Do not discuss exams until 24 hours have passed. More information about the rules here.

ILoveJesus

Members
  • Content count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Unknown

About ILoveJesus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Exams
    May 2017
  • Country
    Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

1,975 profile views
  1. Check out the university requirements of the ones you're interested in. I know universities in Germany don't accept math studies.
  2. I just want to make people aware again that the majority of New Testament scholars (this includes many non-Christians) agree that - The tomb in which Jesus was buried after the crucifixion was found empty - Various people had experiences of appearances of Jesus alive after the crucifixion - Jesus' disciples suddenly came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It's amazing that most New Testament scholars actually agree on those facts. This data was gathered from historian Gary Habermas who reviewed all papers from relevant scholars on the historicity of Jesus since 1975. Here are some quotes by prominent NON-Christian NT scholars: "That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact." - E.P. Sanders "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection." - Bart Ehrman "The historical ground of Easter is very simple: the followers of Jesus, both then and now, continued to experience Jesus as a living reality after his death. In the early Christian community, these experiences included visions or apparitions of Jesus." - Marcus Borg The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. I don't have anything else to add.
  3. If Friday is day zero, and it touched day zero, day 1, and day 2, then it still touched three days. And yes in your example you will be considered to have been dead for 24 hours, but it would still have touched two days and not just one. So you're saying Jesus wasn't resurrected because he was fearing that the Jews would kill him. But dude, fear of someone killing you isn't the only reason you might want to hide from that someone. There could be plenty of reasons he hid from them besides fearing that they would kill him. They were his enemies. I watched it. But in the Bible it's clear that Mary Magdalene (and others) came to the tomb to anoint him with spices, which was a Jewish burial custom. So they thought he was dead, not alive.
  4. @talalrulezI will not get off this topic because it bothers me that you actually think that you've disproved the resurrection. Look, if Jesus was in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights where "three days and three nights" means "any time period that touches three days", and Jesus was in the heart of the earth Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, then he was in the heart of the earth for a time period that touches three days, so he was in the heart of the earth for "three days and three nights". No contradiction. Please explain to me how Paul saying "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) means that Jesus can't be resurrected. He cannot e referring tbJesus because Jesus isn't going to face judgement according to Paul. And even if you make the mistake of thinking that he does mean Jesus, saying that he died one doesn't contradict a resurrection. Answer two questions for me. Why would Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb mean that she knew he was alive? And why do you think that she's the only one who stayed with Jesus to the end according to the NT? According to the NT, the one who buried Jesus was Joseph of Arimathea.
  5. Like I made clear before, "3 days and 3 nights" was an old Jewish expression which meant any time period that touches three days. This time period touched Friday Saturday and Sunday, which is three days, regardless of what time it was. Also, you didn't even respond to my second explanation which is also plausible. I honestly don't even know where you're going with this. First, Mary Magdalene and the other women didn't know that he was resurrected, and even if the did, who cares? It just shows that they trusted Jesus . And then you talk about how the disciples only knew about Jesus' death because of gossip? Do you have any evidence for this? Of course Jesus' disciples knew that he would get crucified. And still, who cares? So basically you're saying that Jesus cannot have been physically resurrected because the bible states that every being has only one life and shall not be granted any more until judgement. The most similar verse I can find is Hebrews 9:27 which says "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment", New International Version (if you meant another verse please let me know). Saying that Jesus cannot be resurrected because of this verse is honestly silly. Do you really think that "people" refers to Jesus as well? Jesus wasn't just a mere person to Paul (the author) you know. Other translations say "man", but it's the same situation again. These objections are honestly silly. You're taking bible verses way too literally even though you know Jesus spoke in metaphors very frequently.
  6. Friday, Saturday, Sunday. That't three days. It definitely touched three days. And no I didn't watch them because I didn't think I needed to because I realized that I understand the argument you made. So how does he address the points?
  7. @talalrulez okay so the objection is that Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, but he was crucified on Friday and supposedly resurrected on the Sunday morning. That would only be two nights, so how come he said three nights? First, this question assumes that the Bible is reliable, so in my answer I can also assume that the Bible is reliable. And if that's the case, since the Bible also says that Jesus was resurrected, this isn't a problem for the resurrection. So the problem is that if we can rely on the Bible, why did Jesus say "three days and three nights", even though only two nights passed between his crucifixion and resurrection? So the resurrection isn't what's in question here. The thing in question is why Jesus said what he said. There are two very good explanations for this. 1. The term "Three days and three nights" was a Jewish expression that means "any period that touches three days, including the nights". I'll prove it right now: in 1 Samuel 30:11-13, there was a boy who hadn't eaten for "three days and three nights". And the boy said it started three days ago. Back then, three days ago included today. So if it was Friday, three days ago would mean Wednesday. And there are only two nights between Wednesday and Friday. So in reality it was only two nights, but "three days and three nights" is still used to express that. And the same goes for Jesus. 2. A different and interesting explanation is that "the heart of the earth" does not refer to death or the tomb. When Jesus says he will be in the heart of the earth, he could be reffering to his time of suffering for our sins. And this in fact starts on Thursday in the Garden of Gethsemane. So that would literally be three days and three nights. Whatever the explanation is, this issue is not very relevant because his disciples didn't seem to have any difficulties with this phrase. Nobody said "Wait a minute, you rose too early". Fact is that they did believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
  8. Okay it's a long video so I'll see when I can get to it. Might take a couple days.
  9. Which video was it?
  10. What I did was write the essay as a dialogue between two characters (pretty much what Plato did). It starts like "Hey insert name, I've come up with a statement: "Facts are needed to establish theories, but theories are needed to make sense of facts". Then I started discussing the statement and the other character kept making counter claims. And in the end I just discussed the implications their findings. Hope that might inspire someone.
  11. Why don't you sum up the arguments instead of sending hour-long videos? It is far from obvious that only Christians study the New Testament. Just because some historical documents aren't essential to your faith, doesn't mean you can't study it. In fact, if you already take the New Testament for granted, there is also less incentive to study it and verify its historicity. Here are a few prominent non-Christian NT scholars in case you don't believe me: EP Sanders, James Charlesworth, Michael Grant, Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes. And it still stands that the majority of scholars who have studied this subject a LOT more than we have agree that the tomb was empty, and that people had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Bonus: some quotes by prominent non-Christian NT scholars: "That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact." - E.P. Sanders "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection." - Bart Ehrman "The historical ground of Easter is very simple: the followers of Jesus, both then and now, continued to experience Jesus as a living reality after his death. In the early Christian community, these experiences included visions or apparitions of Jesus." - Marcus Borg Really does seem like an actual resurrection is highly probable.
  12. And still it stands that the majority of New Testament scholars agree that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty on the Sunday after his crucifixion, and that people had appearances of Jesus alive after his crucifixion. These two are still best explained by an actual resurrection of Jesus. The only two objections so far are: Of course New Testament scholars will agree because they're all Christian, and the swoon theory, as a means to explain the underlying historical events. The first objection isn't even true. I wonder if anyone could back it up? There are many atheist/agnostic NT Testament scholars that agree on those facts, but they just try to offer very implausible explanations for them. And the swoon theory (that Jesus survived the crucifixion) is highly implausible because it doesn't explain the fact that Jesus' disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead (they would have noticed his physical weakness from the crucifixion).
  13. Sorry but the historical views about the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and the disciples sudden belief in his resurrection are far from "extremely inconclusive". The majority of relevant New Testament scholars agree on this. Not knowing where the tomb is right now is a very bad reason to doubt the story. There are many sources, and btw it seems like you have a common misconception about what the Bible is. It's not a normal book. The New Testament (second part of the bible) is a collection of many different historical accounts from the first century. You cannot doubt the validity of these historical documents just because they were later put together in a collection and called the New Testament. Now there are obviously good sources for this. Otherwise the majority of NT scholars wouldn't agree on those facts. Stop making false claims about things you obviously don't understand. Christianity is based on historical events that are as falsifiable as any historical event. So if you complain that Christianity shouldn't be engaged with, then you shouldn't engage with history at all. These facts are as objective as they get in history.
  14. That's a false assumption. Of course New Testament Scholars aren't exclusively Christian? Where did you get that data from? Point is that most NT scholars agree that the tomb was empty and that people had appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion. And this is not the case with the dragons. I'm pretty sure about zero scholars believe that actual dragons were involved. Therefore it's a bad comparison. And to be honest, I haven't really studied the historical evidence, so I'm just trusting expert consensus on this. Ah, the good old swoon theory. The major problem with this theory is that the disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, which contradicts this theory. So that one's highly implausible. Why wouldn't the most plausible explantaion for the empty tomb, the post-mortem experiences, and the disciple's belief in the resurrection be that Jesus actually rose from the dead?
  15. First I want to mention that the debate isn't at all essential to my statement. Anyways, Spong obviously just said these things without having anything to back them up. The fact that most NT scholars agree on those facts is backed up by a study that considered all the relevant scholars regardless of their beliefs. Many of them are non-Christian. It's apparent that Spong has no idea about this. He doesn't back his statement up with any sources. Lol you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost all debates on the resurrection are of course Christian vs atheist. It's just a funny coincidence that in this debate there is a non-atheist debating against the resurrection. BTW, Many Christians wouldn't consider Spong as a Christian. He doesn't even believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead, which is pretty much the central tenet of Christianity. Also, he makes up his own beliefs. First off, I'd like to mention that wikipedia isn't the most reliable source. Anyways, I read the article and it never makes an objective statement about consensus. It just explains the three main positions on the resurrection, and has some quotes of people saying that there isn't a consensus. Once again, these people don't back it up with any study. Also, do you seriously think that there are many Christians who think that Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Not that it would say a lot if they did believe it but come on, that's almost a contradiction. The article does not say that many Christians don't believe in the resurrection. Oh, Christopher Hitchens, I see. I encourage you to watch his debate vs William Lane Craig. You'll notice how much more plausible theism is than atheism.