Is Jesus Dead?

by Tower Man 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Jesus is dead. Nobody lives to the ripe old age of 2,000 years of age and has credible witnesses to prove it. Therefore Jesus is dead. It's those wacky nutballs that think he is still alive and doing stuff that scare me. Jesus being dead doesn't scare me. It's his "loyal" followers: they scare the crap out of me. They've been know to cut off men's penises and make them eat them because the men had the nerve to say that Jesus was dead 1,400 years after his birth. Most people are dead 1,400 years after they are born, and I'll eat my own penis if anyone can prove differently. Unfortunately, those people in the 13th, and 14th centuries didn't have an option. And their tormenters didn't have to produce a shred of evidence other than their own say-so. They just severed those penises and fed them to their owners. Then they killed those people who asked logical and resonable questions which their tormenters could not answer.

    This is all Bible-Based(tm), of course.

    Farkel

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    No. There's obvious differences.

    Obvious to you maybe. I don't see them.

    But I found an interesting compact answer online. This has also interesting overviews of Mohammed's example, Muslim nations, Apostates, and Women in Islam. Hope you find it as interesting as I did.

    Yes it was interesting, and while it shows that Islam can be a dangerous and destructive religion, it doesn't really answer the question. Just because it doesn't sit well with us doesn't make it false. I don't like the morality of Christianity but your claim was that the growth of Christianity was proof that God was behind the religion. Islam is growing faster. Does that mean that God is behind Islam, or are there other reasons a religion could grow so rapidly?

    (Scroll down to the numbered areas for all the best info. Number 4 deals with History of Islamic Expansion.)

    Yes, it was largely through conquest, as was Christianity. The question stands.

  • gumby
    gumby
    and I'll eat my own penis if anyone can prove differently.

    Farkel....LMAO !

    Get out the ketchup buddy.....I think I have found the proof you need

    Gumby

  • bebu
    bebu

    Funky, I agree with your first statement. If Jesus is resurrected though, there is no fear of Islam being true, because Islam denies that Jesus even died on the cross (as that would be unjust of God).

    As for the second, I believe that God is behind the growth of Christianity, but what I offered wasn't intended to be absolute proof of its truth as a religion. It was to answer your claim that there was NO reason to believe that Christianity would have survived any longer, except for the intervention of Constantine.

    Farkel, If you really meant to say that no one could persuade YOU to believe in the resurrection of Jesus—well, you’re right about that. I’ve noticed that you can’t force a JW to admit that the WT’s claims are shot full of holes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence such is freely available online! But an unbiased person with enough valid info would see that the WT is a total crock of horse poop. If you could be consistent, then after examining evidence you’d have to admit that the only reasonable answer to "What happened the third day after Good Friday?" is, Jesus was resurrected.

    No one can prove this? How about Simon Greenleaf? He was an eminent professor of Harvard Law School, raising the status of Harvard to its prominence today, and a Jew. His forte in law was witnesses and evidence, and he wrote a 3-volume text called "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence" (pub. 1842), which is still considered by many the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure. It was required for many years as a textbook at law schools. Greenleaf was challenged to examine the claim of Christianity that Christ rose from the dead. He did, and concluded that the resurrection was one of the best supported events in history. It compelled him to believe in Christ. He also wrote a book that details how he came to that conclusion. It is called, "Testimony of the Evangelists".

    Here is an excerpt:

    All that Christianity asks of men... (is) that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things. And that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses (to the resurrection) be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth."

    Farkel, isn’t this the same thing that people try to get devout JWs to do? To be objective and not let their personal biases intervene? You ask this of other readers, but refuse this action for yourself.

    (BTW, here’s the book if you want to order it (or, just try a library).

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0825427479/qid=1051745152/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-2680255-5800668

    Then there’s Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton. They believed that Christianity was a tale "gone mad" and determined to refute the Christian faith. Lyttleton resolved to disprove the conversion of Saul, and West would refute the resurrection of Jesus. ...But after examining the evidence, they both separately came to the opposite conclusion. Lyttleton authored a book called, "Observations of Saul’s Conversion" and West wrote a book called "Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus." These books are available on microfiche thru university libraries, btw, not Amazon.

    These guys aren’t the only ones to come to the conclusion that proof truly exists. After investigating the evidence of the resurrection, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, stated, "...there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true."

    Frank Morison understood that the foundation for Christianity was the resurrection of Jesus—not the actions of its followers—and this is what he focused on disproving. His book "Who Moved the Stone?" is the result of his research. He finally realized that the evidence for the resurrection was insurmountable, and he, as did Greenleaf, West, and Lyttleton, converted.

    There are several other authors who detail their crisis of conscience. CS Lewis is also an agnostic-turned Christian apologist, as is Josh McDowell. (It really is a crisis of conscience!!)

    Pinchas Lapide, a noted Orthodox Jewish theologian who is one of only four or five Jewish NT scholars in the world. In his book "The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective" , he says, "according to my opinion the resurrection.. (is) a fact of history." He also acknowledges, "Without the resurrection of Jesus, after Golgotha, there would be not have been any Christianity." (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1983), p. 92

    He also wrote:

    If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on that Easter Sunday were a public event which had been made known...not only to the 530 Jewish witnesses but to the entire population, all Jews would have become followers of Jesus. To me this would have had only one imaginable consequence: the church, baptism, the forgiveness of sins, the cross, everything which today is Christian would have remained an inner-Jewish institution, and you [Gentiles], my dear friend, would today still be offering horsemeat to Wotan on the Godesberg. Put in other words, I see in the fact that the Easter experience was imparted to only some Jews the finger of God indicating that, as it says in the New Testament, "the time is fulfilled." Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 68

    "I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event." Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 59.

    Here is a quick overview of his book, and his very unusual viewpoint:

    http://www.light-of-messiah.org/pages/perspective.htm

    Farkel, your arguments here are simply very interesting, colorful, useless red herring/ad hominem attacks. No substantial argument for any courtroom. I’m sure you’d agree with me when (if?) you’re in a better mood.

    ---Actually, your real argument is a personal issue, with how God allows evil things to occur at all--let alone in His name--not Jesus’ resurrection. But if Jesus is resurrected, then God is giving assurance to you (and everyone) that He recognizes your great frustration with evil. And thru the resurrection God reminds all to have faith that, despite what appears otherwise, He is in control even now, and that every one of those who opposes goodness and love will completely fall, because God is good; God is love. Easter give those who honestly hunger and thirst for righteousness hope and relief.

    Even if you don’t believe that God is good, you will still always have problems refuting the resurrection of Christ. God seems to have effectively shut off every escape route for any other conclusion.

    I'll eat my own penis if anyone can prove differently.

    Dare I ask the size of the bun you'll need?....

    bebu

  • Undecided
    Undecided

    This stmt by Jesus seems to me to be a contridiction:

    Jesus said..."I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me WILL LIVE, EVEN THOUGH HE DIES, and whoever lives and believes in me WILL NEVER DIE."

    He said that whoever "believes will never die." But he also said of a believer,"Even though he dies." Which is it, does he die or doesn't he??? Doesn't make sense to me.

    Ken P.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    bebu,

    Thank you for sharing. You said:

    : If you could be consistent, then after examining evidence you’d have to admit that the only reasonable answer to "What happened the third day after Good Friday?" is, Jesus was resurrected.

    Of course, this argument is patently stupid. There are no valid assertions that lead to a valid conclusion, just a conclusion that has no basis. There are no provable assertions, and one cannot use unprovable assertions to arrive at an unprovable conclusion. DOH!

    Hardcore Christians make these kind of bullshit conclusions (based upon AIR) all the time, and I dine on their fallacies of logic. Yum, yum!

    Farkel

  • bebu
    bebu
    There are no valid assertions that lead to a valid conclusion, just a conclusion that has no basis. There are no provable assertions, and one cannot use unprovable assertions to arrive at an unprovable conclusion. DOH!

    I guess then you will be unable to prove a durned thing in all of history, as history relies on textual evidence, testimony of witnesses, historians, archaeological evidences, etc. Anything that is relatively "unprovable" strictly from a scientific method standpoint.

    Hardcore Christians make these kind of bullshit conclusions (based upon AIR) all the time, and I dine on their fallacies of logic. Yum, yum!

    Yes, I think you'd need something to go along with that earlier little hors d'oeuvre...

    Farkel... That "air" was your best argument????

    There are a lot of books that examine and critique the assertion that Jesus has risen. They have been listed above in my earlier post. I do not intend to rewrite them all here!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit