Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

If you misunderstood what i meant about waste of time, then how do you know your not misunderstanding paul?

And verse 8 he does not come out against sex.

Because I can read. For fun I read your post literally. It appears that you pack a sense of humor as well. A person with th one would have understood his error.

 

[Riders]

Did you get my reply on the video?

yes but there is too much info and too much credible proof including the fact that the new yes testament was written in classical Greek.

Its a form of writing that Paul and the others or most people except classical Greek scholars did not even know how to do.Classical Greek scholars were all Greek and Pagan back then.

The bible is not reliable at all in my book. The video the 1600s KJ bible says the bible you have now is really not even the bible, there's so many differences between the bible we read and the real bible its shocking.

I do not trust the bible.

 

[Jollybear]

But he was not consistent in how he remembered his vision. You had to spin it to make it look as he did. And the author of Acts was a student of his. That his account of Ananais matches Paul's is not surprising not would it be evidence for Paul.

He was not consistent in how he remembered his vision? Really? Ok, lets re look at that AGAIN because thats simply false.

Acts 9

"3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. 10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight

Acts 22

"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

8“ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

10“ ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

12“A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.

Acts 26

"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests.13About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, a ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

15“Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’"

Wheres the inconsistencies?

Is your idea of inconsistency the same as telling the same story over and over with a slight bit variation? Variation is not the same as contradiction.

Here, watch this. Lets TEST it and see.

Ill retell you the murder i witnessed without looking how i told it to you the first time. But ill try to tell it verbatum. Then after i tell it, ill scroll up and repost how i said it the first time and then compare it to see how i did. This is how good memory, with variation works and its what paul had here.

Ok....here goes...i saw a guy arguing with a woman. There was another guy there, he wpuld but in periodically. The guy arguing with the woman told him to butt out. So he did for a period of time. Then he would butt in again and then was told to butt out again. This happened about 3 times. Then finally the guy arguing with tje woman yelled at him to butt out and then stabbed the guy. The guy fell down unconcious. Then the stabber grew afraid and said sorry he didnt mean it.

Now, lets see how i did.

"I saw a stabbing. A guy and a girl wer arguing. Another guy butted in. The guy arguing with the woman said "stay out of it". He did for a period, then butted in again. This happened about 3 times. Then the guy arguing with the woman stabbed the but in guy with a knife and yelled in rage "stay out of it!". Then the guy who got stabbed fell on ground and was totally unconcious. The stabber became afraid and kept repeating "im so sorry, i didnt mean it".

The story looks consistent to me, but theres some variation. And thats just the nature of what we see of pauls 3 repeats of the same story.

 

[Jollybear]

yes but there is too much info and too much credible proof including the fact that the new yes testament was written in classical Greek.

Its a form of writing that Paul and the others or most people except classical Greek scholars did not even know how to do.Classical Greek scholars were all Greek and Pagan back then.

The bible is not reliable at all in my book. The video the 1600s KJ bible says the bible you have now is really not even the bible, there's so many differences between the bible we read and the real bible its shocking.

I do not trust the bible.

Do you have any REAL data examples of these differences between the real bible and the one we read today?

 

[Riders]

Do you have any REAL data examples of these differences between the real bible and the one we read today?

I have it here in this video. An actual record of the original KJ and actually hen your talking about KJ of the 15 and 1600's there are books and texts that have been removed int he 18 and 1900's as seen here. There's a bunch of stuff in the old bible not in our bible. You can't say oh those are the lost books there are not cannonized,

I am talking about stuff left out of the old KJ bible for some reason. It just to show how much has seen changed out of the bible. I may start a new thread for it.

There's another video there that says there's 75 books left out.Why is all this stuff left out?

 

[The Anointed]

See you on Friday

If you can't be honest why even post here? And no, you are the terribly ignorant one here. There is no reason to think that the line in Matthew is Joseph's and the line in Luke is that of Mary's. That is a desperate belief of those that cannot face reality.



Nope, the Bible. You failed the first test.



More failures. If you want to debate please find valid sources for your claims. And didn't I ask you about Luke's error? How he had Jesus born both at roughly 4 BC and 6 AD? How do you deal with that failure of the Bible? Not to mention the "prophecy" based upon a mistranslation of the Septuagint.

Subduction Zone wrote……. Fine, i made a small mistake typing late at night.

The Anointed……. If that were your only mistake, I would have let it slide right on by, But mate, you are notorious for your biblical ignorance.

You even believed that the genealogy recorded in Matthew was the genealogy of Jesus, when even a blind person can see that it was the genetic record of Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and had no sexual relation with her until after she had given birth to Jesus, the son of Joseph ben Heli. Apparently, you don’t even read the scriptures.

Subduction Zone wrote……. If you can't be honest why even post here?

The Anointed……. The proof is there for all to see and Judge for themselves who the dishonest one is. You stated that both Matthew and Luke record the genealogies of Jesus and that they contradict each other.

Subduction Zone wrote……. And no, you are the terribly ignorant one here. There is no reason to think that the line in Matthew is Joseph's and the line in Luke is that of Mary's. That is a desperate belief of those that cannot face reality.

The Anointed……… The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary. Please reveal where the bible states that Jesus carried the genes of Joseph the son of Jacob, who married his mother when she was pregnant to Joseph the son of Heli, who was her half-brother.

Isaac is seen as the prototype of Jesus. Both were the promised seed of Abraham, both were born of a brother-sister relationship and both were born according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac, the biological son Abraham, who is the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli.
.
Amplified Bible Galatians 4: 29; “And just as at that time the child that was born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted (Isaac)who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.

‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by a messenger of God that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, whose spirit=information=word, descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father.” Or rather, “THIS DAY" I have begotten thee.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

The Roman church is renowned for corrupting the words of the Lord, in order to support their lie that Jesus was a God who became a man, rather than a man who was given divine glory by God [See Acts 3: 13] and who is now incontestably divine.

Subduction Zone wrote……. More failures. If you want to debate please find valid sources for your claims.

The Anointed…….. Leviticus 12: 3; on the 8th day the male child shall be circumcised, 33 days later the woman is to perform the ceremony of purification.

Luke 2: 22; The time came for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses commanded [Which we know is 41 days after the birth of the child] so they took the child to the temple in Jerusalem.

No sane person would have taken a new born male child from Bethlehem of Judaea to Jerusalem If Herod’s men had just slaughtered all the innocents in Bethlehem as the myth of the Roman church states.

Luke 2: 39; After performing the ceremony of purification 41 days after the birth of the Child, they returned to their home in Nazareth.

Matthew 2:2; Astrologer/astronomers from the east come to the palace in Jerusalem searching for the child that had been born to be King of the Jews at the time they had seen the heavenly sign.

Matthew 2: 7; Herod calls the visitors to a secret meeting and enquires of them, the EXACT time that they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of the promised king.

Matthew 2: 16’ Herod determines the age of the children to be slaughtered as two years and below, in accordance to the time that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised king.

Knowing that the holy family had returned to Nazareth within two months of the birth, and the wise men had seen the heavenly sign over twelve months before arriving in Jerusalem, we can safely assume that they were in Nazareth sometime just before the great riots in that area, which were put down by the Romans in 4 B.C, when Herod died after a failed suicide attempt.

Whether or not atheists such as yourself believe the scripture that in their ignorance they attack, to the believers in the scriptures, as opposed to the believers in the myths of the Roman Church, the sources given above, are valid and support everything that I have said.

Both Hellena and her son Constantine are saints in the Roman Catholic church, and their saint Helena is called, “The equal of the Apostles.” Over three hundred years after Jesus, Constantine appointed his mother Helena as Augusta, and gave her unlimited access to the imperial treasury in order to locate the relics of early Judeo-Christian times.

The Church of the Nativity is the oldest Church in the Holy Land still in use. The first Church was built over the Grotto of the Nativity in the 4th century A.D under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine’s mother Helena.

The tradition of the church of Constantine teaches as biblical truth, the Milk Grotto, a short distance from the church of the nativity, is where Mary was supposed to have hid after the wise men who had paid homage to her child in the manger and had returned to their own country, and while Herod’s solders were slaughtering the innocents in the streets of Bethlehem of Judaea, Mary was supposed to have suckled the baby Jesus to keep it quite before her escape to Egypt.

According to the traditions of the Church of Constantine, Mary and her child rested in a cave, called the Milk Grotto (la Gruta de la Leche), near the place where today stands the Church of the Nativity (la Iglesia de la Natividad). There, (Or so it is said) their supposed Virgin Mary breastfed the child. A drop of milk fell on a stone of the cave, and the stone turned white. During the early centuries, this white rock, diluted in water, took the appearance of milk and was used as a religious relic.

Both Christians and Muslims believe scrapings from the stones in the grotto boost the quantity of a mother’s milk and enhance fertility. Mothers usually mix it in their drinking water; would-be mothers place the MAGICAL rock under their mattress.

There is also an old tradition that identifies this as the burial site of the young victims of Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents. There is a chapel dedicated to them in the caves beneath the Church of St. Catherine.

Anyone who believes that Roman myth, has never studied the bible.

Well we're off now and wont be back till Friday.

 

[Riders]

So this guy also says the orginal bible in the 15 to 1600s are all together different.Jesus was not his name Yezoos is how it is pronounced, Ieusus

 

[Prometheus85]

Well, if he wrote a letter, would that not indicate he existed? I mean the letter dont pop out of no where. Or, mayby it does, for you also believe the universe came from nothing too, so, i gauss this could happen, lol.



There sources wer the apostles, the apostles wer the "FIRST HAND EVIDENCE".

And did you look at that chart i gave to riders? You say a book written 100 years after is unreliable, if thats the case, youd have to say all ancient books are unreliable.

Look at this chart of historical documents compared to the New Testament.

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? | CARM.org

Ok you’re Arguing form ignorance. Because
Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I. And how can the apostles be the sources for clements writings when the accession of Clement was something like thirty-six years after the death of the Apostles. As this would make it almost impossible for Clement to have been their contemporary. And the link you sent me only confirms your confirmation bias. Because you continually seek out information that confirms your pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative.

 

[leroy]

Its a form of writing that Paul and the others or most people except classical Greek scholars did not even know how to do.Classical Greek scholars were all Greek and Pagan back then.

Paul was a scholar and spoke Greek.

The gospels where written in arameic and then translated in to various languages, including Greek.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was not consistent in how he remembered his vision? Really? Ok, lets re look at that AGAIN because thats simply false.

Acts 9

"3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. 10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight

Acts 22

"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

8“ ‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

10“ ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

12“A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.

Acts 26

"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests.13About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, a ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

15“Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’

“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’"

Wheres the inconsistencies?

Is your idea of inconsistency the same as telling the same story over and over with a slight bit variation? Variation is not the same as contradiction.

Here, watch this. Lets TEST it and see.

Ill retell you the murder i witnessed without looking how i told it to you the first time. But ill try to tell it verbatum. Then after i tell it, ill scroll up and repost how i said it the first time and then compare it to see how i did. This is how good memory, with variation works and its what paul had here.

Ok....here goes...i saw a guy arguing with a woman. There was another guy there, he wpuld but in periodically. The guy arguing with the woman told him to butt out. So he did for a period of time. Then he would butt in again and then was told to butt out again. This happened about 3 times. Then finally the guy arguing with tje woman yelled at him to butt out and then stabbed the guy. The guy fell down unconcious. Then the stabber grew afraid and said sorry he didnt mean it.

Now, lets see how i did.

"I saw a stabbing. A guy and a girl wer arguing. Another guy butted in. The guy arguing with the woman said "stay out of it". He did for a period, then butted in again. This happened about 3 times. Then the guy arguing with the woman stabbed the but in guy with a knife and yelled in rage "stay out of it!". Then the guy who got stabbed fell on ground and was totally unconcious. The stabber became afraid and kept repeating "im so sorry, i didnt mean it".

The story looks consistent to me, but theres some variation. And thats just the nature of what we see of pauls 3 repeats of the same story.

The "variation" was rather significant. But then that is the excuse given all to often. You see if the Bible was the "word of God" then it should not have such flaws in it. If it were just the work of flawed men, then we would expect such "variation".

 

[Subduction Zone]

See you on Friday


Subduction Zone wrote……. Fine, i made a small mistake typing late at night.

The Anointed……. If that were your only mistake, I would have let it slide right on by, But mate, you are notorious for your biblical ignorance.

You even believed that the genealogy recorded in Matthew was the genealogy of Jesus, when even a blind person can see that it was the genetic record of Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and had no sexual relation with her until after she had given birth to Jesus, the son of Joseph ben Heli. Apparently, you don’t even read the scriptures.

Subduction Zone wrote……. If you can't be honest why even post here?

The Anointed……. The proof is there for all to see and Judge for themselves who the dishonest one is. You stated that both Matthew and Luke record the genealogies of Jesus and that they contradict each other.

Subduction Zone wrote……. And no, you are the terribly ignorant one here. There is no reason to think that the line in Matthew is Joseph's and the line in Luke is that of Mary's. That is a desperate belief of those that cannot face reality.

The Anointed……… The genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph the son of Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary. Please reveal where the bible states that Jesus carried the genes of Joseph the son of Jacob, who married his mother when she was pregnant to Joseph the son of Heli, who was her half-brother.

Isaac is seen as the prototype of Jesus. Both were the promised seed of Abraham, both were born of a brother-sister relationship and both were born according to the power/workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac, the biological son Abraham, who is the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli.
.
Amplified Bible Galatians 4: 29; “And just as at that time the child that was born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted (Isaac)who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.

‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by a messenger of God that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, whose spirit=information=word, descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father.” Or rather, “THIS DAY" I have begotten thee.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”

The Roman church is renowned for corrupting the words of the Lord, in order to support their lie that Jesus was a God who became a man, rather than a man who was given divine glory by God [See Acts 3: 13] and who is now incontestably divine.

Subduction Zone wrote……. More failures. If you want to debate please find valid sources for your claims.

The Anointed…….. Leviticus 12: 3; on the 8th day the male child shall be circumcised, 33 days later the woman is to perform the ceremony of purification.

Luke 2: 22; The time came for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses commanded [Which we know is 41 days after the birth of the child] so they took the child to the temple in Jerusalem.

No sane person would have taken a new born male child from Bethlehem of Judaea to Jerusalem If Herod’s men had just slaughtered all the innocents in Bethlehem as the myth of the Roman church states.

Luke 2: 39; After performing the ceremony of purification 41 days after the birth of the Child, they returned to their home in Nazareth.

Matthew 2:2; Astrologer/astronomers from the east come to the palace in Jerusalem searching for the child that had been born to be King of the Jews at the time they had seen the heavenly sign.

Matthew 2: 7; Herod calls the visitors to a secret meeting and enquires of them, the EXACT time that they had seen the star that had heralded the birth of the promised king.

Matthew 2: 16’ Herod determines the age of the children to be slaughtered as two years and below, in accordance to the time that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised king.

Knowing that the holy family had returned to Nazareth within two months of the birth, and the wise men had seen the heavenly sign over twelve months before arriving in Jerusalem, we can safely assume that they were in Nazareth sometime just before the great riots in that area, which were put down by the Romans in 4 B.C, when Herod died after a failed suicide attempt.

Whether or not atheists such as yourself believe the scripture that in their ignorance they attack, to the believers in the scriptures, as opposed to the believers in the myths of the Roman Church, the sources given above, are valid and support everything that I have said.

Both Hellena and her son Constantine are saints in the Roman Catholic church, and their saint Helena is called, “The equal of the Apostles.” Over three hundred years after Jesus, Constantine appointed his mother Helena as Augusta, and gave her unlimited access to the imperial treasury in order to locate the relics of early Judeo-Christian times.

The Church of the Nativity is the oldest Church in the Holy Land still in use. The first Church was built over the Grotto of the Nativity in the 4th century A.D under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine’s mother Helena.

The tradition of the church of Constantine teaches as biblical truth, the Milk Grotto, a short distance from the church of the nativity, is where Mary was supposed to have hid after the wise men who had paid homage to her child in the manger and had returned to their own country, and while Herod’s solders were slaughtering the innocents in the streets of Bethlehem of Judaea, Mary was supposed to have suckled the baby Jesus to keep it quite before her escape to Egypt.

According to the traditions of the Church of Constantine, Mary and her child rested in a cave, called the Milk Grotto (la Gruta de la Leche), near the place where today stands the Church of the Nativity (la Iglesia de la Natividad). There, (Or so it is said) their supposed Virgin Mary breastfed the child. A drop of milk fell on a stone of the cave, and the stone turned white. During the early centuries, this white rock, diluted in water, took the appearance of milk and was used as a religious relic.

Both Christians and Muslims believe scrapings from the stones in the grotto boost the quantity of a mother’s milk and enhance fertility. Mothers usually mix it in their drinking water; would-be mothers place the MAGICAL rock under their mattress.

There is also an old tradition that identifies this as the burial site of the young victims of Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents. There is a chapel dedicated to them in the caves beneath the Church of St. Catherine.

Anyone who believes that Roman myth, has never studied the bible.

Well we're off now and wont be back till Friday.

One more thing, learn how to use the quote functions correctly. When you quote improperly one cannot click on the supposed quote to see if it is in context or not. I am not bothering to reply to this particular failure. By the way, you did not support your bogus claim in the above nonsense. I need to remind you that when it comes to the Bible and its interpretations neither you nor I are a proper source. I don't care about your personal uneducated interpretation of that book of myths.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Besides Pilate didtdi had anything against Jesus, he didn't considered him a ciminal so he would have made an exception and allow a proper burial

Pilate was so mean the Romans exiled him, and this was an empire that did ATROCIOUS things to people just for the hell of it.

 

[David T]

Our belief is relevant to us.My belief is me. I have no idea what you said your speaking over my head. What text are you talking about the bible? What does that prove either way?

We are different species apparently. I have zero idea of this belief thing you allude to.

 

[leroy]

The "variation" was rather significant. But then that is the excuse given all to often. You see if the Bible was the "word of God" then it should not have such flaws in it. If it were just the work of flawed men, then we would expect such "variation".

The good news is that one doesn’t have to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God in order to conclude the resurrection.

All you have to do is treat the new testament in the same way you would treat any other ancient document (written by humans) if you do that and if you do honest research you will conclude that:

1 Jesus Died on the cross

2 He was buried

3 The tomb was found empty

4 The apostles and many others (James, Paul etc.) claimed to have seen the risen Jesus

5 At least some of the alleged witnesses of the resurrection where willing to die for their believes, (implying that they where not lying)


I suggest that the best explanation for these 5 facts is the resurrection; do you have any other suggestion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The good news is that one doesn’t have to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God in order to conclude the resurrection.

All you have to do is treat the new testament in the same way you would treat any other ancient document (written by humans) if you do that and if you do honest research you will conclude that:

1 Jesus Died on the cross

2 He was buried

3 The tomb was found empty

4 The apostles and many others (James, Paul etc.) claimed to have seen the risen Jesus

5 At least some of the alleged witnesses of the resurrection where willing to die for their believes, (implying that they where not lying)


I suggest that the best explanation for these 5 facts is the resurrection; do you have any other suggestion?

Only your first claim can be confirmed at all by outside sources. The rest of it appears to be Christian myth. Jesus, if he was real, was crucified. If that was the case he would have been left up for days at the least. A crucifixion was not only a punishment, it was also a warning to others.

You can't support your claim that he was buried. You can support your claim that the tomb was empty. You can't support your claim about what James saw, and Paul was not even an apostle. He never saw Jesus and admitted as much. And some of the apostles may have been martyrs, but that does not mean they died supporting the resurrection story. One does not have to believe the resurrection myth to be a follower of Jesus. At the very best you have only one "fact".

 

[leroy]

Only your first claim can be confirmed at all by outside sources. The rest of it appears to be Christian myth. Jesus, if he was real, was crucified. If that was the case he would have been left up for days at the least. A crucifixion was not only a punishment, it was also a warning to others.

You can't support your claim that he was buried. You can support your claim that the tomb was empty. You can't support your claim about what James saw, and Paul was not even an apostle. He never saw Jesus and admitted as much. And some of the apostles may have been martyrs, but that does not mean they died supporting the resurrection story. One does not have to believe the resurrection myth to be a follower of Jesus. At the very best you have only one "fact".

The burial story is confirmed by Paul, acts and the 4 gospels, we have 6 independent sources (well maybe 5 you can argue that Mathew is not an independent source)

The source in Paul is dated within a few years (or even months) after the event and the rest of the sources date within 1 generation of the event.

When historian have multiple independent sources for an event, they would always consider it a historical fact. The evidence for the burial outperforms by far the minimum requirement that a historian would need to establish a fact.


Besides:

The body was claimed by Joseph of Arimathea: As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus. It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal.

It is true that crucified criminals where usually not buried, but given that we have multiple independent sources, we can conclude that Pilate made an exception with Jesus. In the eyes of Pilate, Jesus was not a criminal, he would have been careless if someone what to burry Jesus, and Jews were going to celebrate Eastern, they would have preferred not to have dead bodies in the cross during their celebration.

Take this example as an analogy:

It is unusual for a Mexican to be blond, but if you are told that Daniel is Mexican and blond, and multiple independent sources confirm it, it would be fair to conclude that Daniel is blond, even though it is not usual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The burial story is confirmed by Paul, acts and the 4 gospels, we have 6 independent sources (well maybe 5 you can argue that Mathew is not an independent source)

The source in Paul is dated within a few years (or even months) after the event and the rest of the sources date within 1 generation of the event.

When historian have multiple independent sources for an event, they would always consider it a historical fact. The evidence for the burial outperforms by far the minimum requirement that a historian would need to establish a fact.


Besides:

The body was claimed by Joseph of Arimathea: As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus. It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal.

It is true that crucified criminals where usually not buried, but given that we have multiple independent sources, we can conclude that Pilate made an exception with Jesus. In the eyes of Pilate, Jesus was not a criminal, he would have been careless if someone what to burry Jesus, and Jews were going to celebrate Eastern, they would have preferred not to have dead bodies in the cross during their celebration.

Take this example as an analogy:

It is unusual for a Mexican to be blond, but if you are told that Daniel is Mexican and blond, and multiple independent sources confirm it, it would be fair to conclude that Daniel is blond, even though it is not usual.

You do realize that the Bible is properly only one source, the different "books" of the Bible are not independent of each other. Paul's 'confirmation' is not worth much. What other source than the Bible do you have for your claims?

 

[leroy]

You do realize that the Bible is properly only one source, the different "books" of the Bible are not independent of each other. Paul's 'confirmation' is not worth much. What other source than the Bible do you have for your claims?

Originally the new testament was a bunch of independent documents written by different people. By definition you should count them as independent sources.

The claim that I am making is that if you treat and judge the documents in new testament in the same way you would judge any other ancient document, the burial of Jesus should be taken as a historical fact.

Why did you arbitrarily dismissed Paul as “unreliable”? He went to Jerusalem and to see some of the witnesses, like James the brother of Jesus and some of the apostles, he certainly had access to reliable information and was in a position to know if Jesus was buried. And his testimony was latter confirmed by the authors of the Gospels and Acts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Originally the new testament was a bunch of independent documents written by different people. By definition you should count them as independent sources.

The claim that I am making is that if you treat and judge the documents in new testament in the same way you would judge any other ancient document, the burial of Jesus should be taken as a historical fact.

Why did you arbitrarily dismissed Paul as “unreliable”? He went to Jerusalem and to see some of the witnesses, like James the brother of Jesus and some of the apostles, he certainly had access to reliable information and was in a position to know if Jesus was buried. And his testimony was latter confirmed by the authors of the Gospels and Acts.

Nope, not at all. For example Matthew and Luke are widely dependent on Mark. Paul was the teacher of the author of Luke and Acts. That his student aped him means they are not "independent". Then out of countless sources the Catholic church chose the ones that we use today. That makes them one source.

 

[leroy]

Nope, not at all. For example Matthew and Luke are widely dependent on Mark. Paul was the teacher of the author of Luke and Acts. That his student aped him means they are not "independent". Then out of countless sources the Catholic church chose the ones that we use today. That makes them one source.

Even accepting what you said, we still have Paul, John and Mark as independent sources. 3 independent sources is extraordinarily good, few facts from ancient history are supported by 3 independent sources.