Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

[Mulefoot]

Mashmont:

Not really. It's just math and probability calculations based on the likelihood of all six (later seven) names carved into ossuaries which were discovered in the tomb, except the one which was believed to have been removed earlier but has the chemical footprint of the ossuaries found in the tomb. Math and spectroscopic chemistry, not faith and belief.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Well your assumptions are that Jesus had a child as noted on the ossuary, that Jesus was of a higher class that would have been buried in a tomb, and that he would have been buried in Jerusalem instead of Nazareth. Just to name a few.

As I said, evidence for those assumptions that go against what we know of Jesus (and more) is scarce enough to require a decent amount of faith and belief.

 

[NotreDame]

They do not need to belong to any such tribe. Pointing out that some tribes used cannibalism was to point out that cannibalism actually exists where as resurrection is a story. The link provided a good reason as to why the apostles ate jesus because that is what jesus told them to eat him.

Again from the link.

So what? The fact what you are referencing existed somewhere on the planet among some tribes is not a rational reason to think what you’re referencing existed in and around Jerusalem, at the time of Christ, and was practiced at all among his 11 Jewish disciples, said disciples were Jews, practiced Judaism, a Judaism which negatively view cannibalism.

The disciples eating Christ’s body, pursuant to or consistent with the cannibalistic belief you reference, is not a rational explanation for the empty tomb.

 

[NotreDame]

Again from the link.

Now, let’s address the link.

The following thoughts of Jesus Christ are cited in the Gospel according to John:
‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life <…> For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. <…> This is the bread that came down from heaven…’ (John, 6, 53-58)

Christian theologians usually interpret this as a metaphor. Such an interpretation corresponds best with the interests of Christianity, but the words by no means sound metaphorically in the original text of the Gospel.

If Jesus Christ perceived his body and blood as a meal that had to be eaten, then it seems that the scene of the ‘Last supper’ – is nothing but the last reminder to the followers about their obligation to eat up their teacher’s body.

That’s a “if”. Your argument starts from the unstated premise the “if” is factual. This is required to reach your conclusion the tomb is empty because the disciples ate Jesus’ body.

There is no evidence supporting his “if” as factual or likely.

There a plethora of reasons to treat the “if” as unpersuasive.

First, anyone intimidately familiar with the OT and NT, whether by independent study or academia, is familiar with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. With this in mind, it’s important to recall Jesus was Jewish. The disciples were Jews. The idea of a Jewish Messiah is rooted in the OT. Indeed, Jesus said he was the Messiah spoken of in the OT. The OT Messiah was to be a mighty king, a ruler of Israel, who would re-establish Israel’s kingdom. The Messiah is a descendant from the House of David. The Jewish Messiah was to cleanse the Jews, and others, of their sins. There are many other OT verses discussing the Jewish Messiah.

Conspicuously absent from any OT verses describing the Jewish Messiah is any notion of eating the Messiah’s flesh or body. Recall, the disciples were Jewish. The disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah of the OT. It isn’t likely they thought they were to eat the Messiah’s body where, being Jewish, and the Messiah rooted in the OT, there isn’t any OT references to eating the Messiah’s body.

Furthermore, the disciples were very accustomed to metaphors as Judaism is littered with metaphors, and Jesus’ well never ran dry of them. “ We are the clay, and You our potter... The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want... I am the Light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life....I am the vine, you are the branches... The Rock! His work is perfect... The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer...”

Those facts may be why the poster hedges with the word “if.”

The disciples eating Jesus’ body is not a plausible explanation. It is a possible explanation, and the possibility is nothing more than a logical necessity.

 

[soylentgreen]

So what? The fact what you are referencing existed somewhere on the planet among some tribes is not a rational reason to think what you’re referencing existed in and around Jerusalem, at the time of Christ, and was practiced at all among his 11 Jewish disciples, said disciples were Jews, practiced Judaism, a Judaism which negatively view cannibalism.

The disciples eating Christ’s body, pursuant to or consistent with the cannibalistic belief you reference, is not a rational explanation for the empty tomb.

True it was not practiced, but it was commanded by jesus himself.

I referenced cannibalistic beliefs to demonstrate that cannibalism is quite possible and is a practice that exists. Where as resurrections exist only in a book of fairy tales.

 

[soylentgreen]

Now, let’s address the link.



That’s a “if”. Your argument starts from the unstated premise the “if” is factual. This is required to reach your conclusion the tomb is empty because the disciples ate Jesus’ body.

There is no evidence supporting his “if” as factual or likely.

There a plethora of reasons to treat the “if” as unpersuasive.

First, anyone intimidately familiar with the OT and NT, whether by independent study or academia, is familiar with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. With this in mind, it’s important to recall Jesus was Jewish. The disciples were Jews. The idea of a Jewish Messiah is rooted in the OT. Indeed, Jesus said he was the Messiah spoken of in the OT. The OT Messiah was to be a mighty king, a ruler of Israel, who would re-establish Israel’s kingdom. The Messiah is a descendant from the House of David. The Jewish Messiah was to cleanse the Jews, and others, of their sins. There are many other OT verses discussing the Jewish Messiah.

Conspicuously absent from any OT verses describing the Jewish Messiah is any notion of eating the Messiah’s flesh or body. Recall, the disciples were Jewish. The disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah of the OT. It isn’t likely they thought they were to eat the Messiah’s body where, being Jewish, and the Messiah rooted in the OT, there isn’t any OT references to eating the Messiah’s body.

Furthermore, the disciples were very accustomed to metaphors as Judaism is littered with metaphors, and Jesus’ well never ran dry of them. “ We are the clay, and You our potter... The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want... I am the Light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life....I am the vine, you are the branches... The Rock! His work is perfect... The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer...”

Those facts may be why the poster hedges with the word “if.”

The disciples eating Jesus’ body is not a plausible explanation. It is a possible explanation, and the possibility is nothing more than a logical necessity.

There is no evidence period.

Claiming to be a messiah is hardly an impediment to asking your apostles to eat you

Actually it is not conspicuously absent Jus one link demonstrates that.

But the thing with metaphors is that they teach and in this case the metaphor taught the apostles how they could take on the ability to preach the word.

But they are not facts. They are just interpretations from a source that is questionable, the bible.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/cannibalism

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Adam was created in approximately 4026 BCE...Genesis was possibly completed by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the year 1513 BCE...

We have mummies that are far older than that.

 

[Dragonfly]

We have mummies that are far older than that.

One must never let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[NotreDame]

I referenced cannibalistic beliefs to demonstrate that cannibalism is quite possible and is a practice that exists. Where as resurrections exist only in a book of fairy tales.

Maybe, but you aren’t doing yourself any favors by introducing an explanation for the resurrection that is tantamount to the very thing you say is a fairy tale.

True it was not practiced, but it was commanded by jesus himself.

This assumes a literal meaning, and there aren’t any compelling reasons for a literal reading. Jesus also said he was the “light” of the world, but he wasn’t literally asserting he is an electromagnetic wave made of photons. Jesus was Jewish, practiced Judaism, and professed he was the prophesied Messiah in the OT in which there is no mention of eating the Messiah’s flesh, and Judaism derided such a practiced. There is no reason or evidence to think the belief and practice you mention existed in the region around Jerusalem at the time of Christ.

Hence, a literal reading makes sense when we ignore those contextual facts.

 

[NotreDame]

But the thing with metaphors is that they teach and in this case the metaphor taught the apostles how they could take on the ability to preach the word.

But they are not facts. They are just interpretations from a source that is questionable, the bible.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/cannibalism

It is debatable whether they are facts, after all the issue debated is the claim they are or aren’t facts.

However, there is evidence. What you have attacked is the weight to be given to the evidence.

There is no evidence period.

This is false. There is evidence. You aren’t going to make a rational, lucid argument by resorting to a demonstrably false statement. The very early epistle quoted by Paul of, “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve,” is evidence of a resurrection.

As William Lane Craig accurately explained and reasoned, “Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian.[/I{ This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case.

For a further list of the evidence, and rational argument made from it, see https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

Claiming to be a messiah is hardly an impediment to asking your apostles to eat you

Yes, the generic statement above, which is an inaccurate characterization of what I argued, wouldn’t be an impediment, which is why I didn’t say the above. Apparently, at your moment of typing a reply, there was no impediment to your use of a Strawman above.

Actually it is not conspicuously absent Jus one link demonstrates that.

No, there isn’t any link the Jewish messiah was prophesied to have his flesh eaten by his disciples in the OT. That is conspicuously absent from the OT messiah prophesies, which is an impediment to thinking Jewish disciples thought they were to eat the messiah’s flesh, and an impediment they took his comments literally.

Indeed, Jesus’ comment to them made no sense, as the verse says they questioned what he had said, whereas if they had any notion of resorting to cannibalism as it came to the Jewish messiah, they wouldn’t have questioned it and taken his remark literally. Furthermore, Jesus spoke metaphorically, something the disciples were accustomed to, and that combined with no verses or belief in Judaism of resorting to cannibalism to eat the Jewish Messiah’s death make such an explanation implausible.

 

[soylentgreen]

It is debatable whether they are facts, after all the issue debated is the claim they are or aren’t facts.

However, there is evidence. What you have attacked is the weight to be given to the evidence.

No, there is no evidence. All there is is a story that is open to alternate theories.

This is false. There is evidence. You aren’t going to make a rational, lucid argument by resorting to a demonstrably false statement. The very early epistle quoted by Paul of, “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve,” is evidence of a resurrection.

As William Lane Craig accurately explained and reasoned, “Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian.[/I{ This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case.

For a further list of the evidence, and rational argument made from it, see https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

That is not evidence. That is scholars talking about the only source of information they have. A book full of fantasy stories.

Yes, the generic statement above, which is an inaccurate characterization of what I argued, wouldn’t be an impediment, which is why I didn’t say the above. Apparently, at your moment of typing a reply, there was no impediment to your use of a Strawman above.



No, there isn’t any link the Jewish messiah was prophesied to have his flesh eaten by his disciples in the OT. That is conspicuously absent from the OT messiah prophesies, which is an impediment to thinking Jewish disciples thought they were to eat the messiah’s flesh, and an impediment they took his comments literally.

Indeed, Jesus’ comment to them made no sense, as the verse says they questioned what he had said, whereas if they had any notion of resorting to cannibalism as it came to the Jewish messiah, they wouldn’t have questioned it and taken his remark literally. Furthermore, Jesus spoke metaphorically, something the disciples were accustomed to, and that combined with no verses or belief in Judaism of resorting to cannibalism to eat the Jewish Messiah’s death make such an explanation implausible.

Your repeating the same argument and I have already pointed out the fault with it. A metaphor is a lesson and the lesson jesus taught the apostles was that eating him would enable them.

 

[NotreDame]

No, there is no evidence. All there is is a story that is open to alternate theories.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

That is not evidence. That is scholars talking about the only source of information they have. A book full of fantasy stories.

A few points. The “source of information” is the evidence. Again, the salient point you are missing is what you are addressing is the weight to be given to the evidence.

Plato’s account of Atlantis is the evidence for its existence. How much weight we want to give Plato’s account is something different.

They, Craig et. all, cite to the evidence. There is evidence present. Then they make rational inferences, or what they argue are rational inferences, from the evidence they cite.

And making rational inferences, and arguing why something is a rational inference, is a reasonable and logical way to think and act.

Your repeating the same argument and I have already pointed out the fault with it. A metaphor is a lesson and the lesson jesus taught the apostles was that eating him would enable them.

Your Strawman is not a “fault” of my view on this point. Neither is anything you’ve said constitute as illuminating any fault in my argument. None.

You conjured a lousy explanation of cannibalism for the empty tomb. To reach such an explanation requires one to ignore fundamental facts about Judaism, Jewish messiah in the OT, Jesus and his disciples were Jews who practiced Judaism, and the OT use of metaphors and Jesus’ use of metaphors.

You’ve not refuted or shown any fault with those facts. Neither have you shown any fault with my conclusion, based on those facts, that your explanation is unlikely, not plausible, to have any fault.

You’ve cited to no facts, no evidence, and no reasoned argument, for the notion of a likelihood Jewish disciples, who practiced Judaism and derided cannibalism, would think the Jewish messiah of the OT in which there’s no mention of eating the messiah’s body, and their familiarity with OT and Jesus’ use of metaphors, understood they were to literally eat the body of Jesus’, their Jewish messiah. You have made no argument how, despite those facts, it is likely they believed they were to eat their messiah’s body.

No, your square peg of cannibalism doesnt serve as a plausible explanation for the circle of Jewish disciples practicing Judaism, along with Judaism’s teachings of a Jewish messiah, in which cannibalism has no basis anywhere. You’ve shown no fault in those facts or argument.

You’ve not attacked the substance.

 

[devildavid]

A few points. The “source of information” is the evidence. Again, the salient point you are missing is what you are addressing is the weight to be given to the evidence.

Plato’s account of Atlantis is the evidence for its existence. How much weight we want to give Plato’s account is something different.

They, Craig et. all, cite to the evidence. There is evidence present. Then they make rational inferences, or what they argue are rational inferences, from the evidence they cite.

And making rational inferences, and arguing why something is a rational inference, is a reasonable and logical way to think and act.



Your Strawman is not a “fault” of my view on this point. Neither is anything you’ve said constitute as illuminating any fault in my argument. None.

You conjured a lousy explanation of cannibalism for the empty tomb. To reach such an explanation requires one to ignore fundamental facts about Judaism, Jewish messiah in the OT, Jesus and his disciples were Jews who practiced Judaism, and the OT use of metaphors and Jesus’ use of metaphors.

You’ve not refuted or shown any fault with those facts. Neither have you shown any fault with my conclusion, based on those facts, that your explanation is unlikely, not plausible, to have any fault.

You’ve cited to no facts, no evidence, and no reasoned argument, for the notion of a likelihood Jewish disciples, who practiced Judaism and derided cannibalism, would think the Jewish messiah of the OT in which there’s no mention of eating the messiah’s body, and their familiarity with OT and Jesus’ use of metaphors, understood they were to literally eat the body of Jesus’, their Jewish messiah. You have made no argument how, despite those facts, it is likely they believed they were to eat their messiah’s body.

No, your square peg of cannibalism doesnt serve as a plausible explanation for the circle of Jewish disciples practicing Judaism, along with Judaism’s teachings of a Jewish messiah, in which cannibalism has no basis anywhere. You’ve shown no fault in those facts or argument.

You’ve not attacked the substance.

Plato's account of Atlantis? He was just making up a fictional story. Even he knew that.

 

[soylentgreen]

A few points. The “source of information” is the evidence. Again, the salient point you are missing is what you are addressing is the weight to be given to the evidence.

Plato’s account of Atlantis is the evidence for its existence. How much weight we want to give Plato’s account is something different.

They, Craig et. all, cite to the evidence. There is evidence present. Then they make rational inferences, or what they argue are rational inferences, from the evidence they cite.

And making rational inferences, and arguing why something is a rational inference, is a reasonable and logical way to think and act.

The most amusing part of this is the complete lack of any evidence. Apart from a badly written book and hearsay from writers who were neither there or even alive at the time, you have nothing more than a story.
Jesus is not the only fictional person who some pretend is real. There is not one shred of evidence that a person called spartucus actually existed. Yet he also is well known through history.

Your Strawman is not a “fault” of my view on this point. Neither is anything you’ve said constitute as illuminating any fault in my argument. None.

You conjured a lousy explanation of cannibalism for the empty tomb. To reach such an explanation requires one to ignore fundamental facts about Judaism, Jewish messiah in the OT, Jesus and his disciples were Jews who practiced Judaism, and the OT use of metaphors and Jesus’ use of metaphors.

No strawman argument not even close to one. Do you know what a strawman is or are you just throwing words in to the mix? No need to ignore anything here. Cannibalism was not unknown and has been expressed in the ot a number of times. And it is again mere convenience that christians will claim metaphor when they do not like what the bible says but will turn around and say factual for the parts they like.

You’ve not refuted or shown any fault with those facts. Neither have you shown any fault with my conclusion, based on those facts, that your explanation is unlikely, not plausible, to have any fault.

Not for me to do so. I need not disprove any other theory. All I need to do is present a plausible alternative. And while cannibalism is something that does happen and there for plausible. Resurrections are only ever achieved in fiction so has less plausibility.

You’ve cited to no facts, no evidence, and no reasoned argument, for the notion of a likelihood Jewish disciples, who practiced Judaism and derided cannibalism, would think the Jewish messiah of the OT in which there’s no mention of eating the messiah’s body, and their familiarity with OT and Jesus’ use of metaphors, understood they were to literally eat the body of Jesus’, their Jewish messiah. You have made no argument how, despite those facts, it is likely they believed they were to eat their messiah’s body.

No one has cited facts or given evidence. All anyone can do when the only information we have comes from a book full of imaginary tales is speculate.

Of course the apostles would not mention eating the body. That sort of thing is not acceptable. So they lied and instead made up a story of a miracle. What better way to start a religion than with a miracle.

No, your square peg of cannibalism doesnt serve as a plausible explanation for the circle of Jewish disciples practicing Judaism, along with Judaism’s teachings of a Jewish messiah, in which cannibalism has no basis anywhere. You’ve shown no fault in those facts or argument.

You’ve not attacked the substance.

Actually if we disregard the mystical and supernatural crap and only look at what is possible in the natural world then cannibalism is the more plausible explanation. However if you want to believe in magic and fairy tales of dead people coming back to life then the less plausible explanation of a jewish zombie walking around would suite you.

 

[iguanaman]

Because there are no eyewitnesses of the event, to prove the resurrection, one must show why it is the most plausible explanation for the historical data we have. I say it is considering how Christianity spread so rapid in Rome and Europe and how a Messiah who was CRUCIFIED and came from a shady background, the religion was basically set up to fail, but because the resurrection is fact, it spread so quickly.

What do you guys think?

I think that if Jesus really reanimated after death then he most likely had eternal life. It also means that he is the only one to receive it. No Christian has ever reanimated after death since. It seems you were fed a bill of goods.

 

[soylentgreen]

So what? The fact what you are referencing existed somewhere on the planet among some tribes is not a rational reason to think what you’re referencing existed in and around Jerusalem, at the time of Christ, and was practiced at all among his 11 Jewish disciples, said disciples were Jews, practiced Judaism, a Judaism which negatively view cannibalism.

The disciples eating Christ’s body, pursuant to or consistent with the cannibalistic belief you reference, is not a rational explanation for the empty tomb.

Do not forget that these so called jews were attempting to overthrow the jewish belief with their own. So trying to pretend they cared about jewish customs is questionable.
Yet a dead man coming back to life is a rational explanation? Only if your pitching for a hollywood movie.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Actually they were written sooner...

Matthew
Writer: Matthew
Place Written: Palestine
Writing Completed: c. 41 C.E.
Time Covered: 2 B.C.E.–33 C.E.

Mark
Writer: Mark
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed: c. 60–65 C.E.
Time Covered: 29–33 C.E.

Luke
Writer: Luke
Place Written: Caesarea
Writing Completed: c. 56–58 C.E.
Time Covered: 3 B.C.E.–33 C.E.

John
Writer: Apostle John
Place Written: Ephesus or near
Writing Completed: c. 98 C.E.
Time Covered: After prologue, 29–33 C.E.

Acts
Writer: Luke
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed: c. 61 C.E.
Time Covered: 33–c. 61 C.E.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990104


There was no eclipse...

a darkness: This darkness was miraculous, caused by God. It could not have been caused by a solar eclipse, which occurs at the time of the new moon. This was Passover season, so the moon was full. And the darkness lasted for three hours, far longer than the longest possible total eclipse, which lasts less than eight minutes. Here in Luke’s account, the observation that “the sunlight failed” is included.—Lu 23:45.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070667?q=eclipse&p=sen


And no, there were no walking zombies...an earthquake disturbed the graves, thus causing dead bodies to be thrown from their graves...

Matthew 27:53

people coming out: Or “they who came out.” The Greek verb indicates a plural masculine subject referring to people, not to the bodies (neuter in Greek) mentioned in verse 52. This evidently refers to passersby, who saw the dead bodies exposed by the earthquake (vs. 51) and who entered the city and reported what they had seen.

after his being raised up: That is, Jesus’ resurrection. The information within parentheses refers to events taking place at a later time.

they became visible: Evidently referring to the dead bodies mentioned in verse 52.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/40/27#s=53&study=discover&v=40:27:51-40:27:54

Is this not the text of Mathew 27:50?

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Don't know how that could be written any clearer?
As to the other points, clarifying that it was 3 hours of darkness actually helps my point: Between his death and resurrection, there was a major earthquake, 3 hours of daytime darkness and dead walking the earth. Yet not one person, or historian made reference to these rather incredible occurrences. First mentioned in the NT 80-100 years later. And yes, there is plenty of history from that region including things such as documentation of natural occurrences such as floods, earthquakes, etc. - that were recorded contemporaneously to the events described.

 

[Daisy]

Is this not the text of Mathew 27:50?

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Don't know how that could be written any clearer?
As to the other points, clarifying that it was 3 hours of darkness actually helps my point: Between his death and resurrection, there was a major earthquake, 3 hours of daytime darkness and dead walking the earth. Yet not one person, or historian made reference to these rather incredible occurrences. First mentioned in the NT 80-100 years later. And yes, there is plenty of history from that region including things such as documentation of natural occurrences such as floods, earthquakes, etc. - that were recorded contemporaneously to the events described.

Sorry, your explanation doesn't hold water, mine does...and the dead walking the streets...yeah, plenty of documentation of that, also...

 

[Buckeyes85]

Sorry, your explanation doesn't hold water, mine does...and the dead walking the streets...yeah, plenty of documentation of that, also...

Explanation of what? I quoted the bible which clearly does not jive with your interpretation. You appear to be using the bible apologists approach where certain things are to be taken literally word for word; but the things that don't add up somehow need to be interpreted to mean something other than what it says.
As to the dead walking the streets, I'm not sure if you are saying there is plenty of documentation for that claim- which of course there is not.

 

[Daisy]

Explanation of what? I quoted the bible which clearly does not jive with your interpretation. You appear to be using the bible apologists approach where certain things are to be taken literally word for word; but the things that don't add up somehow need to be interpreted to mean something other than what it says.
As to the dead walking the streets, I'm not sure if you are saying there is plenty of documentation for that claim- which of course there is not.

I explained to you why there was no eclipse on that day, you can keep denying the laws of nature and believing a lie, if you wish...

 

[Buckeyes85]

I explained to you why there was no eclipse on that day, you can keep denying the laws of nature and believing a lie, if you wish...

And you must not have actually read my post. I said you clarifying that there was not an eclipse but instead 3 hours of darkness further made my point: that something as bizarre as 3 hours of mid day darkness, witnessed by probably tens of thousands of people would have been documented by somebody, somewhere. But wasn't.

 

[Evilroddy]

Well your assumptions are that Jesus had a child as noted on the ossuary, that Jesus was of a higher class that would have been buried in a tomb, and that he would have been buried in Jerusalem instead of Nazareth. Just to name a few.

As I said, evidence for those assumptions that go against what we know of Jesus (and more) is scarce enough to require a decent amount of faith and belief.

Mulefoot:

No assumptions, just archeology and statistical analysis. A tomb with that many ossuaries bearing six such names closely associated with the Joseph of Nazareth family, worked out to about a 1/2,500,000 chance that another family could have such names in its immediate familiy's tree. Given that all of Judea at this time had a population of 600,000 people that's more than four times the population in the denominator. Very unlikely. When the 11th ossuary with James' name on it is added then the odds become less than 1/10,000,000 or about one in 16 times the whole population. Just math supported by archeology. I have not made any of the assumptions you listed. It is your assumptions about the rabbi Jesus' life which are on display here, not mine. The odds are astronomically strong that this was the tomb of the Joseph of Nazareth's family just based on maths. No assumptions have been made about the family's status or wealth. However it should be noted that James, the brother of Jesus was the patriarch of a church and thus may have been a man of considerable means before he was killed. So assumptions of poverty and low status are dangerous ones.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Cordelier]

The concept of resurrection was hardly unique to Christianity. It was a fairly common occurrence in Ancient Greek mythology and as I recall, even Romulus, the founder of Rome was said to have been swept up to the heavens by the god Mars. I think the secret to Christianity's success was that it had a basic core of steadfast Jewish belief but it was able to combine that with the flexibility to incorporate the mythologies of other cultures and thus make it acceptable to their adherents.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Is this not the text of Mathew 27:50?

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Don't know how that could be written any clearer?
As to the other points, clarifying that it was 3 hours of darkness actually helps my point: Between his death and resurrection, there was a major earthquake, 3 hours of daytime darkness and dead walking the earth. Yet not one person, or historian made reference to these rather incredible occurrences. First mentioned in the NT 80-100 years later. And yes, there is plenty of history from that region including things such as documentation of natural occurrences such as floods, earthquakes, etc. - that were recorded contemporaneously to the events described.

Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.

Nobody knows who wrote Mathew


Could that be any clearer.

 

[Valery]

Surely no Christian will say that there were no eyewitnesses to the event when there were the Apostles who wrote about the Resurrection!

Why, you write about it — where you there? No.

 

[Valery]

first of all buddhism is only a philosphipy and islam accpets that Jesus story was true

Islam teaches that Jesus (alaihi as-salam) was a prophet, but it teaches nothing about him having been resurrected, killed and raisen from the dead. Nor does Islam accept the trinity, Jesus (alaihi as-salam) as God's son or God.

So what story are you referring to?