Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[Skwim]

Here's a link for that:

Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Historical Jesus.

Sorry to have posted my reply before finishing it. I added

"And I stand alongside Subduction Zone in requiring that it be contemporaneous with the event." ​

It's obvious that the listed writers in your link would be relying on previous accounts that had been passed down, none of which could be confirmed to be true. If they could have been, the writers of your examples would have certainly acknowledged them so as to establish credibility. But they weren't so acknowledged, so as for "Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Historical Jesus" rising to a level supporting fact, it fails.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry to have posted my reply before finishing it. I added

"And I stand alongside Subduction Zone in requiring that it be contemporaneous with the event." ​

It's obvious that the listed writers in your link would be relying on previous accounts that had been passed down, none of which could be confirmed to be true. If they could have been, the writers of your examples would have certainly acknowledged them so as to establish credibility. But they weren't so acknowledged, so as for "Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Historical Jesus" rising to a level supporting fact, it fails.

.

And what happened to his challenge on finding anything mythical in the New Testament. I mentioned Luke's Nativity and I have not heard a peep.

 

[Riders]

BZZZZZZ ! no!
thanks for playing!!!

see Wiki
Language of the New Testament. The New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600).

common language.
street Greek

Right back at you BUZZ THanks for playing, I don't know what that means but I found this on your page about Koine Greek , its about how Koine Greek is the language of Hellinized Jews.Theres a whole other sextion about the Hellinized Jewish influence on the new testament.

Whereas the Classical Greek city states used different dialects of Greek, a common standard, called Koine (κοινή "common"), developed gradually in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC as a consequence of the formation of larger political structures (like the Greek colonies, Athenian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire) and a more intense cultural exchange in the Aegean area, or in other words the Hellenization of the empire of Alexander the Great.


Some Hellenized Jews were either mystical and or some were Pagan and Christian. There is proof of hellinized Jews who wrote about Pahanism.

 

[Riders]

Right back at you BUZZ THanks for playing, I don't know what that means but I found this on your page about Koine Greek , its about how Koine Greek is the language of Hellinized Jews.Theres a whole other sextion about the Hellinized Jewish influence on the new testament.

Whereas the Classical Greek city states used different dialects of Greek, a common standard, called Koine (κοινή "common"), developed gradually in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC as a consequence of the formation of larger political structures (like the Greek colonies, Athenian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire) and a more intense cultural exchange in the Aegean area, or in other words the Hellenization of the empire of Alexander the Great.


Some Hellenized Jews were either mystical and or some were Pagan and Christian. There is proof of hellinized Jews who wrote about Pahanism.

Heres more on the Hellina culture from the bible
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the early Muslim conquests of the eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch (now in southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the fourth century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).

The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koine Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek. Mentionable are also the philosophic and ethical treatises of Philo and the historiographical works of the other Hellenistic Jewish authors.[1][2]

My understanding is the tales of Philo are Pagan.

 

[Riders]

Heres more on the Hellina culture from the bible
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the early Muslim conquests of the eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch (now in southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the fourth century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).

The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koine Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek. Mentionable are also the philosophic and ethical treatises of Philo and the historiographical works of the other Hellenistic Jewish authors.[1][2]

My understanding is the tales of Philo are Pagan.

Philo said to have belief in the gReek Lagos and also greek Philosophy and also Jewish.
Philo of Alexandria (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything is evidence of something, including The Bible, you can't get around that simple fact. It depends entirely as to what is trying to be proven as to what kind of evidence it is.

Obviously the point here is wheter or not the bible is true / accurate.
And to that claim, the bible is not evidence. The bible is the claim that is in need of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well you aren´t a Christian, and you believe in blasphemy, whatever you believe

That doesn't seem to mean anything. Nore does it seem to be relevant to the point being made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Witness statements are admissable evidence

Not really, actually.

They are just claims. What actually happens, is that you assign it a value of believability, based on its actual contents. And how high that value is, will be determined on things that are not just anyones opinions or beliefs or claims. But actual objective evidence.

For example, if you tell me that you saw a movie last night starring Jessica Alba. I'ld probably just believe you. People watch movies. Alba is an actress, she makes lots of movies. Nothing extraordinary there. Pretty believable.

Now if your "testimony" goes on saying that at some point the image freezed and Alba crawled out of the TV screen, made love to you, then returned to the TV and finished the movie.... then obviously believability will drop to zero.

Here's my question to you: why does it drop to zero?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's your opinion. I seriously doubt you have looked at or researched the supporting information for those 12 facts.

It doesn't matter.

I'm happy to give you those 12 things believed by a concensus of historians, even if only for the sake of argument.

The point is that none of them are sufficient evidence to accept the supernatural bits.

Obviously christianity got started somehow. If not in the way of those 12 points then in some other way.
I'm very okay with a historical Jesus preacher who grew into a myth to be worshipped by his followers.

It's not like we don't have precedents of such, after all...
It's literally the story of every sect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, the scriptures say God "spoke" everything into existence.

Did he say "abracadabra"?

 

[Spartan]

I do know of many of them and most do not present any evidence. But then you probably do not have a scientific education so you are unable to understand what is and what is not evidence in the sciences.

Sorry, but I have a Bachelor of Science degree. Do you?

You keep making such basic basic errors. Your example harms your cause it does not help it. We were not taking about scientists that believe in God, we were talking about scientists that believe the creation myth. Also you do not seem to realize that there were no "creationists" until after Darwin formed his theory. Creationism was a reaction to the theory of evolution.

The errors are yours. There have been many great scientists who have believed in a Creator God, before and after Darwin. Here's a partial list for you:

Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator - creation.com

 

[Spartan]

It doesn't matter.

I'm happy to give you those 12 things believed by a concensus of historians, even if only for the sake of argument.

The point is that none of them are sufficient evidence to accept the supernatural bits.

Obviously christianity got started somehow. If not in the way of those 12 points then in some other way.
I'm very okay with a historical Jesus preacher who grew into a myth to be worshipped by his followers.

It's not like we don't have precedents of such, after all...
It's literally the story of every sect.

You see, this is what I have been talking about. Skeptics lay claim to the "Jesus myth" argument, but they can never offer up any evidence to back up that claim. The real myth is that the Biblical Jesus is a myth. The historical Jesus is the one written about by multiple, independent authors and eyewitnesses who have died as martyrs rather than denounce him. And it does matter that many skeptics REFUSE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES and do their proper historical research. They just want to yap and take the easy way out, without doing their homework.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Skeptics lay claim to the "Jesus myth" argument, but they can never offer up any evidence to back up that claim

Obviously, as it is a negative claim.
However, considering the actual objective evidence, I'ld say a mythical Jesus isn't really that much less likely then a historical one.

Personally, I'm very fine with the idea of a historical Jesus around which myths and legends grew.

The real myth is that the Biblical Jesus is a myth. The historical Jesus is the one written about by multiple, independent authors and eyewitnesses who have died as martyrs rather than denounce him. And it does matter that many skeptics REFUSE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES and do their proper historical research. They just want to yap and take the easy way out, without doing their homework.

No, sorry. The fact is that there is no independent contemporary evidence to support this dude's actual existance. That's just how it is.

We only have original mentions of the dude in biased religious scripture.
Or from people who are just repeating what biased believers have told them.

We have exactly zero actual contemporary and/or independent records. None at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but I have a Bachelor of Science degree. Do you?

Yes, but so what's? Sadly most bachelors of science do not understand the scientific method of the concept of evidence. I am pretty sure that Includes you.

The errors are yours. There have been many great scientists who have believed in a Creator God, before and after Darwin. Here's a partial list for you:

Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator - creation.com

You are making the same mistake that you made earlier and after I explained your error to you. We are discussing creationism, not the belief in a creator. Now you appear to be making an equivocation fallacy. Are you paying attention at all?

Edit: By the way, the source that you linked supports my claim. To work there one must swear not to use the scientific method. If you understand the scientific method you should be able to find where they do this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see, this is what I have been talking about. Skeptics lay claim to the "Jesus myth" argument, but they can never offer up any evidence to back up that claim. The real myth is that the Biblical Jesus is a myth. The historical Jesus is the one written about by multiple, independent authors and eyewitnesses who have died as martyrs rather than denounce him. And it does matter that many skeptics REFUSE TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES and do their proper historical research. They just want to yap and take the easy way out, without doing their homework.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. I thought you claimed to be a scholar. And you have it backwards. The Jesus as a myth people need no evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus since that is an impossible demand. All they need to do is to point out the lack of sufficient noncontradictory evidence for Jesus. Plus the claim of martyrs also fails when investIgated. Yes, there were some martyrs, just as all religions have, but the claims that many early Christmas died for their faith lacks credible support.

 

[Jos]

think of it as...the Borg
of Star Trek fame

you will be assimilated
resistance is futile

have you not considered?
the forbidden fruit trick in the garden.....was a test

we passed

I'm 19. I don't know what is the Borg of Star trek fame and once again, I still don't understand what you're telling me.

 

[Audie]

Yes, the British did that, but the Jews are not British. They had strict laws concerning dead bodies and their holy days.

The jews were not the ones in charge, and the romans were
specifically making jesus an example for jews who
tried to defy roman control. You know that so why
dispute it.

 

[Audie]

You don't like 'Good News for Ancient Man?"

Ironically the King James was written in the language of the common people
as was the New Testament which was written in street Greek.

I use a variety of translations but prefer ESV and the other 'essentially literal translations and in modern English... but if KJV helps someone fine it has many strengths as well

I know all that, but, contorted phraseology
is very suggestive of inability to think straight.
Obscurantism is indicative of something else,
likely a lack of content.
And you know that.

 

[Audie]

You may not have understood me. The intent to deceive is obvious. What I meant was intent as far as personal gain goes.

I understand that you've not it through and seem
disinclined to do so.

Have you read about a scandal in a german university
many years ago concerning carved "fossils" of
outlandish sorts? Both professors involved were
fired, for opposite reasons.

Look that up. Keep your / creo "hoax" in mind.

 

[Audie]

I know of no so called contradictions that are not resolvable in the New Testament

I think what you are describing as a bit of 'tough love' with the moneychangers.

The contradictions between genesis and all
relevant factual data is resolved in the NT,
how?