Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

It is a nothing burger. All it rates is dismissal.

Ok, i looked up nothing burger. First time i heard that.

Well.....if thats how you treat spiritual VERIDICAL experiences, dont DARE call yourself rational, because your not. And dont dare say the religious are unrational for remaining religious, because youd be arrogant on top of irrational.

 

[Jollybear]

It is a nothing burger. All it rates is dismissal.

You know....mayby im being a little too hard here. There is a streak of compassion in me. I understand you having doubts. Thomas had doubts, john the baptist had doubts. All the apostles doubted.

But then.....the doubts were cleared up and they wer persecuted without recant.

But, its interesting how Jesus dealt with Thomas's and john the baptists doubts. He didnt hit them over the head and threaten hell on them.

For john he simply gave him the report of the miracles. For thomas he simply appeared and since thomas thought he may be halucinating, Jesus says to touch his hands.

I watched that debate where the sceptic scholar said if Jesus appeared to him then he could do his work.

If thats the case and Jesus appeared to all, then no one would have to do the work for him, right?

Plus, that takes away the JOURNEY. you lose appreciation that way.

If he appears to you, great, if not, he dont have too.

 

[leroy]

Actually it is rather clear that Luke made up his nativity. That he was called "Jesus of Nazareth" which was known to be in Galilee at a time when traveling was much more limited than today gives us a rather good idea of where he came from. And of course Matthew's account breaks down as well when investigated, just not as badly. No recorded "death of the innocents" how a star is supposed to single out one house is never explained.

I would say that both Luke and Math clearly say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I don’t see where is the supposed contradiction, but even if you find some other source (ether Luke or someone else) that states that Jesus was born in Nazareth, at worst we would say that we don’t know where Jesus was Born, and/or that we don’t know some of his details of his birth.

This is not a big deal, and is irrelevant on whether if Jesus resurrected or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that both Luke and Math clearly say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I don’t see where is the supposed contradiction, but even if you find some other source (ether Luke or someone else) that states that Jesus was born in Nazareth, at worst we would say that we don’t know where Jesus was Born, and/or that we don’t know some of his details of his birth.

This is not a big deal, and is irrelevant on whether if Jesus resurrected or not.

Right, they did. Seriously you don't see the contradictions? Luke clearly states that Jesus was born roughly in 6 AD, Matthew puts the date at roughly 4 BC. They both can't be right but they both can be wrong.

 

[leroy]

You seem to be admitting that you do not even understand basic English. Since we are talking about independent sources the sources cannot rely on each other. Or for that matter they cannot have a condition placed upon them that they agree with each other. The first condition tells us that none of the three synoptic gospels are not independent since they all rely on Mark heavily. And even John is no longer thought to be an independent source:

Some parts of the gospels are independent, others are “dependent”. Sure all of the authors borrowed from Mark, but each of them also had sources of their own, some events are attested by multiple independent sources, other events are only reported by Marc and then copied by the other authors.

For example I grant that we don’t have multiple attestation for Jesus walking on water, we clearly have just 1 source but other events (like the burial of Jesus) do contain multiple attestation.

Also since the books of the Bible were eliminated from consideration if they disagreed with each other that makes none of the books of the Bible "independent". Real historians do not do that. Even more so they do not go out of their way to destroy disagreeing works which early Christians did.

Again, nobody destroyed those books, the books are widely available and free, as far as I know none of these books claim that there was no resurrection,

If you think that any of these books is reliable and you what to make a point, please feel free to build your case.

And for Caesar I will let this site do my talking for me. They compare the evidence for Caesar compared to the evidence for Jesus. You picked a rather poor example:

There are also many legends about the Cesar and historians simply dismiss them as irrelevant non-primary sources and as not reliable sources of information. And nobody makes a big deal,

So why are you making a big deal just because some scholars decided that books like the “Gospel of Mary” are unreliable and not primary sources of information? The door is open anyone can read this document by itself and present evidence to the contrary.

 

[leroy]

Right, they did. Seriously you don't see the contradictions? Luke clearly states that Jesus was born roughly in 6 AD, Matthew puts the date at roughly 4 BC. They both can't be right but they both can be wrong.

I don’t know where did you get those dates, can you explain?

Ok so in that case, even assuming that there is an irreconcilable contradiction, at worst we could say that we don’t know the date I which Jesus was born. I dont see any big problem

According to Josephus, James the brother of Jesus died in 62AD, according Hegesippus and Clement, he died in the year 69AD, But nobody makes a big deal, at worst we can say that we don’t know the date of his death, but that doesn’t mean that we most drop Josephus and ignore all of his work, just because he disagrees with other authors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some parts of the gospels are independent, others are “dependent”. Sure all of the authors borrowed from Mark, but each of them also had sources of their own, some events are attested by multiple independent sources, other events are only reported by Marc and then copied by the other authors.

For example I grant that we don’t have multiple attestation for Jesus walking on water, we clearly have just 1 source but other events (like the burial of Jesus) do contain multiple attestation.

Yes, but as a result of them depending on each other, and then going through a filtering process that removed books that do not agree no one can properly claim that they are "independent".

Again, nobody destroyed those books, the books are widely available and free, as far as I know none of these books claim that there was no resurrection,

If you think that any of these books is reliable and you what to make a point, please feel free to build your case.

That is not the case. It is a well known fact that the early Church tried to destroy the gospels not included in the Bible. They were not one hundred percent successful. Here is just one of many articles on the subject:

Christian Apocrypha: The “Lost Gospels”? - Biblical Archaeology Society

There are also many legends about the Cesar and historians simply dismiss them as irrelevant non-primary sources and as not reliable sources of information. And nobody makes a big deal,

So why are you making a big deal just because some scholars decided that books like the “Gospel of Mary” are unreliable and not primary sources of information? The door is open anyone can read this document by itself and present evidence to the contrary.

Yes, when a thought is not banned and destroyed it tends to have a better survival rate. There were quite a few ancient gospels not included in the Bible. Some were destroyed. Some were simply not reproduced and lost. Only a few survive to today.

 

[leroy]

No, but you sites CARM as a source. If they cannot be honest on a relatively minor matter how can you expect them to be honest on a more important matter?

He is not being dishoenst about the Arc, at worst he would be wrong

Besides you have used “jesus never existed.com” as a source so you are not really in a position to demand for good sources

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t know where did you get those dates, can you explain?

Ok so in that case, even assuming that there is an irreconcilable contradiction, at worst we could say that we don’t know the date I which Jesus was born. I dont see any big problem

According to Josephus, James the brother of Jesus died in 62AD, according Hegesippus and Clement, he died in the year 69AD, But nobody makes a big deal, at worst we can say that we don’t know the date of his death, but that doesn’t mean that we most drop Josephus and ignore all of his work, just because he disagrees with other authors.

So you are not a Bible student. Matthew puts Herod as the King before Jesus's birth. That would be roughly 4 BC since he died shortly after the birth of Jesus.

Luke mention a census by Quirinius. That date is well known, it was roughly 6 AD:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

That is a ten year time span.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He is not being dishoenst about the Arc, at worst he would be wrong

Besides you have used “jesus never existed.com” as a source so you are not really in a position to demand for good sources

Sorry, no. No one can make that gross of an error, and if a site makes that gross of an error it loses all credibility by doing so. It is a lose lose situation for CARM. The only acceptable answer would be that it was a morality tale inspired by an actual flood.

Welcome to Enlightenment! – Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys does not make errors anywhere near as gross as that, and I never based on argument on their claims. I may have referred to them once, though I do not remember it, I did not use to it to seriously support any arguments. This is a Tu Quoque fallacy on your part. It does not help you.

 

[leroy]

So you are not a Bible student. Matthew puts Herod as the King before Jesus's birth. That would be roughly 4 BC since he died shortly after the birth of Jesus.

Luke mention a census by Quirinius. That date is well known, it was roughly 6 AD:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

That is a ten year time span.

Maybe Luke was talking about another census that took place in 4BC. This supposed contradiction is far from irreconcilable.

Besides in any case, why assuming that Luke was wrong and Josephus correct about the date of the Census, why couldn’t Josephus be wrong?

But those are secondary points, my main point is that it is not a big deal, for the sake of this thread we can grant that we don’t know the date in which Jesus was born……….then what? How does that help to show that there was no resurrection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe Luke was talking about another census that took place in 4BC. This supposed contradiction is far from irreconcilable.

Besides in any case, why assuming that Luke was wrong and Josephus correct about the date of the Census, why couldn’t Josephus be wrong?

But those are secondary points, my main point is that it is not a big deal, for the sake of this thread we can grant that we don’t know the date in which Jesus was born……….then what? How does that help to show that there was no resurrection?

Nope, he specifically said when Quirinius first became governor of Syria. His history is well known. We know where he as when Matthew has him being born. He was running a military campaign in central and north central Turkey. You can read more here:

P. Sulpicius Quirinius - Livius

Scholars today know that at best the author of Luke was mistaken. By the way, you do realize that Luke was probably not written by Luke that followed Paul, don't you?

 

[leroy]

So you are not a Bible student. Matthew puts Herod as the King before Jesus's birth. That would be roughly 4 BC since he died shortly after the birth of Jesus.

Luke mention a census by Quirinius. That date is well known, it was roughly 6 AD:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

That is a ten year time span.

I also would like to point out the fact that you are being inconsistent, The only reason why you “think” that there was a census in 6AD is because you have a single source (Josephus) who worte about this event 100+ after the event.

Josephus was not a witness, (he was not even born) and there were no witnesses at the time where Josephus reported this event.

You don’t have other independent sources to verify what Josephus claimed ether.

And Yet you still claim that there is good evidence for that census.

Why won’t you apply the same level of skepticism that you are using to judge the gospels? In previous comments you said that the gospels are not reliable because they were written 40 after the death of Jesus…………so why don’t you reject Josephus and his claims about the census for being outdated by 100+ years?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also would like to point out the fact that you are being inconsistent, The only reason why you “think” that there was a census in 6AD is because you have a single source (Josephus) who worte about this event 100+ after the event.

Josephus was not a witness, (he was not even born) and there were no witnesses at the time where Josephus reported this event.

You don’t have other independent sources to verify what Josephus claimed ether.

And Yet you still claim that there is good evidence for that census.

Why won’t you apply the same level of skepticism that you are using to judge the gospels? In previous comments you said that the gospels are not reliable because they were written 40 after the death of Jesus…………so why don’t you reject Josephus and his claims about the census for being outdated by 100+ years?

No, I am not being inconsistent. Why would you make such an obvious false claim? The Romans kept good records of what they did. There are contemporaneous records of the people that I am talking about. There are no such records for Jesus. Like many creationists you seem to think that there is only one source for a belief.

Try again.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, of course there's no proof it happened. It's mythology, not historical fact. If you want to believe that it happened, it's a matter of faith. Personally I think taking mythology literally is silly and missing the point. I certainly don't take my religion's mythology literally. But that's me.

 

[Prometheus85]

Actually, Jesus did predict his resurrection too. Its mentioned in the very same passage, mark 8:31. Its mentioned in other verses too.

But heres mark 8:31

"31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.



Ah, sure.



Yea, sure.

Im not gonna deal with those supposed contradictions for time purposes (and YES ITS DUE TO TIME PURPOSES, it takes me hours to type responses to everyone and i cant keep it up.)

But in marks gospel in the section where later manuscrips had the appearences of jesus shown to the disciples. Its there. But, iregardless, you really think the story was done if he did rise? Lol, come on. Plus you got the other gospels, you even mentioned them.



And any doubts he had wer vanguished after witnessing him alive. For he suffered and died for his gospel.

All Christians believe that Jesus predicted his death and his resurrection. They believed so because the Bible said so. Well, the Scriptures DO NOT really say so, BUT the English translators/writers of the Bible IMPLIED so. . So, when Christians read the passages under the header ‘Jesus Predicted His Death’, they tend to ignore the political environments and circumstances that surround Jesus at that time which prompted him to say what he said, and they just conclude with the header that Jesus predicted his death. As I said before Jesus ‘predicting’ his death CANNOT be said a prediction BUT an EXPECTATION because Jesus knew the Jews hated him and were determined to kill him and in those circumstances, Jesus knew its HIGHLY LIKELY he will be arrested, put on trial under false charges, will be found guilty and under the laws of the day, will be sentenced to death ie. to be killed by crucifixion. So, clearly, Jesus was not predicting his death BUT he was EXPECTING his death. However, to your point of argument, Jesus did say that on the third day, he will be raised to life which clearly point to a resurrection. After all, Jesus did say “I am the resurrection and the life” – John 11:25. Yes, it did really seem to imply a resurrection huh? but, the question is - what was Jesus’ understanding when he said “and on the third day, the son of man will be raised to life” or when he said ”I am the resurrection and the life”?? Firstly, we cannot deny that every Christian believe in the Day of Judgment and anyone who believe in the Day of Judgment, will believe in the Day of the Resurrection, that is, the day when all the dead will be resurrected to be judged by God. So, every time Jesus spoke or implied a resurrection, its crucial that we know which resurrection was he referring to – was it a reference to his own resurrection on earth as all Christians believed or a reference to the resurrection in the afterlife before the Judgment or could it even mean some other symbolic reference implication ? To understand this, we need to go back to John 11 and understand WHY Jesus said “I am the resurrection”. So, jollybear lets quote those particular John 11 verses in its context -

“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?” – John 11:21-26


We can clearly see when Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life”, he was responding to Martha who had said earlier she knew her brother will rise again in the last day, that is, the day of the Resurrection - this tell us that Jesus’ “I am the resurrection and the life” statement was also referring to the Day of the Resurrection in the last day as he was responding to Martha’s statement and NOT about himself rising from the dead jollybear.

 

[Jollybear]

All Christians believe that Jesus predicted his death and his resurrection. They believed so because the Bible said so. Well, the Scriptures DO NOT really say so, BUT the English translators/writers of the Bible IMPLIED so. . So, when Christians read the passages under the header ‘Jesus Predicted His Death’, they tend to ignore the political environments and circumstances that surround Jesus at that time which prompted him to say what he said, and they just conclude with the header that Jesus predicted his death. As I said before Jesus ‘predicting’ his death CANNOT be said a prediction BUT an EXPECTATION because Jesus knew the Jews hated him and were determined to kill him and in those circumstances, Jesus knew its HIGHLY LIKELY he will be arrested, put on trial under false charges, will be found guilty and under the laws of the day, will be sentenced to death ie. to be killed by crucifixion. So, clearly, Jesus was not predicting his death BUT he was EXPECTING his death. However, to your point of argument, Jesus did say that on the third day, he will be raised to life which clearly point to a resurrection. After all, Jesus did say “I am the resurrection and the life” – John 11:25. Yes, it did really seem to imply a resurrection huh? but, the question is - what was Jesus’ understanding when he said “and on the third day, the son of man will be raised to life” or when he said ”I am the resurrection and the life”?? Firstly, we cannot deny that every Christian believe in the Day of Judgment and anyone who believe in the Day of Judgment, will believe in the Day of the Resurrection, that is, the day when all the dead will be resurrected to be judged by God. So, every time Jesus spoke or implied a resurrection, its crucial that we know which resurrection was he referring to – was it a reference to his own resurrection on earth as all Christians believed or a reference to the resurrection in the afterlife before the Judgment or could it even mean some other symbolic reference implication ? To understand this, we need to go back to John 11 and understand WHY Jesus said “I am the resurrection”. So, jollybear lets quote those particular John 11 verses in its context -

“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?” – John 11:21-26


We can clearly see when Jesus said “I am the resurrection and the life”, he was responding to Martha who had said earlier she knew her brother will rise again in the last day, that is, the day of the Resurrection - this tell us that Jesus’ “I am the resurrection and the life” statement was also referring to the Day of the Resurrection in the last day as he was responding to Martha’s statement and NOT about himself rising from the dead jollybear.

So mark 8:31 which says

"31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him."

Jesus did not mean he would rise after being dead 3 days?

And the original greek also meant something different then the english here?

Usually when i make a mistake and see it, i own it. I did it twice recently. Why dont you?

 

[Prometheus85]

So mark 8:31 which says

"31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him."

Jesus did not mean he would rise after being dead 3 days?

And the original greek also meant something different then the english here?

Usually when i make a mistake and see it, i own it. I did it twice recently. Why dont you?

I knew you were gonna just focus on “What about the third day? And ignore everything else I said. Surely, the third day which Jesus said he will be raised to life is a reference to himself rising from the dead in this world right?

At first reading, yes, that’s what it would have implied BUT, if you really read/study the Bible and not cherrypick, you tend to realize that the authors of the Bible usage of the number three is abundant. In some cases, the number three means the numerical 3 and in some cases, the number three could mean a symbolic implication and not a numerical implication. A simple example would be “a cord of three strands is not easily broken” – Eccles 4:12, is NOT a reference to a cord with three strands but it’s a symbolic reference that there’s strength in numbers.

Thus, Jesus’ usage of the third day as the day he will be raised to life IS NOT a reference of him rising from the dead on the third day of a 3 days period, BUT it was a reference to what was written in the OLD TESTAMENT – “After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him” – Hosea 6:2.

 

[Jollybear]

I knew you were gonna just focus on “What about the third day? And ignore everything else I said. Surely, the third day which Jesus said he will be raised to life is a reference to himself rising from the dead in this world right?

At first reading, yes, that’s what it would have implied BUT, if you really read/study the Bible and not cherrypick, you tend to realize that the authors of the Bible usage of the number three is abundant. In some cases, the number three means the numerical 3 and in some cases, the number three could mean a symbolic implication and not a numerical implication. A simple example would be “a cord of three strands is not easily broken” – Eccles 4:12, is NOT a reference to a cord with three strands but it’s a symbolic reference that there’s strength in numbers.

Thus, Jesus’ usage of the third day as the day he will be raised to life IS NOT a reference of him rising from the dead on the third day of a 3 days period, BUT it was a reference to what was written in the OLD TESTAMENT – “After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him” – Hosea 6:2.

I get what your saying about symbology and all, but the massive context, over and over throughout the new testament is saying that Jesus bodily rose.

But, yes, even the new testament authors talk about those who recieve the Holy Spirit, they are spiritually awakened (e.g. raised from spiritual death, raised with jesus colosians 3:1). So, yes, there is this symbolic, spiritualized aspect to the ressurrection. But theres ALSO the literal aspect too. And BOTH are promoted via the context over and over in the bible.

And how am i cherry picking when you took literal in the sentense jesus would be killed, yet in the very same sentence after jesus said he would be killed, you say when he said hed rise, that this is symbolic.

Thats inconsistent. Why not say his death was symbolic too?

 

[Prometheus85]

I get what your saying about symbology and all, but the massive context, over and over throughout the new testament is saying that Jesus bodily rose.

But, yes, even the new testament authors talk about those who recieve the Holy Spirit, they are spiritually awakened (e.g. raised from spiritual death, raised with jesus colosians 3:1). So, yes, there is this symbolic, spiritualized aspect to the ressurrection. But theres ALSO the literal aspect too. And BOTH are promoted via the context over and over in the bible.

And how am i cherry picking when you took literal in the sentense jesus would be killed, yet in the very same sentence after jesus said he would be killed, you say when he said hed rise, that this is symbolic.

Thats inconsistent. Why not say his death was symbolic too?

Because that’s not what the scriptures say. Subductionzone said your reading comprehension skills are bad. I believe you don’t care to study, u just look for stuff that confirms your beliefs and ignore things that goes against your beliefs. Now, if you have read to understand Hosea Chapter 6, then you will know that chapter was about a call for the people to repent and return to God. The significance of the “two days” was a symbolic reference to a short period of time and “on the third day He will raise us up” was a symbolic reference to a time AFTER we have been revived - it’s symbolic and has nothing to do with Jesus rising from the dead in a 3-days limit period because Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.
The FACT that Jesus had used the same ‘on the third day will be raised to life’ reference as what was written in the Old testament tell us that Jesus too knew the people of his times have diverted and will continue to divert from God’s path and by using the same ‘third day’ reference as Hosea Chapter 6, Jesus was in fact calling on his people to repent from their MAN-MADE laws and return to God.

So, did Jesus predict his death and resurrection ?

Obviously NOT. ( three death predictions are redactional creations of the author) Jesus was NOT predicting his death BUT, under those circumstances, Jesus was expecting death and by using the same ‘third day will be raised to life’ reference as what was written in the Old Testament? Jesus was NOT predicting his resurrection, BUT was reminding his people of the last day that is, the day of the Resurrection (when all the dead WILL BE resurrected) and was calling on his people to repent and return to the one and only true God, the same God to whom he himself had prayed to, the same God he had told his people as the only one to be worshiped and to be served, the same God who had sent him to them.