Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[rakovsky]

Which of the disciples was a witness to Jesus' nativity?

Which of the disciples was privy to what the devil said and did to Jesus in the desert?

Which of the disciples was witness to what Joseph dreamed?

Which of the disciples was there when God (a.k.a. Holy Phantasm) raped and committed adultery with Mary (and incest since she was also his mother )?

Which of the disciples was old enough to see and understand what transcribed between Mary and Elizabeth while they were both pregnant with god's "help"?

Was any of the disciples even born yet to watch and hear what the angel said to Zacharias?

Which of the disciples was witness to what John the Baptist did and said to Jesus let alone the Holy Spook?

Which of the disciples was there when Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin?

Which of the disciples sat on the trial with Pilot?

Which of the disciples was invited to the birthday dinner party Herod threw for his chiefs to see and hear the dancing and conversation that led to the beheading of John the Baptist.

Which of the disciples heard Jesus beg his father to reprieve him from having to undergo the bloody human sacrifice that this nasty father ordained Jesus had to suffer?

One of them could have been at a few of those things (like John the Baptist's interaction), and could have heard about it from other people (Mary or a soldier sympathetic to Christians).

 

[Slowvehicle]

One of them could have been at a few of those things (like John the Baptist's interaction), and could have heard about it from other people (Mary or a soldier sympathetic to Christians).

The technical term for this is, "not an eyewitness".

 

[Leumas]

One of them could have been at a few of those things (like John the Baptist's interaction), and could have heard about it from other people (Mary or a soldier sympathetic to Christians).

Which one of the disciples had god-like oversight powers to be able to observe the Devil's and Jesus' actions and conversations?

One of them could have been at a few of those things (like John the Baptist's interaction), and could have heard about it from other people (Mary or a soldier sympathetic to Christians).

Which one of the NOT YET DISCIPLES was there at Jesus' baptism?

Did you read the NT? Did you read how every one of the disciples did not even know who Jesus was when he came to recruit them into his cult?

Did you read the NT? Which one of the disciples saw GOD SPEAKING FROM THE SKY to Jesus and tell him that he is his son and yet later had doubts about who Jesus was... was it Thomas?

One of them could have been at a few of those things (like John the Baptist's interaction), and could have heard about it from other people (Mary or a soldier sympathetic to Christians).

So the disciples who have not been born yet were present during the rape session of Mary and saw that it was the Holy Spook indeed who impregnated her?

Some of the disciples could have participated with the very same dream that Joseph had?

While Jesus and John B were inside their mothers' wombs one of the disciples was watching and recording word for word what they said to each other and how the fetus John B was so moved by the presence of the fetus Jesus?

Mary telling the disciples that Jesus is the bastard son of the Holy Casper regardless of how gullible the disciples were does not make the disciples or the gospel writers eyewitnesses to the claim.

Besides the NT does not say that Mary told them that that is what happened… the NT as is written tells the story as if it is what happened… it does not say Mary claimed this… it says this IS what happened.

Mary telling them that Jesus is the result of an adultery and rape session with a phantasmal manifestation of YHWH and given what she had at stake in defending herself is a very doubtable claim.

The disciples later reporting it as if it is what happened without any hint of how it is a claimed report makes it a misleading hearsay of an anecdote at least if not a lie .... and people much later reporting to the people who later reported to the people who wrote the gospels makes it repeated compounded hearsay on top of hearsay on top of an incredible anecdote.

People in the 21st century pathetically and credulously repeating and believing and gullibly defending the fabulous compounded hearsay on top of hearsay of incredible anecdotes is nothing but a humongous shame and insult to rationality and logic and sanity and intelligence.

One of them could have been at a few of those things (like John the Baptist's interaction), and could have heard about it from other people (Mary or a soldier sympathetic to Christians).

Seriously? What Christians? There were no Christians yet… at that time they were still a handful of peripatetic beggars and filthy jobless hobos going around begging and telling people the world is about to end. Much like many of the crazy people we see on street corners and parks in big cities like New York and London and Paris and Athens and Istanbul and Los Angeles etc.

And what is a "SOLDIER sympathetic to Christians" doing still soldiering in the service of a despotic tyrant? Why was he not hoboing around with Jesus?

A SOLDIER sympathetic to the yet nonexistent Christianity who is GREEDY and COWARDLY and pathetic enough to still be soldiering in a despot’s army telling the disciples what could have been fabricated stuff to curry favors or even deceive does not make the disciples or the gospel writers eyewitnesses to the claim.

Besides the NT does not say that an unnamed nice soldier told them that that is what happened… The NT as is written tells the story as if it is what happened… it does not say a soldier still working for a despot despite being a nice soldier claimed this... it says this IS what happened.

A soldier telling them what could have been a fabricated tall tale to gain favor or even mislead and the disciples later reporting it as if it is what happened without any hint of how it is a claimed report makes it a misleading hearsay of an anecdote at least if not a lie .... and people much later reporting to the people who later reported to the people who wrote the gospels makes it repeated compounded hearsay on top of hearsay on top of an anecdote.

People in the 21st century pathetically and credulously repeating and believing and gullibly defending the fabulous compounded hearsay on top of hearsay of incredible anecdotes is nothing but a humongous shame and insult to rationality and logic and sanity and intelligence.

 

[Leumas]

The passages don't say that Jesus wasn't kissed by Judas, nor do they say that Peter didn't cut the ear.

The writer Luke says:

After that, Judas could have kissed Jesus.

You do know that Wishful Thinking is an illogical fallacy...right?

I could say that

After that, Judas could have proceeded to have a ménage à trois with Jesus and the almost naked young man who Mark says ran away later.​

Or I could say

Judas and Jesus had a homosexual relationship and Judas kissing Jesus and Jesus kissing him back with a wet kiss was the proof the Sanhedrin needed to arrest Jesus as a SODOMITE.... see below for more details.​

Do you accept my version of MADE UP NEW Luke's gospel?

You saying "he could have kissed him" means you are FABRICATING stuff which Luke does not say.

Luke's gospel as it stands says

He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?​

It does not say he later kissed him despite Jesus rebuking him for ATTEMPTING to betray him with a kiss. It says he APPROACHED .... BUT....

I have always wondered why Judas needed to point out Jesus with a kiss, couldn't he just point at him or even touch him on the shoulder?

Maybe the Sanhedrin arrested Judas as a sodomite and they offered him a deal to out Jesus as one too. Of course they could not just take his word for it, so they needed Judas to give Jesus a good passionate wet kiss and if Jesus participated and kissed back then that would be a good proof.

Do we have any evidence for that?

From here

Both Matthew (26:47–50) and Mark (14:43–45) use the Greek verb kataphilein, which means to kiss firmly, intensely, passionately, tenderly, or warmly. It is the same verb that Plutarch uses to describe a famous kiss that Alexander the Great gave Bagoas.​

Bagoas

Bagoas (Old Persian: Bagoi, Ancient Greek: Βαγώας Bagōas) was a eunuch in the Persian Empire in the 4th Century BCE, said to have been the catamite of Darius III, and later the Eromenos (Beloved) of Alexander the Great.​

catamite

In its modern usage the term catamite refers to a boy as the passive or receiving partner in anal intercourse with a man.[1]

In its ancient usage a catamite (Latin catamitus) was a pubescent boy who was the intimate companion of a young man in ancient Greece and Rome, usually in a pederastic relationship.[2] It was usually a term of affection and literally means "Ganymede" in Latin. It was also used as a term of insult when directed toward a grown man
​

 

[rakovsky]

You do know that Wishful Thinking is an illogical fallacy...right?

I could say that

After that, Judas could have proceeded to have a ménage à trois with Jesus and the almost naked young man who Mark says ran away later.​

Or I could say

Judas and Jesus had a homosexual relationship and Judas kissing Jesus and Jesus kissing him back with a wet kiss was the proof that the Sanhedrin needed to arrest Jesus as a SODOMITE.... see below for more details.​

Do you accept my version of MADE UP NEW Luke's gospel?

You saying "he could have kissed him" means you are FABRICATING stuff which Luke does not say.

Luke's gospel as it stands says

He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?​

It does not say he later kissed him despite Jesus rebuking him for ATTEMPTING to betray him with a kiss. It says he APPROACHED .... BUT....

Hello. That is an interesting point about the kiss, Leumas.

Because there were many pilgrims around, it was necessary to have a sign (the kiss) to identify Jesus. If there had been a struggle the wrong man might have been arrested, especially in the dark. A kiss was normal enough; it was the way a pupil greeted a Rabbi, and Jesus had been a teacher to Judas. Mark, writing in Greek, uses an emphatic form of the verb katephilesen. Judas kissed Jesus with more than usual fervour and affection.
http://www.jesus-story.net/betrayal.htm

I can see how the word "but" can mean that it didn't happen, but that is not necessarily so, as in:

The policeman walked over to give me a citation for an expired meter, but I asked him "Do you have to do that?" He replied: "Yes", and gave me a ticket anyway."

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hello. That is an interesting point about the kiss, Leumas.

I can see how the word "but" can mean that it didn't happen, but that is not necessarily so, as in:

The policeman walked over to give me a citation for an expired meter, but I asked him "Do you have to do that?" He replied: "Yes", and gave me a ticket anyway."

None of which has anything to do with the fact that the "witnesses" who disagree on so many prominent points about the crucifiction and the "resurrection" are the same "witnesses" that do not agree at all about the "birth" of the "messiah". Those self-same "witnesses" do not agree on major details of his "ministry".

As would be expected from hearsay collected a quarter-century after the supposed events...

 

[Leumas]

Anyway, if there are discrepancies in texts or contradictions, it doesn't mean they are lying....

....

If Luke, who wrote his texts and already had Mark's gospel available, wanted to make up the story, he would be more likely to copy such simple details instead of creating contradictions. So those kinds of contradictions in details can serve as contradictions.

You do know that Luke was not a disciple...right?

Luke 1:1-4

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.​

Notice how Luke does not claim that he was a witness himself... nor does he even say that he was there at the time.

He claims to have "perfect understanding" of what has been "set forth" by those people who have been "delivered" those "facts" which THEY BELIEVE and those "facts" have been "delivered" to them from those who were witnesses.

So Luke is saying that he was not a witness and he says he was not a disciple. He also is saying that he did not talk to the disciples or witnesses himself.

He only says that he has a "perfect understanding" of those early "facts" and thus wishes to write his own EXPLICATION of the accounts that "they delivered them unto us" so that Theophilus can understand them more clearly.

Yet there is not a single verse in Luke’s god-spiel that says "so and so said this is what happened" or "it was claimed that this occurred" or "so and so said this and I have these proofs for it" or "it was wrongly claimed this and that which I have verified to have been not true because of the following".

Instead he just writes his god-spiel as if he were there and he were telling us pure facts that he knew for sure first hand were true.

For example

Luke 1:5

1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea Long long ago in a land far far away, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.​

Does this sound like a REPORT or a TALE?

In the stuff below… how does Luke know that an angel did in fact appear to Zacharias? Which of the so called witnesses was in the temple with Zacharias to verify the “fact”? Could Zacharias have been fibbing? Could he have been delusional?

How did Luke verify the veracity of the TALE even if it had been handed down by the so called witnesses which Luke only knows about from the people the alleged witnesses purportedly told it to?

It is quite obvious that the “witnesses” were not even born by that time.

So the “witnesses” were only reporting a TALE they heard from other people… and Luke heard those tales from people who claim the witnesses told them… so Luke was reporting HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY and making it appear as if it is pure fact which he claims he had “perfect understanding” of and he wants Theophilus to believe it too as if it were real true facts.

Which of the “witnesses” was there to transcribe the details of the “he said and he answered” between Zacharias and Gabriel?

So the purported witnesses are alleged to have heard the claimed tale and to have supposedly retold it to the people who claim to have heard it from the so called witnesses and from there Luke managed to get a "perfect understanding" of these anecdotes of hearsay of anecdotes of hearsay.

How did those “witnesses” get into the head of Zacharias to know he was troubled? How did they get into the heads of the multitude to verify that they did in fact think Zacharias had seen a vision?

Does all this sound more like a LITERARY TALE… much like a writer of a story like say Beewolf or King Arthur and Merlin would tell us what went through the head of Arthur or what Merlin told Arthur?

Luke 1:11-23

1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
1:12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

1:22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
1:23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.​

 

[Leumas]

Hello. That is an interesting point about the kiss, Leumas.



I can see how the word "but" can mean that it didn't happen, but that is not necessarily so, as in:

The policeman walked over to give me a citation for an expired meter, but I asked him "Do you have to do that?" My children and wife asked me if they should hit the policeman and my wife went ahead and punched his partner in the face. I told my family to stop and just accept what is happening because God said it should happen. Then the other policemen arrested me (but not my wife). He replied: "Yes", and gave me a ticket anyway.".

Your example does not tally with the tale in Luke... so I corrected it to be more akin to the one in Luke.

Now read it again.... do you still think he went ahead and gave the ticket or did he just go on with the arrest without giving the ticket?

But, this is POINTLESS .... what remains is that THERE IS A DISCREPANCY between the TALES as told by the four god-spiels.

They are tales of HEARSAY compounded upon hearsay of hearsay of anecdotes and allegations of hearsay of anecdotes and allegations.

Do you know how many versions of Cinderella or King Arthur and Merlin there are?

Are the contradictions between the versions of Cinderella or Merlin only a natural result of the human fallibility of the Witnesses of the Cinderella or Camelot HISTORY?

 

[Leumas]

Hello. That is an interesting point about the kiss, Leumas.

Thanks! I appreciate that you think it is interesting.

What do you think of this

Consider this funny story of what may have occurred on a sleepy afternoon eons ago:

The scene: God and Satan are discussing the design of humans on a dull afternoon.

G: I am going to create humans and give them wisdom and goodness and they will love me.

S: So you are going to make them worship you?

G: No...that defeats the purpose... They will do it out of reverence to me.

S: Ah....but that is no good either. They can't help but revere you if they know you and see you.

G: Yeah....isn't that the point?

S: Not really.... that doesn't prove anything if they love you just because you do things for them and they can see you as a guardian and protector. They would be morons if they don't and YOU cannot create morons can you?

G: No... I cannot create morons...you are right. But Hmmmmm....you are right. How can I test that they would love me for me and not for the things I do for them?

S: If I may suggest something?

G: Well....go ahead!

S: I think that you should NEVER EVER show yourself to them. If before they go extinct they have come to conclude that you are THE GOD then that shows they were sufficiently clever and a testament to your creative wisdom.

G: OK…. I will just help them ANONYMOUSLY.

S: Oh no....that won't do. If you help them that would be a dead give away...no?

G: Ok...then I will just make sure no calamities would ever befall them.

S: Oh...no that won't do either…. What kind of test is that? If nothing bad happens despite which they loved you then what kind of character test is that?

G: Hmmm....ok... I will just let them be on their own and if they grow to love me then we know they loved me for me and not just because I helped them out.

S: But that is not enough.

G: What now....what else do you want me to do.

S: Well....One has a choice only if one has things to choose from. If there are no other temptations how can we know that they chose at all? We need to tempt them away from you and if they resist then we know how clever they are.

G: I don't like this. After all I love them and you now have me rain hell on them and not help them and then you want me to also DECEIVE them too?

S: Well....it is up to you....but if you really want to be sure!

G: What do you propose then?

S: Here are my rules for the bet:

• You leave them all alone. You never show yourself or manifest any sign or indication of your existence.
• They are to be left to fend for themselves against all natural disasters and diseases and so forth.
• Every now and then, I will make sure to pretend to be some God and try to convince man to worship me as if I am the real god. I will also make sure that I do that many times in various places at the same time.
• Let’s say I do that for 10 million years.
• At the end of that time, if there are any humans who are not fooled by the myriad of godly disguises and are in fact not worshiping any of these disguises then YOU win.
• I get to keep the souls of the ones that fall for my shams. YOU get the ATHEISTS.

G: Even the atheists that are killers and rapists? What about the theists that are good and their only fault is that they fell for the ruses?

S: Well….what do you want?

G: Any people who harm other people and have made any others miserable you get whether they fell for your ruses or not. Any ones that have been kind and never intentionally or directly harmed anyone I get whether they fell for your ruses or not.

S: That is not fair. I should get all the ones that worshiped me in any guise regardless. After all I can make a case that by worshiping my hoaxes they wasted valuable time that they could have better devoted to other tasks that could have benefited humanity more.

G: Look…. I don’t like you taking ANY souls. What are you going to do with them anyway… No…. my decision is final. I agree to all your proposals EXCEPT let’s just have it so that all people who die just stay that way….except for the ones that do bad stuff….them… you get to torture for a million year and then extinguish.

S: So even the good ones just die?

G: Yes…all just die but for the bad ones whom you get for a million years and then you extinguish them and we are done.

S: So….let’s be clear about the terms:

• You never ever interfere or show your face.
• I get to do what I want.
• If by the end of 10 million years there are good atheists….you win….otherwise you lose.

G: OK….you are on……

S: How many matches do you want to play?​

 

[Sherman Bay]

I placed a '67 Dodge Dart in orbit around one of the stars in the Andromeda galaxy. Can you prove it isn't there?

Prove it? I can't even see it! There's a very large teapot in the way.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Prove it? I can't even see it! There's a very large teapot in the way.

I wondered what the rustling sound was.

 

[Ladewig]

Anyway, if there are discrepancies in texts or contradictions, it doesn't mean they are lying. One professor had a few men come into a room and fight each other and leave. He later asked his rooms of students how many people were in the group, and students gave different answers (from 5 to 6), even though they had just seen the same thing.

I suppose I could accept contradictions, apparent contradictions, and discrepancies a lot easier if every fourth Christian I meet online did not insist that the Bible is the inerrant and unchangeable Word of God. An inviolate, consecrated Message that must be accepted in its entirety as written.

Furthermore, I would hope that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omni-loving, Eternal Being would make sure that each jot and tittle were perfectly placed if the stakes consisted of billions of human souls spending eternity in unimaginable bliss or unimaginable agony. Especially if this Eternal Being Himself were responsible for everyone speaking a different language.

 

[Leumas]

I suppose I could accept contradictions, apparent contradictions, and discrepancies a lot easier if every fourth Christian I meet online did not insist that the Bible is the inerrant and unchangeable Word of God. An inviolate, consecrated Message that must be accepted in its entirety as written.

Furthermore, I would hope that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omni-loving, Eternal Being would make sure that each jot and tittle were perfectly placed if the stakes consisted of billions of human souls spending eternity in unimaginable bliss or unimaginable agony. Especially if this Eternal Being Himself were responsible for everyone speaking a different language.

Exactly!

Well said....exactly right.

If god had anything to do with the bible - whether authoring it directly or inspiring it to the writers who just jotted down what he was inspiring them with or even general inspirational outlines after which he left the writers to fill in the blanks - s/he/it should have at the very least ensured its correctness and comprehensibility if not also its continued validity along the ages.

Never mind the consideration that the Bible being in any way "divinely related" is automatic interference with free-will.

But if there is any divine spark in the Bible then either this divinity is the most incompetent fool or the most heinous devil.

And all this talk about metaphor and mistranslation and interpolation or missing bits or scribal slips should not pass muster with anyone who is not trying to alleviate a most severe cognitive dissonance.

If an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent being is involved in giving humanity a book that is supposed to convey his wishes and commandments and moral edicts as the path to ETERNAL SALVATION then the book should be utterly and totally comprehensible to anyone who reads it even if the pages were in fact BLANK PAGES let alone in the right language or correctly transcribed.

Even if the pages were EMPTY this divine book should convey the correct message to its onlookers.
And the message conveyed should be RELEVANT to the reader's culture and epoch as well as current knowledge of reality.

Even if some scribe slipped or mistranslated or deliberately forged it, the MIRACULOUS words should be self-correcting.... in fact there should not be a need for words in the first place.... the DIVINE book should miraculously show the words in the correct language and so forth to its reader.

Of course that is assuming that the Divinity is in fact omnipotent and omniscient but above all omnibenevolent.

If a divinity wanted to cause strife and mayhem and schisms and atrocities between humans throughout the ages I doubt he could have done any better than the Bible/Quran.

So if this divinity is in fact A DEVIL then yes the Bible is his book.
...

 

[tsig]

When one makes a claim, the person making the claim has a burden of proof. So someone claiming that the Resurrection occurred has the burden of prove if they want to show it. Otherwise, the claim remains unproven, lacking a sufficient basis for belief. However, this does not necessarily mean that the claim is incorrect.

For example, imagine that a 17th century world traveler claimed that he saw a large land lizard with deadly saliva in the region of Indonesia, where he also found plants that trap animals as big as birds and rats to eat. Now, that traveler might describe what he saw, but so long as he did not actually bring back any specimens and no one else confirmed his reports, a scholar could have been very skeptical. Scientists could rightly state that he/she did not do enough to prove his/her very unusual claim, and that the world traveler could be a sensationalist who misportrayed what/he she saw.

Now in reality, such unusual creatures do exist as the explorer described, and the mere fact that he failed to prove them to his colleagues didn't mean that they did not exist. Thus, simply because a claimant failed to meet his burden of proof doesn't mean necessarily that something doesn't exist.

This leads me to ask my main question:
Can one not only effectively question proofs of Jesus' resurrection, but also "prove a negative" and disprove that event?

To give another example, the Mormons claim that the Native Americans came from the ancient Israelites. For a long time this idea had a certain currency outside Mormon circles of the time. However, now with effective DNA research, that Mormon claim can be successfully disproved.

To return to the question about Christianity, are there actually strong proofs that successfully prove that the Resurrection was not just extremely scientifically unlikely/miraculous, but also clearly did not happen?

The main reason I can think of to disprove it is the one I mentioned in passing above- scientific unlikelihood. Actually, I think it might happen that people who have been dead for a short period of time come back to life/resuscitate. Usually in such cases the physicians say that the victims did not have an identifiable sign of life. But perhaps the person's life was simply so weak that it was not detected and thus the person actually remained alive the whole time they were thought to be alive.

But the main miracles go beyond just resuscitation after clinical death to include virgin birth and Ascension. As for those cases, it's outside of our knowledge of science and our experience in the world that people are born of virgins and visibly ascend after death. I suppose that theoretically a virgin could conceive but it's next to impossible. And I suppose that ghosts exist and can be seen by people, but it would be even more unlikely for multiple people to watch them at length ascend to the sky.

Thus, from a purely scientific standpoint, these events are next to impossible. Yet for believers, the justification is made that God can do anything, and so they look to signs like ancient prophecies (Psalm 22) that God would perform resurrection. Still, scientific unlikelihood is a major objection.

With that in mind, are there still more proofs that the Resurrection didn't occur?

Nothing changed, the world is the same now as it was before Jesus came so if he came to change the world it didn't happen.

 

[SezMe]

I beg to differ. Now about 1.3 billion people waste their time and money in a way not possible before Jebus popped out like a watermelon seed at a spitting contest.

 

[Craig B]

Nothing changed, the world is the same now as it was before Jesus came so if he came to change the world it didn't happen.

This problem arose at an early date. It's even in the New Testament. The author of the late NT book, 2 Peter, found himself confronted with

3 ... scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

He had an answer, though it's a bit threadbare by now.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Well if a thousand years are as one day, so two thousand years is as a mere two days. No problem. And maybe people have taken a bit longer to come to repentance than the Lord foresaw back then.

 

[dejudge]

This problem arose at an early date. It's even in the New Testament. The author of the late NT book, 2 Peter, found himself confronted with He had an answer, though it's a bit threadbare by now.

You seem to have made up that story because you have no evidence at all to corroborate what you claim.

Please, tell us the historical source which support your statement "this problem arose at an early date."

According to Eusebius 2 Peter is a forgery and does NOT belong in the Canon.

Church History 3.3.1

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...

Why do you rely on discredited sources [fiction and forgeries] of the Christian Bible and do so WITHOUT corroboration?

Well if a thousand years are as one day, so two thousand years is as a mere two days. No problem. And maybe people have taken a bit longer to come to repentance than the Lord foresaw back then.

Based on the statement in 2 Peter if a thousand years is one day and one day a thousand years then two thousands years can be 2 days OR about 730 thousands years.

Essentially, the statement in 2 Peter is complete ignorance.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you know how many versions of Cinderella or King Arthur and Merlin there are?

Are the contradictions between the versions of Cinderella or Merlin only a natural result of the human fallibility of the Witnesses of the Cinderella or Camelot HISTORY?

A better example might be a story about one man who almost certainly did not exist as a true historical character, but was probably based on a number of characters who existed in the 12th & 13th century but who weren't formally written about until 100-300 years after he was alleged to have been alive, and even then, only based on folk ballads and lore handed down through oral tradition..... "How many versions of Robin Hood are there?"

 

[Leumas]

A better example might be a story about one man who almost certainly did not exist as a true historical character, but was probably based on a number of characters who existed in the 12th & 13th century but who weren't formally written about until 100-300 years after he was alleged to have been alive, and even then, only based on folk ballads and lore handed down through oral tradition..... "How many versions of Robin Hood are there?"

Yes indeed... that is a very good equivalent in many ways.

I wonder if we would get such devoted apologetics and semantic gaming to try to argue that Little John was a real witness and his version although contradictory in many important ways to that of Friar Tuck is still as equally an accurate eyewitness testimony of the history of Robin?

I also wonder if anyone calling the whole thing a fabulous myth would be labeled as a nasty fundamentalist a-Robinist just as bad as the really fundamentalist Robinists who insist that Robin and his merry band really wore green tights and feathered pointy hats a la Errol Flynn movies... by liberal Robinists who think the hats are a metaphor ... and just as vehemently (or more so) by self-acclaimed nice and reformed ex-nasty a-Robinists who also hold that the whole thing is a big giant allegory and should be equally an admissible belief as the belief of the nasty fundamentalist a-Robinists?

[imgw=300]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Robin_hood_movieposter.jpg[/imgw][imgw=230]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/StJohnsAshfield_StainedGlass_GoodShepherd-frame_crop.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Leumas]

<Merciful snip>

Christianity
<Blessed snip>

Judaism/Christianity/Islam
<Holy snip> {Make sure you read that carefully}

And? Other than those minor bagatelles, what's the problem?

Don't get me started!

Originally Posted by Leumas

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke
Let the sanctified white marry a sanctified white---let the sanctified black marry a sanctified black.

The purpose of the Evil one is to eliminate the whites, by intermarriage. God said do not intermarry people of a different culture.

Besides the sanctified black does not support Israel as a sovereign nation—so one wonders how sanctified they are.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke
The evidence, is that whoever supports Israel as being the legitimate occupants of the land of Israel will be blessed, and those who do not will be cursed.
►Genisis_12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

So once again here is a universal outcome that will determine the destiny of people.

So instead of dismissing the verse as the bigoted racist wishful-thinking of bronze-age huckstering priests writing for the proposes of bamboozling a population of benighted despairing sheep bewildered at the realities of the atrocities befalling them from all quarters, you opt to believe that the almighty creator of all things, the all beneficent all loving God of all the universe is a racist monster who decides that he will roast people for eternity unless they bow down and concede mental and cultural inferiority and slavish acquiescence to the superiority and exalted status of the Übermenschen chosen race?

Matthew 15:21-28

15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.​

So do you agree with Jesus’ abhorrently racist and despicable mistreatment of the woman in the above verses? Do you hold as fact that if you grovel and bow enough to the masters you will be allowed as a good dog to snout off of the floor some crumbs of YHWH’s salvation as they fall off under the tables of the Masters.

And who are these purported MASTERS that your all loving all just sky daddy of all things allegedly wants all humanity to truckle under and genuflect to?

They are the rationally and logically IMPOSSIBLE descendants after hundreds of generations of incestual inbreeding of 12 mythical sons from 4 mothers two of whom were sisters who in turn were first cousins of the father.

And who was this father according to the biblical fairy tales and myths?

He was Jacob (a.k.a. Israel) the effeminate mama's boy who would not even give a drink to his hardworking and providing manly brother when he was thirsty and with the help of his conniving scheming mother even cheated and deceived his father (and apparently YHWH too). He even would not accept YHWH as his god until this god promised to abide by a contractual agreement to enrich him and help him defeat his brother.

His mother was the first cousin to his father who was a coward who to save his skin pimped off his wife as his sister rather than defend her…. a trick he learned from his father before him.

Moreover, his grandmother was the half-sister to his grandfather who in fear for his cowardly yellow hind, pimped off this half-sister-wife and cashed in riches and slaves and wealth in return for his wife's "beauty".

To add even more astounding dimensions of absurdity to this myth-making and assault on intelligence, we are told that 10 of the tribes disappeared and most Jews today are supposed to be the ethnically pure descendants of Judah after he contracted his daughter-in-law as a street prostitute and impregnated her with twins, one of whose descendants went on to marry a woman from a tribe of people who supposedly descended from Moab.

And who is this Moab?

He is the resulting son after a girl raped her father who himself was in fact the nephew of the half-sister-wife-pimping yellow cowardly great-grandfather of Judah.

These are the MYTHICAL ethnically pure group of Übermenschen that the almighty all loving creator of all things supposedly chose ABOVE ALL people and decided that through them salvation will come only to the ones who accept their superiority above them or else there is going to be eternal burning.

How about almost the WHOLE WORLD believing without question or any second thought that nearly 17M people today who have phenotypes varying from blond-blue-eyed to black to Chinese, living on three continent (5 now) for the last 3500 years have maintained genetic homogeneity and racial autochthony as descendents of 12 brothers who are sons of 4 mothers two of whom are sisters who in turn are first cousins of the father who himself is the son of a mother who is the first cousin of his father who in turn is the son of a mother who is the half sister of his father.

Nearly 5.5 Billion people believe that these progeny that somehow miraculously defied all logic of biology, genetics, sociology and anthropology to maintain their autochthony by what could have only been perpetual Incestual Inbreeding are chosen above all people in the universe by the almighty creator of the universe to be a special treasure for him and have a perpetual divinely granted title deed to a piece of dirt where the creator of the universe JUSTIFIABLY asked them to genocide the previous inhabitants so as to take it over and build him a house designed by pagans and built by slaves and where they had to massacre thousands of animals almost daily because the smell of burning flesh was a sweet savory smell in his nostrils which then allowed him to forgive sins.

And what is even more mind boggling is that almost 5.5 billion people believe that this Incestually Inbred lot will have to be all gathered into Israel and either turn Muslim or Christian or stay Jewish before the End Of The World can be ushered in and preceded by wars and mayhem fought by them against the other illegitimate usurpers of their god. Even atheists and scientists believe in at least some of the above just because it was written in a book which by any common sense is no less a work of fiction than the Iliad or Jason and The Argonauts or Sinbad the Sailor or 1001 Arabian Nights. .... Another great testimonial to the Petri Dish Effect.