Evidence for God from Science

We know that Jesus appeared to His disciples and followers -- those who already believed in Him -- but why do you think He did not appear to His enemies -- meaning the Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who killed Him?

Thanks.

That is a good question.

My answer would be that it was not his enemies that was going to start up the church and spread the Gospel. They would have probably seen it as something demonic and therefore would not have got the right message across. That is my two cents anyway.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:That is a good question.

My answer would be that it was not his enemies that was going to start up the church and spread the Gospel. They would have probably seen it as something demonic and therefore would not have got the right message across. That is my two cents anyway.

Silvertusk.

That is my view as well.

Jesus' followers were to preach His Gospel. He gave them that responsibility. Those who had been with Him from the beginning were best suited to do it.

In my view, the Jewish leaders would have thought it was a trick; after all, they did think Satan was behind His miracles.

Christian2 wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a good question.

My answer would be that it was not his enemies that was going to start up the church and spread the Gospel. They would have probably seen it as something demonic and therefore would not have got the right message across. That is my two cents anyway.

Silvertusk.

That is my view as well.

Jesus' followers were to preach His Gospel. He gave them that responsibility. Those who had been with Him from the beginning were best suited to do it.

In my view, the Jewish leaders would have thought it was a trick; after all, they did think Satan was behind His miracles.

- Who was Saul?
- Who were the "men" Jesus appeared to that Paul mentions but does not describe?
- How do we know some of the 500 he appeared to were not enemies?

Byblos wrote:
- Who was Saul?
- Who were the "men" Jesus appeared to that Paul mentions but does not describe?

Paul was an unbeliever and a persecutor of the early believers in Jesus, but he was not one of the religious leaders.

1 Corinthians 15:

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.

The Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who killed Jesus would not have been referred to as "the brothers."

However, I think it quite possible that the Jewish leaders would have kept tabs on the disciples and their comings and goings for sometime after Jesus died, therefore, it is possible some of the leaders watched from a distance when Jesus appeared to the 500, but we don't know for sure.



























- How do we know some of the 500 he appeared to were not enemies?[/quote]

Byblos wrote:

Christian2 wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a good question.

My answer would be that it was not his enemies that was going to start up the church and spread the Gospel. They would have probably seen it as something demonic and therefore would not have got the right message across. That is my two cents anyway.

Silvertusk.

That is my view as well.

Jesus' followers were to preach His Gospel. He gave them that responsibility. Those who had been with Him from the beginning were best suited to do it.

In my view, the Jewish leaders would have thought it was a trick; after all, they did think Satan was behind His miracles.

- Who was Saul?
- Who were the "men" Jesus appeared to that Paul mentions but does not describe?
- How do we know some of the 500 he appeared to were not enemies?

Completey forgot about Saul - what a muppet I am

Silvertusk wrote:Completey forgot about Saul - what a muppet I am

That's just inexcusable Silver, your baptist membership ought to be revoked .

Do you guys know for sure where Jesus appeared to the 500?

Christian2 wrote:Do you guys know for sure where Jesus appeared to the 500?

It doesn't say. And Paul does state that the 500 were brothers and sisters (1 Corinthians 15:6), so does that mean they were all believers? I don't know.

Silvertusk wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Christian2 wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is a good question.

My answer would be that it was not his enemies that was going to start up the church and spread the Gospel. They would have probably seen it as something demonic and therefore would not have got the right message across. That is my two cents anyway.

Silvertusk.

That is my view as well.

Jesus' followers were to preach His Gospel. He gave them that responsibility. Those who had been with Him from the beginning were best suited to do it.

In my view, the Jewish leaders would have thought it was a trick; after all, they did think Satan was behind His miracles.

- Who was Saul?
- Who were the "men" Jesus appeared to that Paul mentions but does not describe?
- How do we know some of the 500 he appeared to were not enemies?

Completey forgot about Saul - what a muppet I am

Paul does not meet the criteria, unless he was a member of the Sanhendrin.

Christian2 wrote:Paul does not meet the criteria, unless he was a member of the Sanhendrin.

Why, Jesus' enemies were only the Sanhedrin?

Byblos wrote:

Christian2 wrote:Paul does not meet the criteria, unless he was a member of the Sanhendrin.

Why, Jesus' enemies were only the Sanhedrin?

Ah, yes. My motive in posting this topic.

It has to do with a debate I am having with a Muslim. He contends that Jesus did not die. I found he had the same debate 4 years ago using the same arguments he is using with me. The person who debated him 4 years ago and gave good answers, and now he has appeared on another discussion board with the same old same old.

Here is his case:

"Jesus never appeared even once to at least one of his alleged killers (not enemies) of the Jews especially the Sanhedrin and the Romans in the same flesh and bones that he appeared to the disciples in the upperroom. Had he been "resurrected", he should have appeared to his alleged killers of the Jews at least once in the same flesh and bones that he allowed to be handled by the disciples in the upperroom."

"Had Jesus been resurrected with an immortal body, Jesus should have showed his flesh and bones to his alleged killers so we can know that Jesus body was "resurrected" because the resurrected will be raised immortal. But Jesus never appeared even once to even one of his alleged KILLERS (not enemies) because he did not die.

As a matter of a biblical fact, Jesus was always in disguise as it is seen when the two dicisples (not any ordinary people) on the way to Emmaus were not able to know him (Luke 24:16) even though these two disciples were TALKING with Jesus, WALKING with Jesus, Eating with Jesus, Eating with Jesus then SPEND night with Jesus. Disguise is not needed had Jesus been resurrected because the resurrected will never die."

"the actions and behaviors of Jesus after coming from the tomb speak louder for his survival than his alleged resurrected. For instance, Mary in John 20:15 supposed that he (Jesus) was a gardener. Does the resurrected look like a gardener? The answer is No."

"Had Jesus been raised with a deathless body, Jesus should have appeared even ONCE to even ONE of his alleged killers of the Jews or the Romans because being in disguise is only for the surviving as Jesus was always in disguise to the extent that the two disciples on the way to Emmaus could not recognize it was Jesus that was eating, talking, walking and spending overnight with them."

I and others have answered his "Jesus was in disguise" comments and many others as well, including why Jesus did not appear to the Jewish leaders and the Romans.

This conversation has been ongoing since February. Thank goodness he doesn't show up often.

I just thought maybe someone here might have some more ideas.

AND, the subject of Jesus not appearing to the Jewish leaders came up in a conversation I am now having with some Jews.

"How could the sign of the resurrection:

"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah."

be a sign given to the Jews if Jesus did not appear to them?"

Byblos, I don't know why I get involved in these types of discussions. LOL

The Jews wanted proof of Jesus' resurrection, but first I had to convince them Jesus really existed and cite sources as evidence that He existed and that He died. I did that and they are rejecting what I offered.

I have to be nuts to be doing this. Byblos.

Thanks to all.

Christian2 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Christian2 wrote:Paul does not meet the criteria, unless he was a member of the Sanhendrin.

Why, Jesus' enemies were only the Sanhedrin?

Ah, yes. My motive in posting this topic.

It has to do with a debate I am having with a Muslim. He contends that Jesus did not die. I found he had the same debate 4 years ago using the same arguments he is using with me. The person who debated him 4 years ago and gave good answers, and now he has appeared on another discussion board with the same old same old.

Here is his case:

"Jesus never appeared even once to at least one of his alleged killers (not enemies) of the Jews especially the Sanhedrin and the Romans in the same flesh and bones that he appeared to the disciples in the upperroom. Had he been "resurrected", he should have appeared to his alleged killers of the Jews at least once in the same flesh and bones that he allowed to be handled by the disciples in the upperroom."

"Had Jesus been resurrected with an immortal body, Jesus should have showed his flesh and bones to his alleged killers so we can know that Jesus body was "resurrected" because the resurrected will be raised immortal. But Jesus never appeared even once to even one of his alleged KILLERS (not enemies) because he did not die.

As a matter of a biblical fact, Jesus was always in disguise as it is seen when the two dicisples (not any ordinary people) on the way to Emmaus were not able to know him (Luke 24:16) even though these two disciples were TALKING with Jesus, WALKING with Jesus, Eating with Jesus, Eating with Jesus then SPEND night with Jesus. Disguise is not needed had Jesus been resurrected because the resurrected will never die."

"the actions and behaviors of Jesus after coming from the tomb speak louder for his survival than his alleged resurrected. For instance, Mary in John 20:15 supposed that he (Jesus) was a gardener. Does the resurrected look like a gardener? The answer is No."

"Had Jesus been raised with a deathless body, Jesus should have appeared even ONCE to even ONE of his alleged killers of the Jews or the Romans because being in disguise is only for the surviving as Jesus was always in disguise to the extent that the two disciples on the way to Emmaus could not recognize it was Jesus that was eating, talking, walking and spending overnight with them."

I and others have answered his "Jesus was in disguise" comments and many others as well, including why Jesus did not appear to the Jewish leaders and the Romans.

This conversation has been ongoing since February. Thank goodness he doesn't show up often.

I just thought maybe someone here might have some more ideas.

AND, the subject of Jesus not appearing to the Jewish leaders came up in a conversation I am now having with some Jews.

"How could the sign of the resurrection:

"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah."

be a sign given to the Jews if Jesus did not appear to them?"

Byblos, I don't know why I get involved in these types of discussions. LOL

The Jews wanted proof of Jesus' resurrection, but first I had to convince them Jesus really existed and cite sources as evidence that He existed and that He died. I did that and they are rejecting what I offered.

I have to be nuts to be doing this. Byblos.

Thanks to all.

Aren't we all (nuts) but we do it because it's good for the soul.

Aside from the evidence that he really did exist (I mean come on, some people still use this one? ), the fact is that Jesus did appear to an enemy who was so convinced by what he saw and heard that not only did he renounce his (old) beliefs but became an important founder of the Christian faith (Paul of course). As for him not appearing to his killers, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. How exactly do we know he didn't appear to them? Just because this little fact is not written in the Gospel doesn't mean it didn't happen. And if he did appear to them, how exactly do we know what their reaction was? As others stated they may have thought it was a demonic apparition, they may have been too afraid to tell anyone for fear of being ostracized, they may have believed and converted but never told anyone. The possibilities are endless so that argument is fallacious on those grounds.

Byblos wrote:
Aren't we all (nuts) but we do it because it's good for the soul.

AND not only that, it allows us to know what others think and that is important in order to effectively witness to them. In my case, it makes my faith stronger because I can plainly see the error or motivation in their position. Some people just plain do not want to believe and I am thinking of the Jews now. I think sometimes their faith in their position is not as strong as they try to let on.

That is one reason I sometimes have to endure personal attacks. I must be hitting some "soft" spots.

Byblos wrote:
Aside from the evidence that he really did exist (I mean come on, some people still use this one? ), the fact is that Jesus did appear to an enemy who was so convinced by what he saw and heard that not only did he renounce his (old) beliefs but became an important founder of the Christian faith (Paul of course). As for him not appearing to his killers, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. How exactly do we know he didn't appear to them? Just because this little fact is not written in the Gospel doesn't mean it didn't happen. And if he did appear to them, how exactly do we know what their reaction was? As others stated they may have thought it was a demonic apparition, they may have been too afraid to tell anyone for fear of being ostracized, they may have believed and converted but never told anyone. The possibilities are endless so that argument is fallacious on those grounds.

Good points. In fact, Acts 2 says:

41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

We have no idea that some of Jesus' "killers" were not present during Peter's speech and were among the 3,000 believers.