Churchwork
09-10-2009, 02:13 AM
1) group hallucinations are impossible
2) grief doesn't account for the empty tomb
3) conversion of Paul who was not a disciple
4) conversion of James, brother of Jesus, who never thought Jesus was God until he saw him resurrected.
5) Too many personal variances, places, groups.
1)Hallucinations or not, regarding claimed eyewitnesses who supposedly saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, what we need are external corroborative sources regarding how many people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and whether the sources were second hand, third hand etc. As far as I know, there are not any first hand sources in the entire New Testament. There might not even be any second hand sources. Paul’s claimed vision of Jesus is by no means an acceptable first hand source. Paul did not claim that he saw Jesus. All that he claimed was that he heard a voice that claimed to be Jesus. The anonymous Gospel writers always wrote in the third person. None of them ever claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, none of them ever said who their sources were, and none of them ever said whether their sources were second hand, third hand etc.
Literally group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology. There are no cases in human history. People experience hallucinations individually so they never turn out quite the same like the specific accounts in Scripture. You admitted: "I don't doubt that most of them did truly believe that they saw Jesus after his 'resurrection'." What matters is you testified previously that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected, so follow this belief to its natural conclusion. You would need a naturalistic explanation to account for it, and thus far, you have presented none which fit the data (of the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3228)), thus proving Jesus was raised from the dead because He is God. Once you deal with this point, you can move onto your other points you made to determine if what you said was true or not, but they are just side issues, because you already believe they thought they saw Jesus resurrected. What matters for now is simply taking what most skeptical scholars concede, and so do you, to discern to see where that leads. Unless of course you want to recant your belief that the disciples truly believed they say Jesus resurrected. Then your other issues come into play.
All we have to work with are 27 books of the NT. The 27 books of the NT set out the proof and fulfillment of the OT prophecies of the Messiah. The NT is the contemporary writings of the day. What non-Christians say is not important, because they are second hand accounts decades after Jesus died on the cross. They would just be recounting history as they have heard in various records. I would make an exception. Polycarp was a student of John and Clement of Rome knew Peter. This is important because these individuals outside the NT knew and heard directly from eyewitness Apostles.
Paul said he saw Jesus. "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1). "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8). Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19). Paul reports knowing some of the disciples personally who had seen Jesus resurrected including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this (Acts 9.26-30; 15.1-35). And Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus. Paul entered a life of incredible hardship as Christian when he didn't need to. There must be something so true about Jesus for man to give up everything for Christ surrounding the eyewitness testimonies and not merely belief in something whether you can not really confirm.
Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he says he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles. And its safe to say the talked about more than just the weather.
Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present and as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10). Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different. Since others experience the same light and heard the same words, it was not a hallucination.
What he delivers as the Creed in 1 Cor. 15, he said he received from the Apostles, he recounts very precisely how to be saved and who saw Jesus resurrected. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1.18,19). Suffice it to say, they talked about more than just the weather. Years later he came back to Jerusalem and saw John with them as well in Gal. 2. I think I am repeating myself because almost all skeptical scholars concede these meetings, and the whole Minimal Facts Approach centers on this report by Paul.
Since you don't accept Gospels as first hand accounts, I won't mention them too much; you seem to want first hand accounts. However, you should realize John is talking about himself here: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?" (John 19.26, 21.7, 21.20)
John was at Calvary. I believe Matthew is Matthew, an original eyewitness Apostle. He writes like a tax collector. Nothing has really changed this traditional view. Luke identifies himself. He really writes like a meticulous physician. I believe Luke is really Luke and Mark is really Mark. Mark is the guy whom Paul didn't want to go on a second trip because he bailed on him in a previous trip. But they reconciled later in life. Barnabas is an amazing go-between Mark and Luke. Barnabas went with Mark instead and Luke traveled with Paul. Mark even refers to himself in Mark (see below). His writing is very base, reflecting his simplicity.
As to second hand sources, Luke talks about knowing the eyewitness Apostles and Paul. James, brother of Jesus, wrote James, an eyewitness to the resurrection. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. One of the original eyewitness Apostles, James, in Scripture was put to death for claiming he saw Jesus resurrected. And so was Stephen a deacon.
Mark is said to be the man who carried water to the house where the Last Supper took place (Mark 14:13). And the young man who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51-52). He would surely have been included one of the 500 who saw Jesus outside in Galilee which had set an appointed time to meet in such a large gathering.
A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6), Paul said could hold him accountable if he was misrepresenting they had seen Jesus. This may have been the same group as in Matt. 28.16: the rendezvous was to "to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them." Unlike the other accounts which were unexpected and by surprise, and to gather such a large number of people, this meeting was held outdoors. The women were told to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee as well. "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted" (Matt. 28.17) may be a reference to many present, both believers and non-believers. Paul had firsthand contact with them. So it was not a legend. He knew some of the people had died in the interim, but most were still alive. He is saying in effect they are still there to be questioned. You can talk to some of the witnesses. He never could have made this challenge if this event had not occurred. Let's give them some leeway, that they didn't all have writing skills to be able to write their own books when Papyrus was hard to come by as there was a Papyrus shortage in those days (just kidding, that was for fun!).
Mark is the one who hosted the disciples in his house after the death of Jesus, into whose house the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20), and into whose house the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. Mark is also believed to be one of the servants at the Marriage at Cana who poured out the water that Jesus turned to wine (John 2:1-11), and was one of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ (Luke 10:1). Saint Mark was born in the Pentapolis of North Africa. This tradition adds that he returned to Pentapolis later in life after being sent by Saint Paul to Colosse (Colossians 4:10) and serving with him in Rome (Phil 24; 2 Tim 4:11); from Pentapolis he made his way to Alexandria. When Mark returned to Alexandria, the people there are said to have resented his efforts to turn them away from the worship of their traditional Egyptian gods. In AD 68 they placed a rope around his neck and dragged him through the streets until he was dead.
I mention Mark because he is said to be the earliest writings of the NT apart from Paul's 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2. Mark seems to be on the scene everywhere along with the Apostles. Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two. Put Acts at 55 AD, Luke at 45 and Mark at 35 AD.
In James, the author identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the third century, patristic authors cited the Epistle as written by James, brother of Jesus, and first Bishop of Jerusalem. Paul described him as "the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19 and as one of the three "pillars of the Church" in 2:9. "The next day Paul went in with us to meet with James, and all the elders of the Jerusalem church were present" (Acts 21.18). James is the head of the Jerusalem church. He is traditionally considered the first of the Seventy Disciples.
There are many other accounts written by Luke and Paul of travels and meeting various Apostles, meeting other Apostles and Christians in other cities. And of course there are the twelve different resurrection appearances in various groups (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm) in the gospels seeing Jesus resurrected, but you don't accept those.
Saint Luke was born of Greek origin in the city of Antioch. His earliest notice is in Paul's Epistle to Philemon, verse 24. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, two works commonly ascribed to Paul. Luke, a native of Antioch, by profession a physician. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years. Epiphanius states that Luke was one of the Seventy (Panarion 51.11), and John Chrysostom indicates at one point that the "brother" Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 8:18 is either Luke or Barnabas. J. Wenham asserts that Luke was "one of the Seventy, the Emmaus disciple, Lucius of Cyrene and Paul's kinsman." Not all scholars are as confident of all of these attributes as Wenham is, not least because Luke's own statement at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (1:1–4) freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel. But he says he is very careful to make sure everything he says is accurate.
2)Well-known skeptic Farrell Till says that there are plenty of scholars who do not believe that the body was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.
Joseph of Arimathea knew of Jesus’ prediction that he would rise from the dead, but like most of the other admirers of Jesus, he didn’t believe the claim. He wanted to protect the good name of his beloved friend by giving the impression that he rose from the dead, so instead of burying the body in his own tomb, which in his view if inspected would contain the body, he buried the body in another tomb in the same cemetery that he also owned.
Empty tomb explained
1) Empty tomb does not account for the appearances of the disciples; 2) followers would not be convinced by an empty tomb anyway, but by appearances; 3) Paul was not convinced by an empty tomb, but by appearances; 4) James was not convinced by an empty tomb, but by appearances; 5) No sources suggest a wrong tomb; 6) Nicodemus, whom Jesus tried to lead to salvation in John 3, would have had to be in on the deception of Joseph of Arimathea which is unlikely since Nicodemus did not receive Christ and would prefer to keep Jesus on display in the tomb proving he is not God, rather than creating more problems with the disciples now claiming they saw Jesus resurrected. The Jews would also want that dead body found as well. The guards remained at the tomb and only left after Joseph and Nicodemus finished putting spices on Jesus. Everyone would be highly motivated to know where that dead body was. So it is hard to believe you could conceal such a thing. Think about it. If the disciples were claiming they saw Jesus resurrected, then Nicodemus would go find that body and show they were a fraud like the Pharisees were claiming. Joseph believed Jesus was the Messiah, but he would be doing an injustice if he hid the body. His faith would be false. He would be a liar. He genuinely went to show respect to Jesus taking Him down from the cross and the burial was recorded in all 4 gospels-a confident statement of fact. We interpret Joseph's role as fulfilling Isaiah's prediction that the grave of the Messiah would be with a rich man (Isaiah 53:9). "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."
You are proposing what is called "Fraud 2" (Fraud 1 is one th disciples stole the body). But based on the above points Jesus' resurrection can account for all the facts, and therefore, is a better explanation than theft. These things are hard to hide when all eyes are on the "King of the Jews." Eventually, you would think the body would be uncovered. But it never did. Few people can keep that kind of secret.
3) Paul was an admitted persecutor of Christians who might have found a more effective way to undermine the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed teachings attributed to Jesus on several fronts, replacing Jesus' alleged teaching of universal, compassionate, selfless action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, and distracting us from the selfless teachings attributed to Jesus. Paul sets the standard for salvation as faith or belief in accepting Jesus, while Jesus explicitly rejects this standard (see Matthew 7:21-27). One of the most famous criticisms of Paul comes from Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to James Smith, "Paul was ... the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (Works, 1829 edition, vol. 4, p. 327.) George Bernard Shaw, the English playwright, is widely quoted as having said that: "...it would have been a better world if Paul had never been born."
Paul is suspect and does not help your case.
The problem with our theory is all the NT writers taught the same thing about salvation as Jesus is recorded as teaching: "He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7.50, 18.42). Paul talked about works all the time, but that they flow from faith; they don't have the power to save you. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2.8). Paul worked harder than anyone because his foundation was so secure! He set up more churches and wrote the most letters of the NT. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3.16-17). Jesus Himself said He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it; so, we live by the Spirit of law. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5.17). No man can keep the law. If we are justified by the law no man can be saved, because nobody could fulfill the law but Jesus. To live by the Spirit of the law is reliance on the indwelling Holy Spirit, an obedience unto Christ. This can never be received without true and genuine humility, repentance and faith.
From your own common sense think about it. God is infinite. It seems ridiculous to think you can save yourself by works doesn't it? for really no amount of work a sinner can do can save himself compared to an infinite God. Appreciate you are a sinner, and that salvation is by faith; rewards are by works, keeping the word of His patience, being prayerful, watchful and keeping the conduct of Matth. 5-7. What about the disagreement Paul had with James, Peter and Barnabas in which Paul won out on the facts that Gentiles didn't have to keep the law of Israel such as circumcision. Just as James was hanging out with Gentiles and so was Peter, they didn't have to perform what they do, just as the Gentiles did not have to perform Jewish ceremonies or keep their laws, such as the Sabbath. The law of the OT was for a time of corruption unlike anything you have ever seen in subsequent centuries. Drastic actions were needed like stoning, otherwise Israel would not have survived as a nation to usher in the Messiah. They would have easily been overrun by their immorality, attacked by the tribes of Canaan. Even the Jews don't have to do perform those laws anymore in their strictest sense, because that was under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is Jesus coming to fill up the law. There is no Christian Sabbath. Judaizers though like to get us back under the law by claiming Christians have to take one day off. It's not so. If they try to live by the law they will die by the law: either lose rewards as Christians or showing they were never saved to begin with. You don't even have to go to Church on Sundays. Perhaps just gather with 2 or 3 on Wednesdays and Bible study, sing a song, and pray together if you have to work on Sunday.
Matthew 7 is referring to rewards for overcomers and loss of rewards for non-overcomers in Christ, to run the race that is set before us (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew721.htm). It is not referring to salvation by works or a Christian losing salvation. There are many clues to this fact.
As to George Bernard Shaw and Thomas Jefferson, you can be confident these men are going to Hell. Look at their arguments for why they say what they do. They have no basis. You can actually be fairly certain people that high up in power are not saved. It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle. They are in lust for money and power. They don't have time for life. In order to gain your soul, you are going to have to lose it first. There is no other way. People who rise in power don't have time to spend in the word of God in an authentic way. Dave Hunt said it is hard to believe any of the popes of Rome were saved let alone any president of a country or its governors. Salvation is not what you think. It is a joy that is unsurpassed. We are talking about eternity with God with those who are truly born again. We are a "little flock" (Luke 12.32), far smaller than you could imagine. And the New City is only a certain size of 1379 x 1379 miles. From the time of Adam to the return of Christ to the end of the millennium, I am estimating generously 300 billion souls. You could probably only fit a maximum of 1.2 billion souls in the New City. That's a savings ratio of 1 in 250 people. Think about that. Our faith increases when we hear Barack Hussein Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=player_embedded) belittling, misreading and misrepresenting the book of Leviticus and Matthew 24-25.
4) The gospels report that Jesus had at least four brothers and some sisters: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?” (Matthew 13:55, also Mark 6:3). And the gospels also record, that while Jesus was alive, his brothers did not believe in Him: “For even his own brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5). The Scriptures do not sugarcoat this. The lack of belief by James and the other brothers is corroborated by the absolute silence about them in the gospels. None of the accounts of Jesus’ ministry mentions them in any role.
So Jesus could only convert James. My arguement lies with the 3 unconverted, James was a fluke, and fails as any type of proof.
Yet, miraculously, the brother of Jesus and testified by Paul and Luke, saw Jesus resurrected and had a change of mind. Jude, brother of Jesus, also had a change of mind. And they both converted, were saved by the Holy Ghost. The Bible is for Christians, so spending too much time on the lost really serves no purpose. Their record is not going draw people to Christ. Many people think the Bible is quite often comparing the saved to the unsaved, but its not so. You will find as you read it deeper and deeper, the word of God is actually emphasizing for believers overcoming and non-overcoming (e.g. Rev. 2 & 3), because there is accountability for the time of recompense when the overcomers will return with Christ to reign on earth during the 1000 years (Zech. 14.4; Acts. 1.11; Rev. 1.7; Jude 14,15; Rev. 20.2-7).
Some didn't believe in Jesus even though they saw him resurrected which could have been some of his own family members. Or maybe not all of his own family members saw Him resurrected. Similarly, doubting Thomas would still not believe unless he saw Jesus resurrected. Jesus didn't appear to many He could have because He knew even if He did, they would still reject Him. God's works His grace into everyone and does not prevent anyone from being saved who could have been saved if He only had to give them one more item of grace or word of convincing,even a surprise appearance. Therefore, even if Jesus appeared to you right now and did some parlor tricks for you, you would still not believe, so what would be the point of coming to everyone personally in a quick appearance one by one? It's not realistic anyway. Just know you would find some excuse as many did then as they do now. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34).
5) In Matthew, upon arriving at the tomb, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see an angel, and the angel tells them that Jesus has risen from the dead. In John, however, it is Jesus himself who causes Mary, in her uncorroborated second visit to the tomb, to believe that he has risen from the dead. Matthew says that Mary learned that Jesus rose from the dead on her first visit to the tomb (Angel tells her), but John says that it was on her second visit to the tomb (Jesus tells her). Who told her and when? The gosples clearly don't tell us. Which leads us to belive either Mary or the gospel writers did not know what happened.
Who told her and when? I thought you just said the angel told her first, then afterward Jesus told her. I think if you and I pull out the verses and get into a detailed discussion of just this topic alone, you will find you can reconcile it, and when you do, you will say, the Scriptures are accurate. They are so different from each other, really showing their independent authorship, yet somehow the Holy Spirit is able to maintain them in agreement. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18) and to the women (Matt. 28.1-10).
These things really ought not to be an issue as primary concerns anyway, because you already believe the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. You have to explain that away. Only then concern yourself with secondary issues that have no bearing on the primary issue.
Also it is suspicious that the Gospels do not mention the 500 eyewitnesses, although they frequently mention things of much less importance. Eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, and either the Gospel writers were not aware of this, which is doubtful since they mention a number of other eyewitnesses, or they never heard of the 500 eyewitnesses, which is doubtful if there were 500 eyewitnesses. The Gospel writers were trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead as best they could, not only during their generation, but future generations as well, and if there were 500 eyewitnesses the Gospel writers would most certainly have known about them and said so. All four Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, the women at the tomb and Jesus’ appearances to the disciples, so any rational minded person knows that if there were 500 eyewitnesses, at the very least one Gospel writer would have mentioned it. Baced on the lack of documentation of the 500 "witnesses" they are likely a fabrication.
Mentioning the names of the 500, taking a roster call seems a bit weird. Nor will that suffice to list all their names in the Bible and fill up unnecessary space for a book that is for eternity. It's enough for Paul to say, "seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15.6).
A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6). This may have been the same group as in Matt. 28.16: the rendezvous was to "to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them." Unlike the other accounts which were unexpected and by surprise, and to gather such a large number of people, this meeting was held outdoors. The women were told to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee as well. "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted" (Matt. 28.17) may be a reference to many present, both believers and non-believers. Paul had firsthand contact with them. So it was not a legend. He knew some of the people had died in the interim, but most were still alive. He is saying in effect they are still there to be questioned. You can talk to some of the witnesses. He never could have made this challenge if this event had not occurred.
To mention 500 names seems more fabricated, since they have no histories and nothing would have been written about them for future posterity. It would be meaningless to mention Dave Johnson when the only thing historians would have known about him is that he may have been a doubter and his name was mentioned by Paul that he saw Jesus resurrected. How is that going to convince anyone? The Bible is the perfect work of God about the Word of God. Everything is exactly where it should be. The sincerity and genuineness of the writers is always so uplifting, and all I need ask, what would have I done? I probably would have just said 500 people and that's it. Since 1 Corinthians 15 was written very early perhaps around 40 or 45 AD, many could have responded to what Paul said, but nobody ever came forward to say they didn't see Jesus resurrected when it was claimed they did, that there was a meeting in Galilee of 500 people and many would be present including the Apostles. Since Matthew 28.16 seems to indicate some of those who were there (11 individuals we know of), and they are all multiply corroborating each other, then either they are all liars or it really happened. the sin of omission of silence is just as sinful as outright lies. Paul said we are the most decrepit people if the resurrection is not true. You can well believe Christians are the worse lot of people and you should have nothing to do with us. But if Paul is being truthful, what blessings bestow us.
Jesus said, "I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life" (John 5.24).
"Jesus told her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again. They are given eternal life for believing in me and will never perish. Do you believe this, Martha?'" (John 11.25-26)
"I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2.20).
"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it" (John 3.17), said Jesus.
May your "faith not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him. God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive of the Spirit of God" for God is "folly to him, and he is not able to understand" because God is "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2.5,7,9,10,12; 2 Cor. 3.17; 1 Cor 2.13,14).
2) grief doesn't account for the empty tomb
3) conversion of Paul who was not a disciple
4) conversion of James, brother of Jesus, who never thought Jesus was God until he saw him resurrected.
5) Too many personal variances, places, groups.
1)Hallucinations or not, regarding claimed eyewitnesses who supposedly saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, what we need are external corroborative sources regarding how many people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and whether the sources were second hand, third hand etc. As far as I know, there are not any first hand sources in the entire New Testament. There might not even be any second hand sources. Paul’s claimed vision of Jesus is by no means an acceptable first hand source. Paul did not claim that he saw Jesus. All that he claimed was that he heard a voice that claimed to be Jesus. The anonymous Gospel writers always wrote in the third person. None of them ever claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, none of them ever said who their sources were, and none of them ever said whether their sources were second hand, third hand etc.
Literally group hallucinations are impossible according to modern psychology. There are no cases in human history. People experience hallucinations individually so they never turn out quite the same like the specific accounts in Scripture. You admitted: "I don't doubt that most of them did truly believe that they saw Jesus after his 'resurrection'." What matters is you testified previously that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected, so follow this belief to its natural conclusion. You would need a naturalistic explanation to account for it, and thus far, you have presented none which fit the data (of the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3228)), thus proving Jesus was raised from the dead because He is God. Once you deal with this point, you can move onto your other points you made to determine if what you said was true or not, but they are just side issues, because you already believe they thought they saw Jesus resurrected. What matters for now is simply taking what most skeptical scholars concede, and so do you, to discern to see where that leads. Unless of course you want to recant your belief that the disciples truly believed they say Jesus resurrected. Then your other issues come into play.
All we have to work with are 27 books of the NT. The 27 books of the NT set out the proof and fulfillment of the OT prophecies of the Messiah. The NT is the contemporary writings of the day. What non-Christians say is not important, because they are second hand accounts decades after Jesus died on the cross. They would just be recounting history as they have heard in various records. I would make an exception. Polycarp was a student of John and Clement of Rome knew Peter. This is important because these individuals outside the NT knew and heard directly from eyewitness Apostles.
Paul said he saw Jesus. "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1). "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8). Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19). Paul reports knowing some of the disciples personally who had seen Jesus resurrected including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this (Acts 9.26-30; 15.1-35). And Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus. Paul entered a life of incredible hardship as Christian when he didn't need to. There must be something so true about Jesus for man to give up everything for Christ surrounding the eyewitness testimonies and not merely belief in something whether you can not really confirm.
Paul said in Gal. 1 & 2 he met James and Peter a few years after the cross as indicated in 1 Cor. 15 in which he says he is delivering what he received from them. Scholars place his conversion 2 years after the cross, then Galatians says it was "3 years" after his conversion he met James and Peter, so that's 5 years after the cross he met the original eyewitness apostles. And its safe to say the talked about more than just the weather.
Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present and as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10). Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different. Since others experience the same light and heard the same words, it was not a hallucination.
What he delivers as the Creed in 1 Cor. 15, he said he received from the Apostles, he recounts very precisely how to be saved and who saw Jesus resurrected. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1.18,19). Suffice it to say, they talked about more than just the weather. Years later he came back to Jerusalem and saw John with them as well in Gal. 2. I think I am repeating myself because almost all skeptical scholars concede these meetings, and the whole Minimal Facts Approach centers on this report by Paul.
Since you don't accept Gospels as first hand accounts, I won't mention them too much; you seem to want first hand accounts. However, you should realize John is talking about himself here: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?" (John 19.26, 21.7, 21.20)
John was at Calvary. I believe Matthew is Matthew, an original eyewitness Apostle. He writes like a tax collector. Nothing has really changed this traditional view. Luke identifies himself. He really writes like a meticulous physician. I believe Luke is really Luke and Mark is really Mark. Mark is the guy whom Paul didn't want to go on a second trip because he bailed on him in a previous trip. But they reconciled later in life. Barnabas is an amazing go-between Mark and Luke. Barnabas went with Mark instead and Luke traveled with Paul. Mark even refers to himself in Mark (see below). His writing is very base, reflecting his simplicity.
As to second hand sources, Luke talks about knowing the eyewitness Apostles and Paul. James, brother of Jesus, wrote James, an eyewitness to the resurrection. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. One of the original eyewitness Apostles, James, in Scripture was put to death for claiming he saw Jesus resurrected. And so was Stephen a deacon.
Mark is said to be the man who carried water to the house where the Last Supper took place (Mark 14:13). And the young man who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51-52). He would surely have been included one of the 500 who saw Jesus outside in Galilee which had set an appointed time to meet in such a large gathering.
A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6), Paul said could hold him accountable if he was misrepresenting they had seen Jesus. This may have been the same group as in Matt. 28.16: the rendezvous was to "to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them." Unlike the other accounts which were unexpected and by surprise, and to gather such a large number of people, this meeting was held outdoors. The women were told to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee as well. "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted" (Matt. 28.17) may be a reference to many present, both believers and non-believers. Paul had firsthand contact with them. So it was not a legend. He knew some of the people had died in the interim, but most were still alive. He is saying in effect they are still there to be questioned. You can talk to some of the witnesses. He never could have made this challenge if this event had not occurred. Let's give them some leeway, that they didn't all have writing skills to be able to write their own books when Papyrus was hard to come by as there was a Papyrus shortage in those days (just kidding, that was for fun!).
Mark is the one who hosted the disciples in his house after the death of Jesus, into whose house the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20), and into whose house the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. Mark is also believed to be one of the servants at the Marriage at Cana who poured out the water that Jesus turned to wine (John 2:1-11), and was one of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ (Luke 10:1). Saint Mark was born in the Pentapolis of North Africa. This tradition adds that he returned to Pentapolis later in life after being sent by Saint Paul to Colosse (Colossians 4:10) and serving with him in Rome (Phil 24; 2 Tim 4:11); from Pentapolis he made his way to Alexandria. When Mark returned to Alexandria, the people there are said to have resented his efforts to turn them away from the worship of their traditional Egyptian gods. In AD 68 they placed a rope around his neck and dragged him through the streets until he was dead.
I mention Mark because he is said to be the earliest writings of the NT apart from Paul's 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2. Mark seems to be on the scene everywhere along with the Apostles. Paul died in the Neronian persecution in 64-65 AD. Luke set forth the biography of Paul in Acts, his mission activities. But at the end of the book, Paul had not yet died. So Acts had to have been written before his death. Had he died the author would have mentioned it. Death is important in a biography. Luke is part one of Acts and is stated as such. In the book of Acts the writer says, "The former treatise I presented to you Theophilus." That's Luke. So Luke was written prior to Acts. But Luke used Mark. Now you are moving back from 64-65, and Jesus died 33 AD. That places all this stuff within a decade or two. Put Acts at 55 AD, Luke at 45 and Mark at 35 AD.
In James, the author identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the third century, patristic authors cited the Epistle as written by James, brother of Jesus, and first Bishop of Jerusalem. Paul described him as "the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19 and as one of the three "pillars of the Church" in 2:9. "The next day Paul went in with us to meet with James, and all the elders of the Jerusalem church were present" (Acts 21.18). James is the head of the Jerusalem church. He is traditionally considered the first of the Seventy Disciples.
There are many other accounts written by Luke and Paul of travels and meeting various Apostles, meeting other Apostles and Christians in other cities. And of course there are the twelve different resurrection appearances in various groups (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/12groups.htm) in the gospels seeing Jesus resurrected, but you don't accept those.
Saint Luke was born of Greek origin in the city of Antioch. His earliest notice is in Paul's Epistle to Philemon, verse 24. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, two works commonly ascribed to Paul. Luke, a native of Antioch, by profession a physician. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years. Epiphanius states that Luke was one of the Seventy (Panarion 51.11), and John Chrysostom indicates at one point that the "brother" Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 8:18 is either Luke or Barnabas. J. Wenham asserts that Luke was "one of the Seventy, the Emmaus disciple, Lucius of Cyrene and Paul's kinsman." Not all scholars are as confident of all of these attributes as Wenham is, not least because Luke's own statement at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (1:1–4) freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel. But he says he is very careful to make sure everything he says is accurate.
2)Well-known skeptic Farrell Till says that there are plenty of scholars who do not believe that the body was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.
Joseph of Arimathea knew of Jesus’ prediction that he would rise from the dead, but like most of the other admirers of Jesus, he didn’t believe the claim. He wanted to protect the good name of his beloved friend by giving the impression that he rose from the dead, so instead of burying the body in his own tomb, which in his view if inspected would contain the body, he buried the body in another tomb in the same cemetery that he also owned.
Empty tomb explained
1) Empty tomb does not account for the appearances of the disciples; 2) followers would not be convinced by an empty tomb anyway, but by appearances; 3) Paul was not convinced by an empty tomb, but by appearances; 4) James was not convinced by an empty tomb, but by appearances; 5) No sources suggest a wrong tomb; 6) Nicodemus, whom Jesus tried to lead to salvation in John 3, would have had to be in on the deception of Joseph of Arimathea which is unlikely since Nicodemus did not receive Christ and would prefer to keep Jesus on display in the tomb proving he is not God, rather than creating more problems with the disciples now claiming they saw Jesus resurrected. The Jews would also want that dead body found as well. The guards remained at the tomb and only left after Joseph and Nicodemus finished putting spices on Jesus. Everyone would be highly motivated to know where that dead body was. So it is hard to believe you could conceal such a thing. Think about it. If the disciples were claiming they saw Jesus resurrected, then Nicodemus would go find that body and show they were a fraud like the Pharisees were claiming. Joseph believed Jesus was the Messiah, but he would be doing an injustice if he hid the body. His faith would be false. He would be a liar. He genuinely went to show respect to Jesus taking Him down from the cross and the burial was recorded in all 4 gospels-a confident statement of fact. We interpret Joseph's role as fulfilling Isaiah's prediction that the grave of the Messiah would be with a rich man (Isaiah 53:9). "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."
You are proposing what is called "Fraud 2" (Fraud 1 is one th disciples stole the body). But based on the above points Jesus' resurrection can account for all the facts, and therefore, is a better explanation than theft. These things are hard to hide when all eyes are on the "King of the Jews." Eventually, you would think the body would be uncovered. But it never did. Few people can keep that kind of secret.
3) Paul was an admitted persecutor of Christians who might have found a more effective way to undermine the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed teachings attributed to Jesus on several fronts, replacing Jesus' alleged teaching of universal, compassionate, selfless action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, and distracting us from the selfless teachings attributed to Jesus. Paul sets the standard for salvation as faith or belief in accepting Jesus, while Jesus explicitly rejects this standard (see Matthew 7:21-27). One of the most famous criticisms of Paul comes from Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter to James Smith, "Paul was ... the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (Works, 1829 edition, vol. 4, p. 327.) George Bernard Shaw, the English playwright, is widely quoted as having said that: "...it would have been a better world if Paul had never been born."
Paul is suspect and does not help your case.
The problem with our theory is all the NT writers taught the same thing about salvation as Jesus is recorded as teaching: "He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7.50, 18.42). Paul talked about works all the time, but that they flow from faith; they don't have the power to save you. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2.8). Paul worked harder than anyone because his foundation was so secure! He set up more churches and wrote the most letters of the NT. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3.16-17). Jesus Himself said He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it; so, we live by the Spirit of law. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5.17). No man can keep the law. If we are justified by the law no man can be saved, because nobody could fulfill the law but Jesus. To live by the Spirit of the law is reliance on the indwelling Holy Spirit, an obedience unto Christ. This can never be received without true and genuine humility, repentance and faith.
From your own common sense think about it. God is infinite. It seems ridiculous to think you can save yourself by works doesn't it? for really no amount of work a sinner can do can save himself compared to an infinite God. Appreciate you are a sinner, and that salvation is by faith; rewards are by works, keeping the word of His patience, being prayerful, watchful and keeping the conduct of Matth. 5-7. What about the disagreement Paul had with James, Peter and Barnabas in which Paul won out on the facts that Gentiles didn't have to keep the law of Israel such as circumcision. Just as James was hanging out with Gentiles and so was Peter, they didn't have to perform what they do, just as the Gentiles did not have to perform Jewish ceremonies or keep their laws, such as the Sabbath. The law of the OT was for a time of corruption unlike anything you have ever seen in subsequent centuries. Drastic actions were needed like stoning, otherwise Israel would not have survived as a nation to usher in the Messiah. They would have easily been overrun by their immorality, attacked by the tribes of Canaan. Even the Jews don't have to do perform those laws anymore in their strictest sense, because that was under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is Jesus coming to fill up the law. There is no Christian Sabbath. Judaizers though like to get us back under the law by claiming Christians have to take one day off. It's not so. If they try to live by the law they will die by the law: either lose rewards as Christians or showing they were never saved to begin with. You don't even have to go to Church on Sundays. Perhaps just gather with 2 or 3 on Wednesdays and Bible study, sing a song, and pray together if you have to work on Sunday.
Matthew 7 is referring to rewards for overcomers and loss of rewards for non-overcomers in Christ, to run the race that is set before us (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew721.htm). It is not referring to salvation by works or a Christian losing salvation. There are many clues to this fact.
As to George Bernard Shaw and Thomas Jefferson, you can be confident these men are going to Hell. Look at their arguments for why they say what they do. They have no basis. You can actually be fairly certain people that high up in power are not saved. It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle. They are in lust for money and power. They don't have time for life. In order to gain your soul, you are going to have to lose it first. There is no other way. People who rise in power don't have time to spend in the word of God in an authentic way. Dave Hunt said it is hard to believe any of the popes of Rome were saved let alone any president of a country or its governors. Salvation is not what you think. It is a joy that is unsurpassed. We are talking about eternity with God with those who are truly born again. We are a "little flock" (Luke 12.32), far smaller than you could imagine. And the New City is only a certain size of 1379 x 1379 miles. From the time of Adam to the return of Christ to the end of the millennium, I am estimating generously 300 billion souls. You could probably only fit a maximum of 1.2 billion souls in the New City. That's a savings ratio of 1 in 250 people. Think about that. Our faith increases when we hear Barack Hussein Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=player_embedded) belittling, misreading and misrepresenting the book of Leviticus and Matthew 24-25.
4) The gospels report that Jesus had at least four brothers and some sisters: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?” (Matthew 13:55, also Mark 6:3). And the gospels also record, that while Jesus was alive, his brothers did not believe in Him: “For even his own brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5). The Scriptures do not sugarcoat this. The lack of belief by James and the other brothers is corroborated by the absolute silence about them in the gospels. None of the accounts of Jesus’ ministry mentions them in any role.
So Jesus could only convert James. My arguement lies with the 3 unconverted, James was a fluke, and fails as any type of proof.
Yet, miraculously, the brother of Jesus and testified by Paul and Luke, saw Jesus resurrected and had a change of mind. Jude, brother of Jesus, also had a change of mind. And they both converted, were saved by the Holy Ghost. The Bible is for Christians, so spending too much time on the lost really serves no purpose. Their record is not going draw people to Christ. Many people think the Bible is quite often comparing the saved to the unsaved, but its not so. You will find as you read it deeper and deeper, the word of God is actually emphasizing for believers overcoming and non-overcoming (e.g. Rev. 2 & 3), because there is accountability for the time of recompense when the overcomers will return with Christ to reign on earth during the 1000 years (Zech. 14.4; Acts. 1.11; Rev. 1.7; Jude 14,15; Rev. 20.2-7).
Some didn't believe in Jesus even though they saw him resurrected which could have been some of his own family members. Or maybe not all of his own family members saw Him resurrected. Similarly, doubting Thomas would still not believe unless he saw Jesus resurrected. Jesus didn't appear to many He could have because He knew even if He did, they would still reject Him. God's works His grace into everyone and does not prevent anyone from being saved who could have been saved if He only had to give them one more item of grace or word of convincing,even a surprise appearance. Therefore, even if Jesus appeared to you right now and did some parlor tricks for you, you would still not believe, so what would be the point of coming to everyone personally in a quick appearance one by one? It's not realistic anyway. Just know you would find some excuse as many did then as they do now. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34).
5) In Matthew, upon arriving at the tomb, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see an angel, and the angel tells them that Jesus has risen from the dead. In John, however, it is Jesus himself who causes Mary, in her uncorroborated second visit to the tomb, to believe that he has risen from the dead. Matthew says that Mary learned that Jesus rose from the dead on her first visit to the tomb (Angel tells her), but John says that it was on her second visit to the tomb (Jesus tells her). Who told her and when? The gosples clearly don't tell us. Which leads us to belive either Mary or the gospel writers did not know what happened.
Who told her and when? I thought you just said the angel told her first, then afterward Jesus told her. I think if you and I pull out the verses and get into a detailed discussion of just this topic alone, you will find you can reconcile it, and when you do, you will say, the Scriptures are accurate. They are so different from each other, really showing their independent authorship, yet somehow the Holy Spirit is able to maintain them in agreement. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18) and to the women (Matt. 28.1-10).
These things really ought not to be an issue as primary concerns anyway, because you already believe the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. You have to explain that away. Only then concern yourself with secondary issues that have no bearing on the primary issue.
Also it is suspicious that the Gospels do not mention the 500 eyewitnesses, although they frequently mention things of much less importance. Eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, and either the Gospel writers were not aware of this, which is doubtful since they mention a number of other eyewitnesses, or they never heard of the 500 eyewitnesses, which is doubtful if there were 500 eyewitnesses. The Gospel writers were trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead as best they could, not only during their generation, but future generations as well, and if there were 500 eyewitnesses the Gospel writers would most certainly have known about them and said so. All four Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, the women at the tomb and Jesus’ appearances to the disciples, so any rational minded person knows that if there were 500 eyewitnesses, at the very least one Gospel writer would have mentioned it. Baced on the lack of documentation of the 500 "witnesses" they are likely a fabrication.
Mentioning the names of the 500, taking a roster call seems a bit weird. Nor will that suffice to list all their names in the Bible and fill up unnecessary space for a book that is for eternity. It's enough for Paul to say, "seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15.6).
A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6). This may have been the same group as in Matt. 28.16: the rendezvous was to "to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them." Unlike the other accounts which were unexpected and by surprise, and to gather such a large number of people, this meeting was held outdoors. The women were told to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee as well. "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted" (Matt. 28.17) may be a reference to many present, both believers and non-believers. Paul had firsthand contact with them. So it was not a legend. He knew some of the people had died in the interim, but most were still alive. He is saying in effect they are still there to be questioned. You can talk to some of the witnesses. He never could have made this challenge if this event had not occurred.
To mention 500 names seems more fabricated, since they have no histories and nothing would have been written about them for future posterity. It would be meaningless to mention Dave Johnson when the only thing historians would have known about him is that he may have been a doubter and his name was mentioned by Paul that he saw Jesus resurrected. How is that going to convince anyone? The Bible is the perfect work of God about the Word of God. Everything is exactly where it should be. The sincerity and genuineness of the writers is always so uplifting, and all I need ask, what would have I done? I probably would have just said 500 people and that's it. Since 1 Corinthians 15 was written very early perhaps around 40 or 45 AD, many could have responded to what Paul said, but nobody ever came forward to say they didn't see Jesus resurrected when it was claimed they did, that there was a meeting in Galilee of 500 people and many would be present including the Apostles. Since Matthew 28.16 seems to indicate some of those who were there (11 individuals we know of), and they are all multiply corroborating each other, then either they are all liars or it really happened. the sin of omission of silence is just as sinful as outright lies. Paul said we are the most decrepit people if the resurrection is not true. You can well believe Christians are the worse lot of people and you should have nothing to do with us. But if Paul is being truthful, what blessings bestow us.
Jesus said, "I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life" (John 5.24).
"Jesus told her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die like everyone else, will live again. They are given eternal life for believing in me and will never perish. Do you believe this, Martha?'" (John 11.25-26)
"I myself no longer live, but Christ lives in me. So I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2.20).
"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it" (John 3.17), said Jesus.
May your "faith not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him. God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive of the Spirit of God" for God is "folly to him, and he is not able to understand" because God is "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2.5,7,9,10,12; 2 Cor. 3.17; 1 Cor 2.13,14).