Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am still checking this out.Sorry about that. Here is the site, it is an article by Craig Evans, the guy Bart Ehrman speaks of.
The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices | Houston Christian University
By Craig Evans The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death on a Roman cross, in Jerusalem, in the early spring of either AD 30 or 33, lies a ...hc.edu
All death penalties (the official ones and not the stonings etc that would have happened unofficially as attempts to kill Jesus show ) were carried out by the Romans even if instigated by the Hebrews, which is the case with the crucifixion of Jesus. The burial was a preoccupation with the Jews and they were the ones who did the burials before sunset, which Joseph of Arimathea did).
That was not a Christian historian. That was a Christian apologist.Why should I try again just to satisfy your biases against Christian historians?
In Mark they prepare and eat Passover meal, Jesus goes to jail for the night and is killled that day, Passover.I don't know what to say about the differences between Mark and John. There are a number of ways to reconcile the problem and I think one of them is correct and you think none of them are correct.
And once again, it says his body was on the cross on the day of preparation. Which is not what happened in Mark.Yes we know the usual practice for the Romans was to leave bodies on the cross.
We also know that the usual practice of the Jews (and the one commanded in the Law) was to not do that and that they would not allow it if possible.
That is what happened in the gospel stories.
John 19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.
I'm much more interested in the moral teachings of religious and philosophical groups than I am in trusting the supposed authenticity of that which cannot logically be established thousands of years later.
But that's just me.
Yes but John also says Jesus was killed on the Day of Preparation unlike Mark where they ate the meal and Jesus was killed on Passover.The same could be concluded from all the Gospels, because all of them tell sins were forgiven by Jesus and Jesus was killed the same time Passover lambs were killed.
In Mark they prepare and eat Passover meal, Jesus goes to jail for the night and is killled that day, Passover.
In John there is no preparation or meal and Jesus was killed on the day of preparation:
“It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14). "
Everyone at the time celebrated the same day, you are trying to make a new Gospel where for some unknown reason they had Passover a day early. Except it says in John they did not because it gives the day and time when he died. So your "simple" theory is not possible and writes another story.
And once again, it says his body was on the cross on the day of preparation. Which is not what happened in Mark.
I think you would have right to decide how long it can live. But, I think it would not be good to torture anyone.Suppose I could do that and I then do it. Do you then feel that I should get to just kill it whenever I please? Do I get to torture it for my entertainment? Is there ANYTHING I could do to it that would be "immoral" in your opinion?
And I think all the findings support the flood story.The increased interest of christians trying to find evidential support of the biblical, greatly increased the amount of geological observations. Much data was gathered, fossils were found, stratigraphy became a thing.
Can you explain why it is clear that it must be billions of years old? I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe so.Eventhough at first people were trying to shoehorn all this data into a biblical myth, it quickly became apparent that it didn't fit.
Not only that, find after find began to show that the earth had to be much older then people believed.
Quickly it was apparant that it had to be at least a couple million years. Then 10s of millions, then 100s of millions. Eventually it became clear it had to be billions.
I have not said that I want someone to be killed. I only tell that some people would deserve to be killed and murderers can't really say others are not allowed to do it.By killing another person.
By what I know, they are the same day, 14 th day, which is preparation day for Passsover Shabbat that is 15 th day of the month.Yes but John also says Jesus was killed on the Day of Preparation unlike Mark where they ate the meal and Jesus was killed on Passover.
There is no historical evidence that in 30 AD in Jerusalem there were 2 separate Passover days. What is your source and how would that happen in 30 AD?There are enough historical reasons to believe there were 2 Passover days following different traditions.
And no, even without that, John's gospel message is the same as the message of the other gospels.
No in one Jesus was arrested and killed on the preperation day, the other he sat in jail until morning.As above.
Wanting the Jews to have worked on the first day of Passover is like wanting them to have worked on the Saturday Sabbath. That is what you are suggesting happened.
Uh, no that isn't what was said,By what I know, they are the same day, 14 th day, which is preparation day for Passsover Shabbat that is 15 th day of the month.
There is no historical evidence that in 30 AD in Jerusalem there were 2 separate Passover days. What is your source and how would that happen in 30 AD?
Ii don't care about non-historian apologists because they will be trying to rescuse the Gospel accounts. What historian has peer-reviewed work that shows there was a different Passover for a different group. As if Bart Ehrman wouldn't know about this information? He has a PhD in NT history and you think he would not know about a historical finding of 2 Passovers?
Mark says the day, he call it the preparation for the Sabbath. So he is clear on which day it is.
In Mark he is nailed at 9 and in John he is nailed at noon? That is not the same?
Also, to the idea that he was with a fringe group who celebrated on the wrong day:
Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between
the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different
days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plau¬
sible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sec¬
tarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought
that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in
both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sec¬
tarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being
slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover
a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical
oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.
One Day. The Jerusalem priests did not use a different day?
No in one Jesus was arrested and killed on the preperation day, the other he sat in jail until morning.
The Gospels give the time and day. No Jews were working.
Bu they do not. They refute it. Are you willing to learn?And I think all the findings support the flood story.
When it comes to geology we understand what sediments are deposited in what environments and how fast they can occur. Chalk cliffs alone refute your beliefs. Chalk is made up of tiny little skeletons of animals called coccolithophores. We can look at chalk under microscopes and see them. We understand how many can live in the a body of water at one time. Though the number is huge they do not deposit very rapidly at all:Can you explain why it is clear that it must be billions of years old? I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe so.
I can only conclude that you are morally bankrupt, I'm sorry to say.I think you would have right to decide how long it can live. But, I think it would not be good to torture anyone.
And I think all the findings support the flood story.
Many many geological formations that take millions of years to form.Can you explain why it is clear that it must be billions of years old? I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe so.
Sounds like the plot of the movie Splice.No.
Arguably, I could say I created life since I have a boy and a girl. But likely you don't mean "that" kind of "created".
Now suppose I have the knowledge and technology to assemble a human atom by atom, and decide freely on its genetic configuration.
This would essentially be a human but with no biological parents, completely custom made in the lab.
Suppose I could do that and I then do it. Do you then feel that I should get to just kill it whenever I please? Do I get to torture it for my entertainment? Is there ANYTHING I could do to it that would be "immoral" in your opinion?
You should perhaps try to understand that just because you could do something, doesn't mean that you should.
Once again, you demonstrate that my definition of faith is an accurate one.Logically imo the whole Bible can be established in consistency of story line and with fulfilled prophecies, and interestingly even the attacks on the authenticity of the Bible are logically what should be expected considering the father of lies, the adversary.
BUT it takes faith in God and His Word and not proving things historically.
We know human philosophies are made up in human minds and have less evidence for the truth of other religions than for the Bible imo.
Well, that's horrifying. What gives God this supposed right? Do you find it moral?Humans are God's children in the same way that Sponge Bob's drawings are his children, and he has the right to judge and destroy them.
Why would that make a difference? Do we have the right to terminate people who are not equal to us?Sorry, I saw the sponge bob cartoon as showing Bob draw something which is not his equal. You seem to see it as Bob having procreated something equal to himself.
So ... might makes right?In that case it might have relevance to human parents and their babies but has no relevance to God and His creation of us, since we are so much inferior to God and God has created all things and is the one responsible for evil in His creation and dealing with that evil.
How do you claim to know what God wants?God wants to deal with it and you say He has no right to do that. But when God does not deal with it you say He is evil for not dealing with it.
Maybe make up your mind. Do you want God to deal with the evil or not?
What?Yes OK, you have already said that you disagree with abortion.
What I am saying is that just because someone "created" me, doesn't give them the right to kill me. My parents created me, but don't have a right to kill when if they feel like it. What gives god this right? You keep saying this right exists, but how and from where? Because God says so?If you can't see that there is no higher authority than the creator of all things, and that there is no place for God to apply for a permit to get rid of His creation and deal with evil, what can I say. You want God to get the right from somewhere but won't say where.
When did anyone show we "don't deserve to live," let alone a God? That sounds like something an abusive husband would say to his wife or an abusive parent would say to his/her child.You also seem to think that humans are equal to God our creator and so God is a murderer if He kills us, even if we have shown that we don't deserve to live.
Do you see that I can show that my position is OK by showing that you position is lacking? I suppose you don't see that.
I didn't exist. My parents had sex. Sperm met egg. Embryo developed. Fetus developed. My mom gave birth to me. Now I exist.I think that is the best definition. And people don't bring anything into existence. People have not made it possible that they grow and produce living cells.
I disagree for the reasons given.Interesting use of the word. I think better word would be for example "made" or "promoted".
I think better word would be caused, not created.