Matthew 28:11-15 - who was there to listen in on the conversation between the

garuds and elders

Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if
a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine." -
this doesn’t mean that the statement from said hostile source means that this man
came back from the dead it simply means that acknowledge that this tomb is empty or
they want people to think it is empty

German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source
never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know
was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began
circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name
would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But
since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no
later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events,"

as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's
traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the
Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early
years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of
the empty tomb too early to be legendary. - how can Paul writing in 1 Corinthians
Ch 11 that speaks about -1- the covering of men and women during prayer -2- the
dynamics and relationships between men women and god -3- that men should have short
hair and women should have long hair-4- the so called body of and the last supper
where he says (For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body,
which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup
is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance
of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's
death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of
that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to
himself, not discerning the Lord's body.) THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOMB OF
JESUS!

And now looking at the book of mark Ch 16 and his account of Mary and her
companions journey to the tomb of Jesus to anoint Jesus dead body with spices in
Mark Ch 16 saying (16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of
James, and Salome bought spices so that they could go and anoint Jesus’ dead body.
2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they came to the
tomb. 3 They were saying to each other, “Who’s going to roll the stone away from
the entrance for us?” 4 When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been
rolled away. (And it was a very large stone!) 5 Going into the tomb, they saw a
young man in a white robe seated on the right side; and they were startled. 6 But
he said to them, “Don’t be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was
crucified.[a] He has been raised. He isn’t here. Look, here’s the place where they
laid him. 7 Go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he is going ahead of you
into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.” 8 Overcome with terror
and dread, they fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were
afraid.) and seeing as only Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
were there so how did mark learn was happened if he not a disciple of jesus he
never met Mary or her companions
Now knowing that marks account of events that he was not there for can not he
trusted and also the facts that we con not trust him because he “probably” got the
story from Mary then he could of just said “now hearing this from Mary Magdalene I
will tell you what happened at the tomb of Jesus” but HE DIDN’T SAY THAT!

Question - can’t we trust Paul’s teachings about the tomb because he was a disciple
Peter who WAS THERE at the tomb with John

Answer - well let’s look at it since Peter does give an account for his time at the
tomb of Jesus we must look to John to figure out what happened in John Ch 20 says (
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to
the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came
running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They
have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but
the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and
looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter
came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen
lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The
cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other
disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.
9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the
dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.) And staying
on the topic of what really happened at the tomb of Jesus we have to focus on the
protagonist here which is Mary Magdalene because she along with her companions are
the only ones who know what happened there and the book of John Ch 20 says (11 Now
Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the
tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the
head and the other at the foot.
13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put
him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not
realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me
where you have put him, and I will get him.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go
instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father,
to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And
she told them that he had said these things to her.) and we still have the same
problem of if he got the story from Mary then he could of just said “now hearing
this from Mary Magdalene I will tell you what happened at the tomb of Jesus” but HE
DIDN’T SAY THAT!

NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about
Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as
the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of
Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for
fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. - I don’t Overstand how
saying because People on this ruling class were simply too well known for
fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way means that the story
true that’s like saying if we have a well known scam artist then it’s completely
impossible to assume that they may have committed fraud and if you are in agreement
that the yes it would would have exposed the Christians as frauds!!
Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic
ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial
account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if
the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This
would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching
the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to
all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at
best. - says that because the tomb is empty does not mean that the man inside rose
up from the dead and even if this was true the disciples would have to prove to the
people they were preaching to who were probably not there to witness the
crucifixion that Jesus died in the first place and you need a body to do that!

Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was
the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There
were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for
Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there. - again, saying that because no
bones were found means that this man must have risen from the dead is just like
saying because I can’t find my remote it must have teleported

Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary
development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a
forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards,
and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three
men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a
talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see
none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels
for that matter! - ok I hope we keep the same mindset!

Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the
testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig
says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male
disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that
despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to
the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they
actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb." - saying that just because this
is supposedly the testimony of a woman who were 1st century Jewish culture was
considered worthless makes this truth? The answer is NO but even if this was her
true testimony then why does it seem like she has problems with memory and
obedience? because in reality the two accounts of Mary Magdalene at the tomb
contradict each other in mark Ch 16 5 it says that (5 And entering into the
sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white
garment; and they were affrighted.) and in John Ch 20 11-12 it says that (11 Now
Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the
tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the
head and the other at the foot.) now if all the stories were the same and had no
deviations and having established this is the testimony of Mary why doesn’t she
remember if there were two or one men and if they angels or not as well because as
you can see in mark she says there was one young man and in John she sees two
angels

Question - isn’t she saying that there was one man/angel on the out side and two on
the inside?

Answer - NO because if you read mark Ch 16 5 it starts by saying “and entering into
the sepulchre” meaning she was inside when she saw this man/angel witch does not
line up with what is written in John Ch 20 11-12 where it is clearly stated that
after entering the tomb she saw two angels
And this not the only thing that is different in these stories in John Ch 20 11-18
Mary meets man that she thinks is just a gardener and confides in him saying that
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put
him.” And that this man is actually Jesus and later on in verse 17 she somehow
figures out that this is Jesus and we know this because he speaks to her as if she
knows that he rose from the dead and she confirms that is Jesus by saying “I have
seen the Lord!” But in Mark Ch 16 6 8 Mary arrives at the tomb and instead of
crying like in John Ch 20 11 she is more concerned with how to move the stone
covering the tomb says in Mark Ch 16 3 (3 And they said among themselves, Who shall
roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?) and after seeing that the
stone had moved she enters the tomb and a young man tells her “Be not affrighted Ye
seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified he is risen he is not here behold the
place where they laid him But go your way tell his disciples and Peter that he
goeth before you into Galilee there shall ye see him” so in John Mary thinks that
she meet Jesus at the tomb win mark a man/angel tells her that Jesus is waiting for
her and the disciples in Galilee so NO MARYS TESTIMONY IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY and
that’s if this is even the true testimony of mary I mean think about it if this is
the testimony of mary why didn’t she write it her self so that we can have the
facts beyond any doubt!

Question - don’t you that Mary was not able to write it herself because women in
1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless That’s she passed the story on
to the apostles!

Answer - Ok so if she was truly unable to write or have it written by a scribe then
why is it so inconsistent? And as mentioned before we still have the same problem
of if he got the story from Mary then he could of just said “now hearing this from
Mary Magdalene I will tell you what happened at the tomb of Jesus” but HE DIDN’T
SAY THAT!

It looks like mark and John are just writing about what they think happened to Mary
at the tomb or Mary lied to them!

Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny
it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty
tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or
philosophical assumptions." Jacob Kremer, who has specialized in the study of the
resurrection and is a NT critic, has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the
reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-
eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim. - it seems that this so called
strong evidence is based on assumptions and inconsistent stories

I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb,
such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all
serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a
hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--
they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an
empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their
preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would
they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any
of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask?
Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer.
There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb
being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable
mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty
tomb, it is the only explanation in town! - first I want to let it be known that I
don’t deny that many have given their life for Jesus and Christianity and
regardless of how I feel Christianity this this IS A FACT BEYOND ANY DOUBT! but we
have to deal with the facts and let it known that just because they these people
died for their faith and believe in Jesus does not mean that he really did rise up
from the dead and die for the sins of all humans and as for the empty tomb I have
already proven that stories surrounding Marys testimony are inconsistent and not
trustworthy

Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one
whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today
because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw
Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels
to believe this. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul records an ancient creed concerning
Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the
letter in which Paul is recording it:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He
was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to
Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred
brethren at one time... - according to 1 Corinthians Ch 15 3-8 written around A.D.
54-55 which says (3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance[a]: 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 Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to
more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters 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.) Paul is saying that according to the Scriptures the crucifixion and
resurrection story are true and exact but we have to ask ourselves and Paul what
Scriptures Paul is referring to? And the answer would be the gospels which are the
books of Matthew Mark Luke and John which were written in approximate order as Mark
around 70 AD followed by Matthew and Luke around 80-85 AD and John around 90-100 AD
but 1 Corinthians Ch 15 was written around A.D. 54-55 so how was it possible for
Paul to time travel and read the Scriptures before everybody else?

Question - what if Paul was talking about the Old Testament?

Answer - NO Paul was not talking about the Old Testament because according 1
Corinthians Ch 15 6 Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people after coming
back from the dead THIS NOT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!

It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from
Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are
listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who
gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As
the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the
statement of eyewitnesses." - according to 1 Corinthians Ch 15 1-8 saying
(15 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to
you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel
you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you
have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: 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
Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five
hundred of the brothers and sisters 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.)
Paul clearly states that he has received his own gospel that he teaches (remember
this was written before the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John) and he says that
this is what will save us meaning that HE DID NOT RECEIVE THIS FROM PETER OR JAMES!
and also if read verse 5 it says that after rising from the dead Jesus goes to see
that Twelve disciples but if Paul was there he would have known that Judas was
already dead so how did he come back to life when Jesus returned? The answer is
that he did not come back to life and that we can trust the account of Paul do it
his lack of knowledge being that he was not actually there and we can trust that
Paul got his information from James who has no mention of being present at the
crucifixion in any of the biblical accounts as well as Peter so we can’t trust what
they may have passed on to Paul about the crucifixion because all three of them
were NOT THERE! and we have already proven that mark and Johns account of what
happened at the tomb is to inconsistent not to mention that they face the same
dilemma of proving which one Mary’s supposed Testimonies actually happened and why
is there a fake one?

Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't
automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ
- now we are being presented with only three options and must choose one or not
be taken seriously

Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew
that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the
resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for
their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe
is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't
have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would
have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give
their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing
events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have
covered up such a lie? Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples
were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else,
the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just
believing something to be true doesn't make it true. - it is just as you say just
believing something to be true doesn't make it true but remember dying for what you
believe doesn’t make it truth either

The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature
of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as
touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly
unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are
highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to
you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams,
generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot
explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of
Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an
appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot
even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb. - I agree The hallucination
theory lacks any proof and reliant on too many coincidences and fantastical factors

Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the
resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that
the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can
we explain the origin of that belief? William Lane Craig points out that there are
three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish
influences. - so now we are going look into how the origins of the Christian
church could provide some proof of the resurrection although I doubt I’m here for
the truth!

But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many
myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the
disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching
on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally
rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that
these mystery religions had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century.
Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity
was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a
result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example,
one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood
drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early
disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from
another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions
were abhorrent to God. - when looking in the possible pagan influence on
Christianity we need look no further then so called father of the three main three
monotheistic religions abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldeans where
such as the story of Utnafishtim who none other the Noah of the Bible so YES your
Christianity and its ideas are not original and do has been influenced by outside
religions

Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st
century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in
the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised
together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of
history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced
the resurrection hypothesis. This is also another good argument against the theory
that the disciples were hallucinating. Psychologists will tell you that
hallucinations cannot contain anything new--that is, they cannot contain any idea
that isn't already somehow in your mind. Since the early disciples were Jews, they
had no conception of the messiah rising from the dead in the middle of history.
Thus, they would have never hallucinated about a resurrection of Christ. At best,
they would have hallucinated that he had been transported directly to heaven, as
Elijah had been in the OT, but they would have never hallucinated a resurrection.
- the idea that Jews of that day and time did have any idea or belief in
resurrection is just not true simply do the fact that there have been multiple
people that have been brought back to life in the Old and New Testament like in 1
Kings 17:17-24 which says (17 Some time later the son of the woman who owned the
house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. 18 She
said to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me
of my sin and kill my son?”
19 “Give me your son,” Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to
the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. 20 Then he cried out
to the Lord, “Lord my God, have you brought tragedy even on this widow I am staying
with, by causing her son to die?” 21 Then he stretched himself out on the boy three
times and cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”
22 The Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived.
23 Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He
gave him to his mother and said, “Look, your son is alive!”
24 Then the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God and that
the word of the Lord from your mouth is the truth.”) - Elijah not to be mistaken
with his return as John the Baptist resurrected a girl

Question - what if Jews didn’t know about event of Jesus resurrection?

Answer - according to the Christian view of events the prophecy of Jesus goes back
as far as Isaiah Ch 53 which says (53
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.He
had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we
should desire him.
3
He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with
pain.Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him
in low esteem.
4
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,yet we considered him punished
by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;the
punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;and
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;he was led like a
lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he
did not open his mouth.
8
By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation
protested?For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression
of my people he was punished.[b]
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.
10
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the
Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,he will see his offspring and prolong
his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11
After he has suffered, he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];by
his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their
iniquities.
12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g] and he will divide the
spoils with the strong,[h]because he poured out his life unto death, and was
numbered with the transgressors.For he bore the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.) verses 11 and 12 as well as verse 5 clearly
states that he will be killed for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities
only to be risen after he has suffered and if we are to follow the Christian
narrative on the resurrection then this was indeed about Jesus and the Jews did
know about the resurrection and following that narrative we can read Psalm Ch 22
which says (1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving
me, so far from my cries of anguish?
2
My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.
[b]
3
Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4
In you our ancestors put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
5
To you they cried out and were saved; in you they trusted and were not put to
shame.
6
But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7
All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8
“He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him.Let him deliver
him, since he delights in him.”
9
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my
mother’s breast.
10
From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11
Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
12
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13
Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint.My heart has
turned to wax; it has melted within me.
15
My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my
mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16
Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[e] my hands
and my feet.
17
All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.
18
They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
19
But you, Lord, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help
me.
20
Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22
I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you.
23
You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor
him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24
For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one;he has not
hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
25
From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who
fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26
The poor will eat and be satisfied; those who seek the Lord will praise him
— may your hearts live forever!
27
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord,and all the
families of the nations will bow down before him,
28
for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations.
29
All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust
will kneel before him— those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30
Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
31
They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He
has done it!) and this is supposed to be a detailed prophecy for of the
crucifixion of Jesus and NOT David as the Christian say THE JEWS DID KNOW ABOUT THE
RESURRECTION OF JESUS!

These are three independently established facts that we have established. If we

deny the resurrection, we are left with at least three inexplicable mysteries. But
there is a much, much better explanation than a wimpy appeal to mystery or a far-
fetched appeal to a stolen body, hallucination, and mystery religion. The best
explanation is that Christ in fact rose from the dead! Even if we take each fact by
itself, we have good enough evidence. But taken together, we see that the evidence
becomes even stronger. For example, even if two of these facts were to be explained
away, there would still be the third truth to establishes the fact of the
resurrection. These three independently established facts also make alternative
explanations less plausible. It is generally agreed that the explanation with the
best explanatory scope should be accepted. That is, the theory that explains the
most of the evidence is more likely to be true. The resurrection is the only
hypothesis that explains all of the evidence. If we deny the resurrection, we must
come up with three independent natural explanations, not just one. For example, you
would have to propose that the Jews stole the body, then the disciples
hallucinated, and then somehow the pagan mystery religions influenced their beliefs
to make them think of a resurrection. But we have already seen the implausibility
of such theories. And trying to combine them will only make matters worse. As Gary
Habermas has said, "Combining three improbable theories will not produce a probable
explanation. It will actually increase the degree of improbability. Its like
putting leaking buckets inside each other, hoping each one will help stop up the
leaks in the others. All you will get is a watery mess." - when talking about the
so called evidence provided here all we have is inconsistent stories and
assumptions based off of faith and belief rather than any sort of physical evidence
as I have already proven using common sense and the Bible itself

Question - well if we can not prove that the resurrection did happen beyond any
doubt using this information TELL US HOW TO ACTUALLY PROVE IT!

Answer - to prove that the man/god called Jesus rose from the dead and to do that
you would need to prove that he did die in the first place and to do that we need a
body but doing that would mean that he did not ascend to heaven which would prove
that Christianity is so we have to face the truth and acknowledge that an alleged
empty tomb DOES NOT EQUAL RESURRECTION! And people dying for something they believe
DOES NOT EQUAL RESURRECTION! and that is a FACT BEYOND ANY DOUBT!

First, we have seen that the testimony of the resurrection goes back to the
original experiences. Remember the eyewitness creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5? That
is the first-hand testimony of Peter and James. So it is not the case that the
resurrection belief evolved over time. Instead, we have testimony from the very
people who claimed to have experienced it. Second, how can the myth theory explain
the evidence for the empty tomb? Third, the myth theory cannot explain the origin
of the Christian faith--for we have already seen that the real resurrection of
Christ is the only adequate cause for the resurrection belief. Fourth, the myth
theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul. Would he be convinced by a myth? His
conversion was in fact too early for any myth to have developed by then. How then
can we explain his conversion? Do we dare accuse him of lying when he said he saw
the risen Christ? - according to 1 Corinthians Ch 15 3-5 which again says (3 For
what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: 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 Cephas,[b] and
then to the Twelve.) you says that paul received this from Peter and James but
according Paul in verse 3 he received this from the Scriptures and have proved that
this was not talking about the Old Testament because there is no prophecy that
speaks about 500 people and the fact that fact Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before any
any of the gospels of the New Testament including the book James SO WHAT SCRIPTURE
DID PAUL GET THIS FROM?!

Question - what if Paul was told about this in secret before the writing of the
gospels of the New Testament?

Answer - this could have happened but Paul makes it very clear in 1 Corinthians Ch
15 3 which says (3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,) and word
used for Scriptures in Greek is γραφὰς (graphas) which according to the strongs
concordance number 1124 it means A document, i.e. Holy Writ (or its contents or a
statement in it) -- scripture. so NOT PAUL DID NOT GET THIS FROM THE APOSTLES!

As for the hilarious theory that this was some sort of legend developed over time
is a good theory because as have shown everything that happened during the
crucifixion so it is more than possible that Paul took the stories of books like
psalms and Isaiah and come to his own conclusion and believing he right he then
taught this to his disciples like mark and was later accepted by Peter

Question - if Paul had been mistaken why would Peter accept his teachings?

Answer - well we really to look into what Peter actually witnessed when it comes to
the so called crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus -1- Peter was there at the
crucifixion but was not there to confirm that the body belonged to Jesus or if he
actually died -2- as to the statements about seeing the empty has been proven to
come from an unreliable source -3- and finally we have to look into if the accounts
of Peter seeing Jesus after his resurrection can be trusted first the account of
Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 about Jesus visiting the apostles can’t be trusted
because Paul see to think that Judas came back to life so now we have to look at
the account of John and Luke and see if it adds up starting with John the first
appearance of Jesus is in John Ch 20 19-23 which says (19 On the evening of that
first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for
fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be
with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples
were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending
you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive
them, they are not forgiven.”) here Jesus meets his disciples on a Monday and
after showing his hands and side he gives them to forgive sins which means that
Jesus is not the only why have your sins forgiven but what you need to remember is
that John never tells us that Jesus has retained the holes on his hand and stab on
his side and John is not dumb enough to not mention this very important detail in
his own book because then we can not trust trust that this is Johns account of what
happened as he excepted it but moving on to Jesus second appearance in John Ch 20
24-29 which says (24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was
not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We
have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger
where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them.
Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be
with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach
out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are
those who have not seen and yet have believed.”) here Jesus confirms that he is the
Jesus he knew and again we face the same problem of John not directly telling us of
actually had holes in his hands but for now lets say the he did actually have holes
in his hands now moving on to John Ch 21 1-13 which says (21 Afterward Jesus
appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee.[a] It happened this way:
2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus[b]), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee,
the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to
fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out
and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize
that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”
“No,” they answered.
6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.”
When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of
fish.
7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as
Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around
him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples
followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from
shore, about a hundred yards.[c] 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning
coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon
Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large
fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come
and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew
it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the
same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples
after he was raised from the dead.) in this story Jesus sees his disciples fishing
and performs the same miracle of killing fish to prove that he is Jesus and makes
some food for them

Now let’s see lukes account and see if they add up starting with Luke Ch 24 1-12
which says (On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took
the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled
away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord
Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that
gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down
with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the
living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you,
while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to
the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then
they remembered his words.
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and
to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and
the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the
women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up
and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves,
and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.) here luke tells a
different story then the on told by mark first he say that after Mary returned she
told all Eleven disciples including Thomas and they didn’t believe her but Mark Ch
16 8-14 which says (8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for
they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they
were afraid.
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to
Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her,
believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and
went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them
with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had
seen him after he was risen.) now here we learn that Mary didn’t say anything to
anyone because she was afraid but the book of John and Luke she told the disciples
and and John and Peter ran to the tomb but here in Luke he says that only Peter ran
to the tomb this not the only inconsistencies that are but the ones have mentioned
should be enough to prove that this so called evidence is not trustworthy nor is it
divinely inspired

https://youtu.be/6oMt6usu3GQ?si=1uLSWMaFU1rfaTMo

https://youtu.be/MceNK-zyQ-4?si=m0lwGuB14IY53P86

https://youtu.be/APB5DqivJmM?si=Anxn5FbgmJY9VFvf

https://youtu.be/Kig0t89nD2A?si=fOcMwtjTQMQe3tao

https://youtu.be/6sOKwrZAJ0I?si=_1kefl_SuIbmSqll

https://youtu.be/tZl7KuQ7sro?si=HvLPvA1OGGtm9bsb

https://youtu.be/ZhLdhnP1cLQ?si=AK_Uh_W5c3cBmn9_

https://youtu.be/Kig0t89nD2A?si=fOcMwtjTQMQe3tao

https://youtu.be/XEVkpFL7m6A?si=Q0aZk2BPHAVZnFZl

https://youtu.be/SvCPo4RDZBs?si=ilPzVIGvivWsKYD0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n78sAym6XoeUpe0bXMfLElcuv5rnuuv8/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Uxb90oq58sivGcFtzm3xXovn0FzSoYJ/view?usp=drivesdk

https://youtube.com/playlist?
list=PL3JR7U5Co79T_MXT0vuHWgbgMSU4K6Kue&si=KOE34qcS4aPdoqww