Hundreds? Even the Apostles didn't recognize Him. And even at the Pentecost, some of His closest disciples still doubted Him! "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted" [Mat 28:17 NIV]
I was referring to this passage:
1 Cor 15:3-8 : 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
I would imagine that by the time Paul wrote this, many of those 500 had done some talking. :) The brothers DID recognize Him, just as the Apostles did in the upper room.
None of the Apostles, save for one were there when He died. Who verified that He was dead? A Roman soldier who became a convert, or who was a convert? Or who was bribed? Besides, dead people don't bleed.
So, you question whether Jesus was objectively dead according to scripture based on these flimsy hypotheticals? :) How about what if a space alien sustained His body until the crowds went away so Jesus could then escape? Come on, Kosta. :) We have to be reasonable here. The Romans had an IMAGE to maintain. If you went up, you didn't come down alive. NO ONE DID. We have this:
Mark 15:42-45 : 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45 When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.
From here you have to wholly invent that the centurion was lying or otherwise covering for Christ. There is ZERO evidence of this. He would have been executed for such a lie immediately. Further, the guards at the tomb would have also been executed for failing their duties to protect against the thing you are talking about. It didn't happen. It wasn't a fake. There IS evidence in scripture.
All this doubt shows that nothing is certain and that we accept Christ's Incarnation, Death and Resurrection on blind faith.
I must say that I have never seen an individual so motivated and driven to believe in something for NO GOOD REASON. :) There is NO objective doubt. These Romans were not pansies, their rep was on the line. Neither were the Jews who were also motivated to prove all of this a lie. No, if this was a scam it would have been found out, but it wasn't. Too many people saw Him resurrected with their own eyes and lived MANY years to testify about it, as Paul tells us.
The only witness we have are the Gospels and they have a vested interest.
I thought the Gospels are the only way for you to know God. If even they are now suspect, then that wouldn't be good. :)
Besides, in order for them to be "convincing" one already must already be convicted that they are true! What proof is that?
I'm not talking about you, but to a non-believer it is none. The Bible says that its own words will be nonsense to the lost, all logic and sense notwithstanding. To a believer, though, the Bible fits like a glove, consistent in both history and reason.
It wasn't for the miracles He performed, it wasn't for what He taught, it wasn't even for Him appearing among them afterwords (cf Mat 28:17), even of sending them the Spirit (cf John 2:22) before the Pentecost (how could some of the eleven still doubt Him, according to Matthew, if they received the Spirit, according to John?!?
My version just says "after", and Strong's backs that up as an acceptable definition. Your interpretation is not mandated at all. "At some point" after the resurrection they believed fully. True.
There was no understanding involved [at Pentecost], just blind faith, just as the New Testament tells us happened to Paul on the way to Damascus.
What? :) Is that really a comparison you want to make? Paul's eyes were blind, but his faith could NOT have been more based in reality. He experienced a real zapping, first hand, for real. Paul is the LAST person who would ever say that his FAITH was blind. He says the opposite, that his faith was DIRECTLY from Christ. It was an extremely close, PERSONAL, one-on-one relationship in truth. Amen.
FK: The Apostles never taught that dunking had anything to do with salvation or being of the elect.
O really? How about "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" [Mark 16:16 NIV]
That is like saying: "He who has believed and has been baptized and has balanced his checkbook shall be saved". We can see this from within the very verse you quote:
Mark 16:16 : Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Obviously there is a GLARING omission here. It doesn't say that the unbaptized are condemned, just that those who don't believe are condemned. That was no accident. Belief is salvation, baptism is an obedience to God. Different category altogether.
And from Acts we learn that Peter said that those who are baptized shall receive the Spirit. In Greek, baptiso means "to dunk."
Those who are baptized of the Spirit shall receive the Spirit. From the same book this is Jesus speaking:
Acts 1:5 : For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
Peter also talked about repentance in your verse. THAT is a necessary element of faith, water baptism isn't.
Kosta: And don't tell me that being told that all your past, present and future sins have been forgiven because you call on the name of the Lord, and that your salvation is assured no matter what you do for the rest of your life is not a "feel-good" notion that appeals to our human nature!
FK: I think it IS, but we do not believe what you have said above, so it doesn't apply to us. Somehow, I do not see your future holding a bare bones basic understanding of Reformed theology. :)
Kosta: How is what I said above not what you believe? Namely that "all your past, present and future sins have been forgiven because you call on the name of the Lord, and that your salvation is assured no matter what you do for the rest of your life?"
It is not what we believe because "calling on the name of the Lord" MUST be in TRUE faith. The "Lord, Lord" crowd "calls" on the name of the Lord, but they are lost. True faith takes more than that. I know there's a verse somewhere that talks about those who call are saved, but in the context of the whole Bible, that must be truly calling to the Lord in true faith. Now, if you gave us credit ahead of time for our calling on the name of the Lord to be in true faith, then this whining by me does not apply. LOL!
The other problem is with the "no matter what we do" part. Your side uses this to accuse us of taking license to live lives of sin after belief because it doesn't matter. It DOES MATTER. I have quoted your side the scripture saying WHY it matters. Paul was all over this. Our doctrine called "Perseverance of the Saints" says that while our post-salvation sins won't cause us to forfeit our salvations, God is very active in the lives of His children. He has even made promises concerning them (Phil. 1:6). God will never allow His children to sin to whatever level it is that WOULD cause a loss of salvation. It IS a hypothetical possibility, HOWEVER, God's promises trump that possibility. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that we have assurance in our own minds, "no matter what we do". There is NO license to sin, and our leaders do NOT teach that there is. We teach what Paul taught, i.e. BY NO MEANS. :)
FK : I was referring to this passage: 1 Cor 15:3-8 : 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Dear Paul says a lot of things, but we know he wasn't there when it happened, so don't use him as a witness. There are other objections to this. First, according to what Scriptures did Christ die? And according to what Scriptures did was He raised [sic] on the third day? The only Scriptures in Paul's days was the OT, and I don't remember the OT saying the Son of God will die and "will be raised" (rather than will rise) on the third day.
Second, he says Christ first appeared to "Peter and then to the Twelve [sic]." What Twelve? At the Pentecost (Mat 28) there were still only eleven and some even doubted Jesus.
Third, who are all the apostles in verse 7? How many apostles were there at the time of the Resurrection? Obviosuly, if this is what Paul really wrote, then he sounds like he was confabulating, but then the Greeks of Corinth wouldn't have known the difference anyway!
So, you question whether Jesus was objectively dead according to scripture based on these flimsy hypotheticals?
Flimsy hypotheticals? LOL! Let's not go there, FK.
We have to be reasonable [sic] here. The Romans had an IMAGE to maintain. If you went up, you didn't come down alive. NO ONE DID. We have this: Mark 15:42-45
Reasonable when it comes to a priori faith? LOL! And the Christians didn't have an agenda?
From here you have to wholly invent that the centurion was lying or otherwise covering for Christ. There is ZERO evidence of this...There IS evidence in scripture
Where was Mark when all this happened? Was he with Pilate? Or maybe with Peter who was neither by the Cross nor next to Pilate? You call this hearsay evidence? LOL!
These Romans were not pansies, their rep was on the line. Neither were the Jews who were also motivated to prove all of this a lie. No, if this was a scam it would have been found out, but it wasn't.
Well, Christians also had an agenda and an image to defend. And there is no reason whatsoever to claim that every conspiracy must be discovered.
Too many people saw Him resurrected with their own eyes and lived MANY years to testify about it, as Paul tells us.
The Gospels do not corroborate this. That is something coming from Paul who wasn't there and who was talking to Greeks who knew exactly nothing about the Jews or their religion, laws and customs, or what happened. Most of the people who preached Christ crucified never saw Christ crucified. They believed the stories they heard from others that He was crucified and that he rose on the third day.
I thought the Gospels are the only way for you to know God
Without the Gospels we could never know Christ.
The Bible says that its own words will be nonsense to the lost, all logic and sense notwithstanding. To a believer, though, the Bible fits like a glove, consistent in both history and reason.
I couldn't have said it better. :) If I wanted to give myself any credibility and fence off any forthcoming criticism, I would have used the same argument. I could just say, my own words will be nonsense to the lost...so now you know that if any of this doesn't make any sense you are lost. :)
My version just says "after", and Strong's backs that up as an acceptable definition. Your interpretation is not mandated at all. "At some point" after the resurrection they believed fully. True.
The Spirit was given to them after the Resurrection but before the Pentecost (John 2:22), and at Pentecost some of the 11 still doubted (Mat 28:17)
Paul's eyes were blind, but his faith could NOT have been more based in reality. He experienced a real zapping, first hand, for real. Paul is the LAST person who would ever say that his FAITH was blind. He says the opposite, that his faith was DIRECTLY from Christ.
What is reality, FK? He tells us he was zapped and then he not only believed but knew it all. Gnosticism par excellence! No reason involved, no growing in faith; just signed, sealed and delivered all in one package...the secret handshake and secret knowledge all given in an instant. But if I wanted people to believe me, I would have said it was from Christ too. Where else comes faith anyway if not from God?
That is like saying: "He who has believed and has been baptized and has balanced his checkbook shall be saved".
No, that's your interpretation. The sentence clearly says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who do not believe will be lost. Why would non-believers be baptized? But a believe is not to just believe but be baptized as well in order to be saved.
Belief is salvation, baptism is an obedience to God.
That's why the Church cries out for all those outside. They have convinced themselves that baptism is "obedience" to God and has no other meaning. Baptism is for the remission of sins and remission of sins necessary for salvation. You can believe all you want, without remission of sins you cannot be with God because sin is the ubridgable divide that separates us from Him.
Acts 1:5 : For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
What does that mean? Baptiso in Greek means to dunk. How does one "dunk" with the Holy Spirit?
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that we have assurance in our own minds, "no matter what we do". There is NO license to sin, and our leaders do NOT teach that there is.
Luther says it is.
We teach what Paul taught
Yes, I know. And we preach what Jesus taught. And Jesus taught that believers can fall away and be lost.