Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[SkepticThinker]

What - you think that Biblical morality is the pits? Yeah, that's why you're in the dark.

Sorry, what?

We were talking about your supposed prophecy and the logistics of it. But you ignored it.

 

[Spartan]

Sorry, what?

We were talking about your supposed prophecy and the logistics of it. But you ignored it.

You automatically kick everything to the curb. But here's one you can't make go away:

“‘In that day,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, ‘I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight….I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'” (Amos 8:9-10)

“From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.” Matthew 27:45

Just as the “Star of Bethlehem” marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? The following extra-Biblical confirmations provide the answer:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonably, as it seems to me – unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.”

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: “….during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon.”

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, “Contra Celsum,” book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: “Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ….and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar.” Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an “unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate.”

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the ‘other’ side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Documenting A Miracle

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything more to you would only be continuing to suffer your folly. You don't learn and you haven't done your homework.

Wrong, you have not done your homework. You go to unreliable sources and stop there. That is not doing your homework.

The fact is that there is a clearer word for virgin, the word used only means "young maiden" and that says nothing about whether that woman was a virgin or not. If you read the supposed prophecy in context it is clearly not about Jesus. Some Christians, not all, believe this because they took one verse out of context. That is quote mining. It is not a valid way to use the Bible. I can prove that the Bible says twelve different times "there is no God". Does that mean that the Bible denies God's existence? Of course not, because I can do so only by quoting out of context. That is what is being done with the so called virgin birth prophecy. It is out of context. It is a mistranslation. It fails on two levels and you have no answer to those facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

That is a defensive verse written by someone that realized that much of the Bible was nonsense and that one has to lie to oneself to believe the Bible. Don't worry, other religions have the same sort of verses. This is not a flaw that only the Bible has.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You automatically kick everything to the curb.

No, that's you. You are projecting.

Why are you changing the subject now? You never even replied to the other one. Sorry but I'm not interested in any Gish Gallops.

But here's one you can't make go away:

“‘In that day,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, ‘I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight….I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'” (Amos 8:9-10)

“From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.” Matthew 27:45

Just as the “Star of Bethlehem” marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? The following extra-Biblical confirmations provide the answer:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonably, as it seems to me – unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.”

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: “….during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon.”

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, “Contra Celsum,” book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: “Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ….and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar.” Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an “unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate.”

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the ‘other’ side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Documenting A Miracle

I don't know what this is supposed to be, or why you've changed the subject.

 

[Prince Mthembu]

I see that you cannot remember what you wrote. Earlier you posted this:

"Sir all 3 contradictory Abrahamic beliefs contain His existence in some of their manuscript,"

That is why I asked where Jesus was mentioned in a Jewish text. He was not. He did not fulfill the messianic prophecies which is why early Christian writers had to invent their own prophecies. For example the Virgin Birth prophecy. That failed on several levels. First in the original if did not say "virgin" it was based upon a Greek mistranslation". Second it was not a prophecy, but history. An event that had already happened. And it failed since Jesus was never known as Emmanuel. He was only called that by Christians that went "oops" more than a hundred years after the fact.

Still, all these controversies proves not His existence to you?

 

[Prince Mthembu]

Wrong again. Your beliefs are artificial. They are a product of your brain. Now you are only demonstrating that you refuse to reason rationally. That was the point of my question. It quickly tells us if one is talking to a person that can reason or not.

And I do not have faith. That is your failing not mine.

I'm pointing to things a natural man can relate to because things of the spirit are not for the carnal mind. My rationale is that you can't deny Jesus' place in history - it's perplexing that you truly don't recognize that such a story wouldn't survive a decade if it weren't true besides you really don't sound like you did much of your homework on Jesus but just took what made sense to you. Presumably, you're murdering me on the same slate that I made no research about the truth. I have tested and tried Jesus He is the truth Mr Sub. Have made any effort in finding out about the most controversial being there ever was since the beginning of time? There's just no way to deny that something is going on behind that veil and I'm not trying to convince you but rather persuade you to seek truth of life to awaken you that most of what you've been fed is a lie. If all the presented evidence is not enough then I have one which requires patience as it's inevitable and that is time but unfortunately then will be too late for anyone who believed not in righteousness and justice.

 

[Prince Mthembu]

If you reread my statement you will see that I said "if he existed". Please pay more attention before questioning the worth of what I say.

So you aren't ascertaining His death? were you just passing remarks?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm pointing to things a natural man can relate to because things of the spirit are not for the carnal mind. My rationale is that you can't deny Jesus' place in history - it's perplexing that you truly don't recognize that such a story wouldn't survive a decade if it weren't true besides you really don't sound like you did much of your homework on Jesus but just took what made sense to you. Presumably, you're murdering me on the same slate that I made no research about the truth. I have tested and tried Jesus He is the truth Mr Sub. Have made any effort in finding out about the most controversial being there ever was since the beginning of time? There's just no way to deny that something is going on behind that veil and I'm not trying to convince you but rather persuade you to seek truth of life to awaken you that most of what you've been fed is a lie. If all the presented evidence is not enough then I have one which requires patience as it's inevitable and that is time but unfortunately then will be too late for anyone who believed not in righteousness and justice.

Using this logic, all religions with texts have to be true stories, as long as they've been around for more than a decade.
You might want to re-think that line of reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still, all these controversies proves not His existence to you?

How would they? They are evidence that a man named Jesus existed at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pointing to things a natural man can relate to because things of the spirit are not for the carnal mind. My rationale is that you can't deny Jesus' place in history - it's perplexing that you truly don't recognize that such a story wouldn't survive a decade if it weren't true besides you really don't sound like you did much of your homework on Jesus but just took what made sense to you. Presumably, you're murdering me on the same slate that I made no research about the truth. I have tested and tried Jesus He is the truth Mr Sub. Have made any effort in finding out about the most controversial being there ever was since the beginning of time? There's just no way to deny that something is going on behind that veil and I'm not trying to convince you but rather persuade you to seek truth of life to awaken you that most of what you've been fed is a lie. If all the presented evidence is not enough then I have one which requires patience as it's inevitable and that is time but unfortunately then will be too late for anyone who believed not in righteousness and justice.

First off let's drop this "natural man" and "carnal mind" nonsense. That is an attempt to insult.

And many stories that are not true last far longer than that. Look at the myths of Genesis from your own Bible.

 

[paarsurrey]

I see that that sex ed lesson still has not kicked in.

They were virgins until they had sex. When found they were virgins. Why is that such a hard concept to understand? Do you believe the myth that Mary was a virgin for all of her life? That is not even biblical. Your facepalming privileges have been revoked since you don't understand 6th grade intro to human relationships.

"Mary was a virgin for all of her life"

James was brother of Jesus, so Mary was not a virgin for all her life.

Regards

 

[lukethethird]

How would they? They are evidence that a man named Jesus existed at best.

The author of Mark may have had an itinerant preacher in mind when he wrote his gospel but we don't know that his name was Jesus. He could have got that name from Paul and it's a safe bet that Paul's Jesus was a heavenly entity, one that was to come to earth in Paul's lifetime.

 

[sojourner]

To me the answer lies on one's knowledge or education about what the Bible really teaches.
From the Bible we learn that Jesus did die, and his God resurrected the dead Jesus from the grave.

Not according to Mark...

 

[sojourner]

"Mary was a virgin for all of her life"

James was brother of Jesus, so Mary was not a virgin for all her life.

Regards

Mary was likely not even a Virgin before Jesus was born.

 

[sojourner]

The evidence is clear that Jesus died and was seen alive after death. As even resurrection skeptic John Dominic Crossan said, "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus."

As for Jesus being alive afterward, even most skeptics of Christianity grant that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is a nutshell of the gospel that the original Christians believed. They also grant that the passage isn't guilty of embellishment and that the statement is sincere. Therefore, in the words of Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80, emphasis mine).

The question then becomes, "How could the witnesses see Jesus alive after He was crucified?" Most skeptics today, including Lüdemann, believe they merely hallucinated, but that contradicts the fact that people saw Jesus even in groups. Because hallucinations come from a person's mind, a group hallucination would itself be supernatural. If you hallucinate an apple in front of you, no one else will be able to see it. If anyone else does, the apple's really there!

Furthermore, even skeptics like the apostle Paul converted upon seeing Jesus risen. (Again, it's unchallenged even by secular scholarship that Paul was a persecutor-turned Christian who said his radical transformation was because he saw Jesus risen.) How could he hallucinate something happening that he "knew" (at least in his mind) to be false? A modern-day equivalent would be for the likes of Richard Dawkins to suddenly claim he saw Jesus, and then become a Christian.

The best explanation, though controversial for being religious, is that Jesus was really there to be seen. In other words, yes, Jesus rose from the dead.

Crossan goes on to say that Jesus body was likely thrown to the dogs...

 

[sojourner]

How do you know that about the New Testament ? You don´t. You have an opinion, opinions aren´t evidence.

We know this due to literary scholarship.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Mary was a virgin for all of her life"

James was brother of Jesus, so Mary was not a virgin for all her life.

Regards

Some still believe that Mary remained a virgin. They will make excuses for James. He was the son of Joseph from an earlier marriage, he was not his blood brother,and who knows what else. That was why I asked, but received no answer.

 

[sojourner]

Read the New Testament. It exists, it is evidence, so, prove it wrong. Of course, you cannot.

It exists, but not as factual documents, rather stories and theological letters. The evidence simply is not factual.

 

[paarsurrey]

Some still believe that Mary remained a virgin. They will make excuses for James. He was the son of Joseph from an earlier marriage, he was not his blood brother,and who knows what else. That was why I asked, but received no answer.

It is a wrong notion that Mary was begotten by the Christian-God. Mary was not a wife unto G-d.

Regards