latter. On the contrary, all available evidence demonstrates that the biblical Gospels had strong support among early scholars. Thus the resurrection of Jesus Christ must be viewed as historical fact, not meaningless fiction.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I believe in the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course, Bible critics are quick to point out that all sorts of ancient myths contain resurrection stories. The Egyptians talked about the repeated resurrections of Osiris the god of life, death, and fertility. Later, Greeks told tales about Persephone the earth goddess, who was responsible for life, death, and rebirth. In fact, most ancient pantheistic religions contained some sort of resurrection myth.

So what makes Bible believing Christians so sure that Jesus' resurrection is factual?

In order to answer this question, we must first understand that there are a few contemporary sources outside the New Testament who mention Christ. For example, the annals of Tacitus (15.44), a non-Christian Roman historian who lived from 56 to 117AD, clearly records the existence of a man called “Christus” (Latin for Christ) from whom those troublesome Christians derived their name. And Josephus (37 to 100+ AD), a Jewish historian with no Christian affiliation, wrote the following:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats.... He was Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

No serious scholar can deny that a man named Jesus lived in the neighborhood of Jerusalem during the first half of the first century. No serious scholar can deny that within a very few years of this man's death, thousands of people had become completely convinced that Jesus had risen from the grave. With the exception of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus then committed suicide, ten of the remaining eleven Apostles were all murdered for their faith. Only John lived to be an old man, though history is silent as to how he met his end.

Some critics assert that Jesus never rose from the dead – that He is still in His grave somewhere in Palestine. They insist the disciples were so heartbroken when they discovered Jesus had lied to them – since He had predicted His resurrection [Luke 18:31-33] – that they stole His body and hid it. Thus, the resurrection of Jesus is nothing more than an ancient religious conspiracy by a group of overzealous devotees. But what does the evidence say?

Remember, all four Gospels are brutally honest in their portrayals. The Apostles were a bunch of babbling idiots whose egos often wrote cheques their bodies couldn't cash. As they were leaving the last supper with Jesus, they all vowed insistently that they would never abandon their Master, even if it meant death [Mark 14:27-31]; but when soldiers came to arrest Jesus, every one of the disciples ran away. Following the crucifixion, they cowered together behind the locked door of someone's house, wondering when the authorities would come for them [John 20:19]. These men where gutless through and through. It is inconceivable that they would have had the gumption to steal Jesus' body, never mind fight off the Roman guards at the tomb [Matthew 27:65]. But more than this, it is utterly unbelievable that these eleven cowards would then be willing to face torture and death for something they knew to be a lie. Yet the evidence clearly shows that each of them suffered dearly for testifying that they had seen Jesus risen. The only reasonable explanation for such heroic courage is the actuality of the resurrection. The Lord had told them that because He lived, He would cause them to live beyond death, in heaven [John 14:1-3].

Other critics foolishly suggest that the Apostles simply experienced some sort of mass hallucination when they thought they saw Jesus alive after His burial [Luke 24:35-49]. But this makes no sense at all. Firstly, each of the eleven Apostles, along with a number of women, would have to have hallucinated exactly the same thing, since they all told the same story about it – and that's not how hallucinations work. Secondly, present at Jesus' post-resurrection appearance was the Apostle Matthew, a tax collector. Revenue agents have many faults, but they DON'T hallucinate!

Unlike the wild fantasies of Greek mythology, the Gospel writers are very concerned to present their material in the realm of reality. The brothers Grimm make no pretense of an audience, since their work is clearly fable. Either the New Testament writers are reporting historical fact, as they claim, or they are dastardly liars, as Bible critics claim. Thankfully for us, there is absolutely no substantive evidence pointing to the latter. On the contrary, all available evidence demonstrates that the biblical Gospels had strong support among early scholars. Thus the resurrection of Jesus Christ must be viewed as historical fact, not meaningless fiction.

Or (and there also seems to be a third option) the people who wrote the NT did the best job they could, but were simply wrong.

People believe in UFOs and they are not hallucinating; they are most likely just wrong.

Humans are often wrong when it comes to the supernatural.

Stories also get changes. It maybe all well intended, but it happens every day. How many people shot JFK? And that has been less then 50 year. Imagine 90 with no news papers; only the spoken word. Things get changed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or (and there also seems to be a third option) the people who wrote the NT did the best job they could, but were simply wrong.

People believe in UFOs and they are not hallucinating; they are most likely just wrong.

Humans are often wrong when it comes to the supernatural.

Stories also get changes. It maybe all well intended, but it happens every day. How many people shot JFK? And that has been less then 50 year. Imagine 90 with no news papers; only the spoken word. Things get changed.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or (and there also seems to be a third option) the people who wrote the NT did the best job they could, but were simply wrong.

People believe in UFOs and they are not hallucinating; they are most likely just wrong.

Humans are often wrong when it comes to the supernatural.

Stories also get changes. It maybe all well intended, but it happens every day. How many people shot JFK? And that has been less then 50 year. Imagine 90 with no news papers; only the spoken word. Things get changed.

The New Testament is so exceptionally well attested -- that is, there are so many thousands of ancient manuscripts available for scientific evaluation -- we can know with an extremely high level of certainty that the Bible we have today is an accurate reflection of the original.

Also, the majority of serious biblical historians -- excluding fringe liberals from the Jesus Seminars -- support the historicity of most New Testament documents. The Gospel of Luke in particular is sometimes viewed as especially accurate given its vast collection of eyewitness accounts. While Bible critics love to wail on about the supposed pseudonymous origins of the New Testament documents, the vast weight of evidence points to authenticity.

And sure...one independent source might get the whole story wrong, and then pass his flawed convictions on to others. But the New Testament is comprised of multiple independent accounts. Interestingly, some critics like to point out the differences between the various Gospels as though such minutia calls their validity into question. But none of these textual anomalies affect the broader message about Jesus, and the very presence of such anomalies provides convincing proof of their non-contrived character.

Those who wish to dismiss the New Testament out of hand are, of course, free to do so. But if you should choose this route, I think you would be missing out on the real wonder and majesty contained in its pages.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The New Testament is so exceptionally well attested -- that is, there are so many thousands of ancient manuscripts available for scientific evaluation -- we can know with an extremely high level of certainty that the Bible we have today is an accurate reflection of the original.

Also, the majority of serious biblical historians -- excluding fringe liberals from the Jesus Seminars -- support the historicity of most New Testament documents. The Gospel of Luke in particular is sometimes viewed as especially accurate given its vast collection of eyewitness accounts. While Bible critics love to wail on about the supposed pseudonymous origins of the New Testament documents, the vast weight of evidence points to authenticity.

And sure...one independent source might get the whole story wrong, and then pass his flawed convictions on to others. But the New Testament is comprised of multiple independent accounts. Interestingly, some critics like to point out the differences between the various Gospels as though such minutia calls their validity into question. But none of these textual anomalies affect the broader message about Jesus, and the very presence of such anomalies provides convincing proof of their non-contrived character.

Those who wish to dismiss the New Testament out of hand are, of course, free to do so. But if you should choose this route, I think you would be missing out on the real wonder and majesty contained in its pages.

I think you are now just repeating Christian propaganda or you are simply wrong. Most of the "thousands of ancient manuscripts available for scientific evaluation" are just later copies of the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are now just repeating Christian propaganda or you are simply wrong. Most of the "thousands of ancient manuscripts available for scientific evaluation" are just later copies of the bible.

Is that not precisely what I said? We have more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT, more than 5000 in the original Greek. Comparing earliest to latest, we find no substantive loss of data, indicating a high level of preservation. Furthermore, the earliest partial mss date to within a few decades of the autograph. Thus we can say with confidence that the Bible we have today closely reflects the original. That's not propaganda; it's fact.

So whether you think the New Testament was inspired by God or invented by men, let's have no more pompous pronouncements of presumed historical unreliability. Like it or not, the documents of the New Testament are without a doubt the best preserved of any ancient literature.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is that not precisely what I said? We have more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT, more than 5000 in the original Greek. Comparing earliest to latest, we find no substantive loss of data, indicating a high level of preservation. Furthermore, the earliest partial mss date to within a few decades of the autograph. Thus we can say with confidence that the Bible we have today closely reflects the original. That's not propaganda; it's fact.

So whether you think the New Testament was inspired by God or invented by men, let's have no more pompous pronouncements of presumed historical unreliability. Like it or not, the documents of the New Testament are without a doubt the best preserved of any ancient literature.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
o there is no doubt it was authored by men. and since it was written by man, and because we are fallible, the bible cannot be taken as an infallible document even if it was "inspired" by god

So let me see if I understand what you're saying....

Even though the God of the Bible is infinitely powerful and absolutely sovereign, you believe He lacks the ability to perfectly preserve His words through the vehicle of human writers. Did I get that straight?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is that not precisely what I said? We have more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT, more than 5000 in the original Greek. Comparing earliest to latest, we find no substantive loss of data, indicating a high level of preservation. Furthermore, the earliest partial mss date to within a few decades of the autograph. Thus we can say with confidence that the Bible we have today closely reflects the original. That's not propaganda; it's fact.

So whether you think the New Testament was inspired by God or invented by men, let's have no more pompous pronouncements of presumed historical unreliability. Like it or not, the documents of the New Testament are without a doubt the best preserved of any ancient literature.

😕 You must have me confused with someone else.

Once the bible was canonized 325AD it was faithfully copied. However, the "B" in the word doubt is an example of just how faithful the copies were. The "B" in the word doubt was a spelling error in a copy that was sent to a monastery in Europe to be copied and passed on. The "B" stuck and then the word got added to the English language after 1066.

I wasn't talking about after 325AD, I was talking about before they were written down. There was at best 60 years of oral story telling before anything was written.