Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
year2027

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Recommended Posts

On 3/9/2019 at 9:23 AM, waysider said:

Girl: "You can't lie on the internet."

Guy: "How do you know?"

Girl: "I read it on the internet."

 

In other words, you can't use the Bible as proof of itself.

u wrote In other words, you can't use the Bible as proof of itself./ i am using another book and my own experiences as my proof//btw bullingers works shows how numbers r the ultimate signature of God- //as 4 bullingers number in scripture book//in Hebrews for instance the times words like blood r used in multiples of 7--/could be humanly planned- /too difficult for someone to do// only a computer could arrange that 'coincidence' now--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullinger believed the earth is flat. Are you SURE you want to rely on his judgment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raf said:

Bullinger believed the earth is flat. Are you SURE you want to rely on his judgment?

 

He was also an ultradispensationalist. So there's that, as well.

 

Now, as to the "computer only" scenario,  I think people tend to ignore how incredibly advanced some ancient civilizations were in their understanding of complex mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know the source of this "only a computer" claim.

Bullinger supposedly worked backwards, coming up with the significance of numbers through scriptural usage. To marvel at how well it fits is to marvel that a ring is in the exact same shape as the cast in which the gold was poured.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this goes any further: the significance of number in scripture is off topic for this thread. The value of Bullinger in general is off topic [his views on the resurrection and the reliability of the gospel accounts is fair game]. 

Let's stay on topic please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is on-topic. It's tangential, at the least.

It was Bullinger who concocted the 4-crucified scenario that has since been debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say debunked.

I don't buy it, but that doesn't make it debunked.

The picture of the five crosses in the Companion Bible: THAT's debunked. It had nothing to do with the gospels.

But not being an expert in Greek, I can only speculate about whether John meant to say one on this side and one on that side or two on this side and two on that side. Either interpretation involves adding to the text. (It doesn't say two on this side and TWO on that side, nor does it say on either side ONE).

It's just bizarre that Matthew mentions two but fails to mention the other two, while Luke mentions the other two without mentioning Matthew's two. 

Why can't either of them have mentioned all four? (Because there weren't four, and Luke straight up invented the penitent evildoer, manufacturing a contradiction in the process).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke was a physician and a gentile who later became a follower of Jesus Christ. Luke simply called the two that were crucified with Jesus Christ, criminals. Matthew one of the 12 disciples later to be apostles that worked with Jesus Christ, called them robbers. Both Luke and Matthew said one on the left and one on the right of Jesus Christ. The two different people simply described them with different words. Using common sense, can a robber be called a criminal? Only if robbery is legalized can a robber not be also considered a criminal. Sorry, but robbery is NOT legalized. Yes, there could have been more people that were crucified with Jesus Christ. Also a large tree could have also been used in the Crucifixions. With the cross or crosses simply nailed to a tree. Either that or someone carrying in a cross to be used for a Crucifixion, in order to hold it up it would need to be either cemented into the ground, which would take time to dry or nailed to a tree which would take a much shorter time.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullinger used the old "Do you still beat your wife?" ploy with this. If you answer "no", it means you used to beat your wife but no longer do so. If you answer "yes", it means you beat your wife. But, what if you don't beat your wife and never have? The question forces you to distort reality. Bullinger forced the text to mean something that it never really said. I think this is representative of Bullinger's methods, lots of dancing around words to make them say you beat your wife. Dr. Juedes wrote about it here.  Sorry, I've veered off-topic again..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Juedes and I made the same observation: you have to add a word no matter how many you think were crucified with Jesus.

Mark, believe it or not, we all know who the Biblical characters of Matthew and Luke are. The issue is not their identity. It is their authorship. Most scholars agree that neither Matthew nor Luke wrote the gospels attributed to them. The case for Matthew is horribly weak, because he's plagiarizing Mark (who wasn't there) and, it must be said, straight up lying about history (the slaughter of the innocents) and fulfilled prophecies (a virgin shall be with child, a prophecy that had zero to do with the Messiah).

All that said, you raise good points about the crucifixion. Thank you for the contribution.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the question of who was the actual author of the Gospel of Luke? Here is information that I am simply copying from the Nelson Bible Dictionary. Overall I think the Nelson Bible Dictionary is a good biblical reference book with many articles on different biblical subjects. 

Quote

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

Authorship and Date. The author does not identify himself by name, but he does tell us a good deal about himself. Although not an eyewitness of the events he reports, he has followed them closely enough to write an orderly, reliable narrative (1:1-4). He is an educated man with the best command of Greek of any New Testament writer. He counts among his acquaintances a person of high social standing, the "most excellent" THEOPHILUS, to whom he addresses both Luke (1:3) and Acts (1:1). As a Gentile, the author is interested in Gentiles; he is equally disinterested in matters purely Jewish. At some point in his life he joined the apostle Paul. His experiences with Paul served as a firsthand source for his sequel to the Gospel of Luke.

For the author's name we are dependent on later tradition. Writing about  A.D. 175, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, identified the author as LUKE, the companion of Paul. Eusebius agreed, adding that Luke was a native of Antioch. The importance of Antioch in Acts (13:1-3) lends credibility to Eusebius' statement. The few glimpses we get of Luke from Paul's epistles-a physician, both beloved and compassionate (Colossians 4:14) who was with Paul during his Roman imprisonment (Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11) parallels what we gather from him in LukeActs. The logical conclusion is that Luke wrote Luke-Acts.

The date of Luke's writing can only be guessed from inferences. Luke tells us that he drew upon earlier accounts, some of which were written (1:2). It is likely that two such accounts were Q (about  A.D. 50) and the Gospel of Mark (about  A.D. 60). The Gospel of Luke probably was written sometime shortly after  A.D. 70.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
 

 

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the actual authorship of what is titled the Gospel of Matthew. Here is another quote from the Nelson Bible Dictionary regarding the subject of who was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. From this study this is questionable only.

Quote

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

Authorship and Date. Matthew is an anonymous gospel. Like other gospel titles, the title was added in the  second century A.D. and reflects the tradition of a later time. How, then, did the gospel acquire its name? Writing about  A.D. 130, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), records, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew (that is, Aramaic) language, and each interpreted them as best he could." Until comparative studies of the gospels in modern times, the church understood "oracles" to refer to the first gospel and considered Matthew, the apostle and former tax collector (9:9; 10:3), to be the author.

This conclusion, however, is full of problems. Our Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek, not Aramaic (as Papias records); and no copy of an Aramaic original of the gospel has ever been found. The Greek of the gospel cannot readily be translated back into Aramaic; and this strongly indicates that the gospel is not a Greek translation of an Aramaic original. Moreover, it is now generally agreed that Mark is the earliest of the four gospels and that the author of Matthew substantially used the Gospel of Mark in writing this gospel (also see GOSPELS).

If the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, one would wonder why he quoted so extensively from Mark (601 of Mark's 678 verses appear in Matthew), who was not a disciple of Jesus. Such observations virtually eliminate the possibility of the apostle Matthew being the author of the gospel.

The most promising way out of this dead-end street is to understand the "oracles" mentioned by Papias, not as the Gospel of Matthew, but as a collection of Jesus' sayings collected by the apostle Matthew. Later these sayings were used by an unknown author as a source for the present Gospel. The actual author probably was a Palestinian Jew who used the Gospel of Mark, plus a Greek translation of Matthew's Aramaic "oracles," and composed the gospel in Greek. The name of the gospel, therefore, stems from the apostle Matthew on whom the author draws, in part, to compose his work. This interpretation has the benefit of paying Papias' testimony the respect it deserves, as well as honoring the problems mentioned above.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So about 75-100 years after it's written, tradition gives us Luke as the author.

And that's according to people who believe it WAS Luke.

Nelson is not exactly what I would call an unbiased source. Would you expect them to confess Luke was not the author? Not in a billion years. They would lose support among evangelicals, their bread and butter.

I would recommend the Oxford Companion to the Bible. When I have time I'll write up their summary. They still think it's Luke, but they're honest enough to show the case is weak and boils down to "why not."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Colossians 4:14
14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you. 
NKJV
 

Colossians as seen in Col. 1:1 was written by Paul. Yes, there was a physician named Luke who was a friend of Paul, the apostle for the gentiles. 

Quote

2 Timothy 4:11-12
11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. 
NKJV
 

 

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul didn't write either of those letters.

Signed,

Epstein's mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgery was rampant in the first century, and many letters were excluded from the Bible because, even though they claimed to be written by certain people, they were not. Some of those letters made it into the N.T. Colossians was one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where Raf gets his views? Paul is one person that is mentioned many times in the New Testament. According to the New King James Version (156) times his name is written. Three times Paul's name is written in the epistle of Colossians. One thing though that Raf will like. Under the Roman empire with the Sadducees who did not believe in any Resurrection being given religious and legal authority. Paul got put in prison. This is where Paul did some of his written work. Perhaps he simply did not want to waste his time. I wonder if I am wasting my time on this web site mentioning bible verses?

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not about what I will and will not like.

It's about actual research that people with no vested interest do when they study the Bible.

In the tv show Welcome Back Kotter, one of the characters used to hand in notes to excuse himself for being absent or late, or for missing homework. The notes were always signed, "Epstein's mother." The joke was, of course Epstein's mother didn't write those notes. Epstein only wanted people to THINK his mother wrote those notes.

Of COURSE if someone in the ancient world wanted to pass off a letter as an epistle from Paul, that letter is going to say it was written by Paul.

THAT'S HOW FORGERIES WORK. They don't announce themselves as forgeries.

Start here:

https://ehrmanblog.org/faint-heart-authorship-colossians-members/

 

i will post more when i have time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Raf said:

In the tv show Welcome Back Kotter, one of the characters used to hand in notes to excuse himself for being absent or late, or for missing homework. The notes were always signed, "Epstein's mother." The joke was, of course Epstein's mother didn't write those notes. Epstein only wanted people to THINK his mother wrote those notes.

 

 

 

Why would Raf want to learn from a fictional TV show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using a pop culture reference to explain forgery to you.

Edited by Modgellan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raf said:

I was using a pop culture reference to explain forgery to you.

Sorry for not learning from fiction. I would rather instead learn from factual information. 

Edited by Modgellan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then that rules out the Bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raf said:

Then that rules out the Bible

Certainly these are the views of Raf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wellfergoodnesssake.

Perhaps posters need to be reminded this sub-forum is specifically titled “Questioning Faith”. It goes without saying that bible verses quoted in here might not be accepted by some others as “facts”.

This is not, by any means, meant to say you can’t quote or cite verses in this place. How can we question faith without mentioning verses upon which faith is based? However, if you use Bible verses as facts in this space, expect to be challenged.

In any case, this sub-forum has the same rules as any other place on GSC. Discuss the topic, but not other people’s mental acuity. 

I have removed a number of posts by various people which severely stretched and in some cases fully violated those rules.

Behave or don’t play. I am not going to edit future posts, it is too time consuming. I will instead just delete them entirely even if part of the post is meaningful. The whole post will be gone. Next stop is Soap Opera or deletion of the thread completely. I really have other things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×