Sorry, but that won't qualify as authentic evidence of a historical event
Welcome to the world of ancient history, where most that is recorded is at least somewhat inaccurate.
Why, he even counted them to be 500!
Another standard attribute of ancient history is to use larger than reality numbers.
...or are you suggesting that some 500 people experienced a mass hallucination of sorts?
Pretty much, yes. It wouldn't be the first or last time a large group of people shared a religious experience like that.
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; for this is my body."
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it";
28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Only this is not the crucifixion. More importantly, it is just a small part of christian theology. Paul barely touches on it, and it is a rather minor aspect of early christian writings. Most importantly, the liturgical "drinking and eating" of the body and blood of Jesus is hardly akin to bathing in the blood of a slaughtered bull.
....except from Jesus's own mouth.
No, except from some words placed in jesus' mouth by the early christian community, which became part of early christian and later liturgy.
Jesus himself said that the shedding of his blood was expressly for the remission of sin.
According to the gospels, although it is unlikely he actually said this.
He said nothing about a resurrection in connection with the remission of sin.
According to a tradition earlier than the gospels, this was exactly what was important.
What significance does the resurrection hold for mankind?
None. Unless one is christian, of course.
Who cares that he rose up from the dead and went to heaven? How does that help anyone on earth?
It doesn't. Neither does is death. Unless one is christian. Then the resurrection extremely important.
The Resurrection is merely a trophy piece held up by Christians to "prove" that Jesus was indeed "divine", and not just another schmo.
If he wasn't thought to resurrect, then we wouldn't have christianity. The messiah wasn't supposed to be crucified. He was supposed to restore the davidic line and Israel. By changing this expectation to a "theological" kindgom governed by a risen messiah, christianity was formed. Without the risen messiah, you don't have "christ"ianity.
That Buddha might have been a historical person or even that Muhammed received the Koran from Allah is a zillion times more plausible than the resurrection from the dead of the physical body into heaven of Jesus Christ.
Not really. How is it more plausible to suppose a omniscient and omnipotent God who is actively involved in our world dictated his words to a man via an angel, than to suppose he sent his son as a human, and brought him back to life? Both are impossible by any normal standard.
"Many Jewish sources discuss the deeper meaning behind korbanot. For example, Sefer Hachinuch explains that an individual bringing an animal sacrifice for a sin understands that he personally should have been sacrificed as punishment for the rebellion against God inherent his the sin, but God mercifully accepts the sacrifice in his or her place. Furthermore, it is fitting that an animal is used as a sacrifice because at the moment of sin, the individual in question disregarded his elevated human soul, effectively acting as an animal."
Are you deliberately missing the point? I'm not denying that the idea of sacrifice for absolvement existed in Judaism. My points are:
1. This was not the most common use of sacrifice. The most common was simply to honor YHWH.
2. The Jews weren't pagan, so the influence of Judaic sacrificial practices isn't a matter of christianity using pagan ideas.
3. In religious practices, sacrifices is usually not for the cleansing of sin.
Of what use is your posting what Luke said in Greek script? Most readers here do not read Greek, so are you just doing it to impress, or what? You then go on to provide the English translation, which does not say anything different than: "forgive them, for they know not what they do". The point is still, once again, that Jesus is asking his Father to forgive his transgressors for their Ignorance, rather than for the Sin caused by their Ignorance.
My point is that it is too often forgotten that the NT isn't written in english. So when you quote an english translation you may very well be missing certain subtleties and nuances.
That is the popular mainstream view, but it is not necessarily true.
It is not the "mainstream view." It is the view of every single scholar in relevant fields. There are a few who have argued, for example, that matthew was written in hebrew. But there are virtually none who argue that all the gospels were originally written in aramiac. More importantly, no aramaic scholar believes that syriac was spoken in Jesus' day. The language of the Pe****ta is from a different period of aramiac.
You do not speak or read Aramaic, but one of the translators I referred to in our previous discussion speaks fluent Aramaic
Again you display a basic lack of comprehension on the matter. Speaking modern aramaic is TOTALLY different than speaking the language of Jesus. You speak and read English. Do you think that, if I gave you the text
Ancrene Wisse or a text of Chaucer you would be even able to read it? It is in English, but the english of a different period. The different forms of aramiac in Jesus' day are a different period of aramiac than the syrian texts, and large difference exist between the two periods. Even more exist between both of these and modern aramaic.
NO expert in aramaic of Jesus' day believes that Syriac aramiac was spoken.
, and stated that, essentially, there was not such a big difference after all, and that, he was even able to read the Galilean dialect, as well as others, without too much trouble
I studied classical greek prior to NT studies. From studying that greek, I could read the NT greek without too much trouble. Yet I know, as does every student of greek, that there are large differences between the two languages. Pronunciations changes, syntactical changes, and so forth took place between the greek of Jesus' day, and that of Plato's day. The fact that I could make my way through the simpler Koine greek of Jesus' day after studying classical greek doesn't change this.
Sorry, but I believe him far more than I do you.
Yes, because you want to believe this, not because there is any evidence to support the claim. You have consistently failed to quote any modern NT expert (including experts on Aramiac) who believe the gospels were written in greek, or that the Pe****ta is not a translation. You have found a couple of non-experts, even quoting ministers from over a century ago, who believe this, and because it conforms to what you want to believe anyway, you do. I can give you any number of NT and aramaic experts who will say otherwise, because they all do, even those who argue that Matthew was not written originally in greek.
