Saw this question somewhere, anyone know the answer?

Then I guess Thomas sticking his fingers in the side of Jesus was something else, what is your thoughts on that.

You misquoted me, i said "nothing other than signs", if you stop at nothing, then we have a different meaning.

Heb 2:This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.

Signs and wonders had their place in preaching the gospel and that includes Lazarus resurrection and Jesus' own body resurrection.
Jesus' spiritual resurrection is the main thing, it did not happen so that we believe the gospel but it happened as it is necessary and thus we shall also go through if we continue in faith. It means victory.

So by answer this question, he means refute this nonsequatious logic.

The author has read the comments and has responded as follows: The comments, by large, argue of points B,C,D,E,F. These points were intended as merely additions to the point A, which if point A cannot be refuted, resurrection does not get off the ground.
May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.
Also, I have many refutations to those who argue of point B,C,D,E,F. However, as said previously, without refuting A, those points are redundant.

That's along the lines of what *I* am wondering... coz the OP later says,



Okay, so I'm in the process of trying to SEARCH for my posts re: Point A.


But I'm wondering what he would say in order to "refute" the point I made on his Point "D" (in my Post #7 [not fully developed there])?? ...that it would be a "circular argument" somehow, for the nameless writer of the Book we call "John" to have SAID OF HIMSELF that he is the writer of the Book and that he indeed witnessed His resurrection?? Is that the argument/refutation? (and NOT REALLY because other ppl have said the writer wasn't "John"?? [so what if it wasn't?? I don't believe it WAS John.])

Would like to hear a little of the refutation on my comments made on his Point "D"

May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.

The author has read the comments and has responded as follows:

The comments, by large, argue of points B,C,D,E,F. These points were intended as merely additions to the point A, which if point A cannot be refuted, resurrection does not get off the ground.
May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.
Also, I have many refutations to those who argue of point B,C,D,E,F. However, as said previously, without refuting A, those points are redundant.

The Reserection:

A)
Flawed Assumption:
Christianity takes for granted the assumption that if we indeed knew for sure that Jesus was in fact resurrected, then this would conclusively establish Jesus’ status as God/the Son of God, thereby validating everything Jesus said and taught, which would in turn set Christianity on a solid foundation – except that there’s a question as to whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead. But the entire above-assumption is flawed! That is, even if we knew that Jesus was resurrected, and that he affected his own resurrection, it still would tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus had any special kinship to God or whether or not he was the long-awaited Messiah; and without proof for those specific claims, Christianity doesn’t get off the ground.

The author has read the comments and has responded

B) A logical point which even a Christian would need to agree too, considering its inherent logic.
That is, even according to Christians (who accept the “Old Testament”), death came into existence as a result of very specific circumstances – this being Adam’s primordial sin, the context of which was unrestrained indulgence in physical desires. It follows that anyone who manages to completely rectify this topic, training himself to engage in physical pleasure in complete accordance with God’s will, but not at all for selfish reasons, thereby repairs the damage caused by Adam’s sin – at least as far as what’s relevant to that individual, and he can thereby become exempt of the decree of death.

Thomas said he would not believe until he did that and Jesus invited him to, but it is not recorded that Thomas actually did so.

Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where
the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25b)

When Jesus appeared eight day later, He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (v. 27)

That is immediately followed by: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas said he would not believe until he did that and Jesus invited him to, but it is not recorded that Thomas actually did so.

Thomas: "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where
the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25b)

When Jesus appeared eight day later, He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my
hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (v. 27)

That is immediately followed by: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

You misquoted me, i said "nothing other than signs", if you stop at nothing, then we have a different meaning.

Heb 2:This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.

Signs and wonders had their place in preaching the gospel and that includes Lazarus resurrection and Jesus' own body resurrection.
Jesus' spiritual resurrection is the main thing, it did not happen so that we believe the gospel but it happened as it is necessary and thus we shall also go through if we continue in faith. It means victory.

True but still, resurrection is spiritual and not physical. You see, Jesus had to resurrect physically so that the gospel may be preached, otherwise, how would anyone dare say "...our Lord died and resurrected..." when people would confirm His rotting body in the tomb?!, it wouldn't make any sense, would it?
Even Jesus Himself said the sign of Jonah was for a perverse generation who are always after a sign instead of receiving these things by faith.

This below, was the real resurrection of Jesus:

Matt 27:50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.

Some may need 100% proof to believe as far as my opinion I need 0% proof

The Reserection:

A)
Flawed Assumption:
Christianity takes for granted the assumption that if we indeed knew for sure that Jesus was in fact resurrected, then this would conclusively establish Jesus’ status as God/the Son of God, thereby validating everything Jesus said and taught, which would in turn set Christianity on a solid foundation – except that there’s a question as to whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead. But the entire above-assumption is flawed! That is, even if we knew that Jesus was resurrected, and that he affected his own resurrection, it still would tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus had any special kinship to God or whether or not he was the long-awaited Messiah; and without proof for those specific claims, Christianity doesn’t get off the ground.

B) A logical point which even a Christian would need to agree too, considering its inherent logic.
That is, even according to Christians (who accept the “Old Testament”), death came into existence as a result of very specific circumstances – this being Adam’s primordial sin, the context of which was unrestrained indulgence in physical desires. It follows that anyone who manages to completely rectify this topic, training himself to engage in physical pleasure in complete accordance with God’s will, but not at all for selfish reasons, thereby repairs the damage caused by Adam’s sin – at least as far as what’s relevant to that individual, and he can thereby become exempt of the decree of death.

C)
There are two individuals that even the Christians agree had complete control over death, and yet it has never entered the mind of any Christian that either of those individuals had Divine kinship or were the long-awaited Mashiach. Eliyahu and Elisha. That is, we find that Eliyahu resurrected a child in Melachim Aleph 17:17-24 and that Elisha resurrected a child in Melachim Bet 4:32-36 – narratives that every believing Christian acknowledges happened. Although Eliyahu and Elisha resurrected someone, still, did it ever enter the thought of any Christian that because of this, either one of them is God/the Son of God or the Messiah?! Surely not. And why not? Because that’s just not the logical implication of being able to resurrect someone and having power over death.

D)
Even if the prevouis points are false. Prove it happend:
None of the resurrection accounts were definitively written by eyewitnesses. That is, the Gospel of Mark abruptly stops early-on in its resurrection narrative, and Luke’s author was, according to all opinions, not a direct disciple of Jesus who even claims to have himself seen Jesus in a resurrected state. As for the Gospels of Mathew and John that although there are those who believe that these works were written by the Apostles of those names, the mainstream opinion of scholars – even Christian ones (based on internal evidence) is that in both cases, Jesus’ own disciples who bore those names were not the ones who wrote these two volumes. And even if there are attempts to claim otherwise, still, when fighting the status quo, only definitive information is relevant. As such, since concerning Mathew and John there’s a significant scholarly belief that these Gospels were not authored by the Apostles – and thus not by direct witnesses to Jesus’ supposed arising from the dead, so this alone is enough to make any claims of “eyewitness testimony” to the resurrection inconclusive, and so useless in regards to the need for Christians to bring bonafide proof for their anti-Old Testament claims.

In any event, the open contradictions between the three Gospels that do discuss Jesus’ resurrection (whereby Mathew states that he met with his disciples in specifically the Galilee, Luke states that he met with them specifically in Jerusalem, and John says that he met with them in both), not to mention that at the point where the Gospel of Mark’s narrative ends, the Gospels of Mathew and Luke – which both built off of the text of Mark – significantly diverge, all show how vague the matter is. And here too, it should once again be emphasized that although Christians can theoretically reconcile the aforementioned
contradictions, still, as touched upon , such an “excuse for a discrepancy” is good in a vacuum, but not if you’re coming to argue on the status quo based on the supposed resurrection. In different words, the contradictions alone highlight that we’re dealing with a tradition that’s in-any-event-dubious-enough to not be usable against the status quo.

E)
When God first gave the Torah at Har Sinai (which is again, something that any believing Christian acknowledges happened), it was a nationally witnessed event, that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, saw. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection was at most witnessed by relatively few individuals whose identity is generally not known. Logic dictates that a non-nationally-witnessed-event does not have the ability to cancel out a nationally-witnessed event – period.

F)
Another point to consider is that even if Jesus arose from the dead, this tells us nothing about Jesus’ own powers (as the Christian claim that it does), since maybe he was resurrected by God, and not that he engendered his own resurrection. You claim that in arising from the dead, it shows that Jesus himself had the power to overcome death. So regarding this detail we’re noting that simply getting resurrected doesn’t prove anything about the powers of the person who gets resurrected. This can be seen clearly from the story of the individuals in Tanach that were resurrected by Eliyahu (in Melachim Aleph 17:17-24) and Elisha (in Melachim Bet 4:32-36), whereby not the slightest claim is made that the individuals that got resurrected by them were in any way special, or possessing of special powers.

And when Thomas calls Jesus Lord God, He says of Thomas 'you believe'

I needed evidence and it was given to me through personal empirical experiences, and it is promised to those who sincerely seek that they shall find. Though truthfully evidence is not proof, there really is a lot of evidence, evidence which many if not most, especially those that are perishing, the natural man as it were, reject. Any who, this same subject came up with Bob and I recently, and I do not mean to be a stickler for details but I am LOLHey, @posthuman is it true that proofs are for alcohol and math?

Ooo boy, I could get really long-winded here ^ ... will TRY to make my comments very brief (hard to do, on this ^ , LOL)

Let's see... where to start (sorry if this is choppy, tryin to make it short):

• I do not believe that what we call "The Gospel of John" was written by John [internal and external evidences, won't go into here]

• the writer of the Book of John [not John] was indeed "witness" to His resurrection, and was the ONLY person of whom it was said (in the text of John 20:8, in the scene of the empty tomb) "and he saw [the linen cloths (from prev. verse)] AND BELIEVED" [NOTE: this was NOT said of "Peter" who was with him, in that scene; it is ONLY said of THIS ONE GUY (one of His "disciples," to be sure," but NOT one of "the 12" or even "the 11")]; Verse 9 goes on to say, "FOR AS YET they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead" (but of THIS ONE GUY it is said that "he saw [the linen cloths] AND BELIEVED"--not said of Peter!)
  
  
  
• later that same evening (I believe fairly late), in Mark 16:14, Jesus "[Later] as they were eating, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen." ["those who had seen Him" would have included "Mary Magdalene" of whom vv.9-11 had this to say, "9 And having risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10 She having gone, told it to those having been with Him, mourning and weeping. 11 And they having heard that He is alive and has been seen by her, disbelieved." (so all of "the Eleven" were included in this "rebuke" by Jesus in the later v.14 setting---it just says "the Eleven" were the object of this "rebuke," not "that other disciple" at the empty tomb with Peter early in the day... it seems that when "he SAW [the linen cloths] AND BELIEVED" that this was because of a prior, um [lacking the word I want here] inclination/knowing/understanding, if you will--recall, this is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" who is the writer of this Book/Gospel... but regardless, he is indeed witness to His resurrection, for we also see him later also in the John 21:20-23 scene [where Peter had said, "I go a fishing," v.3; and the text says, "This is now THE THIRD TIME that Jesus showed himself to his disciples [there were more than just 12 disciples, altogether, recall! (tho 7 are here in THIS scene)] AFTER that he was risen from the dead" v.14)]

...I forget what else I wanted to point out about that... oh well (it'll probably come to me )