Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[TransmutingSoul]

it's all in your hands

Yes it is in each of our own hands.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

The Gospels were each written for a particular purpose. Here is Mark for example.

Paul was of the opinion that the and of time and the return of Jesus were not far off and was expected while many of his readers were still alive. Paul wrote in the 50s AD.

Mark wrote after 70 AD. Jesus had been gone forty years and more. If he did not come back soon, Paul would be proven wrong on this point. Might Paul then be wrong about everything? Mark’s mission was to restore faith in Jesus coming back soon and proving it was all true. Toward this end he has Jesus say “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power”. (Mark 9:1) In the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13), Mark has Jesus link the beginning of the end with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. To Mark’s audience this would have been a recent well-known event. Mark has Jesus describe a series of catastrophic event, culminating in the coming of the Son of Man. He has Jesus say that “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” (Mark 13:30)

Mark used Pauline references, scriptural messianic references, some actual history (e.g., John the Baptist), and apparent early traditions about Jesus to build a fast-paced tale about a living breathing man of action. This made the prophecies not just hearsay but something credible that would be snapped up by those who wanted to believe. (Contrary to the opinions of some other, I do not see the Gospels as ‘recruiting tools’ but aimed at the faithful, delivering specific messages to them.

Mark is a fully coherent work (except for the obviously tacked on Mark 16:9-20) whose message is about faith, especially about faith in the return of Jesus that will not be long in coming.

I could do similar analyses about the other Gospels but will leave it at this for now. The point is that each of the Gospels is clearly in or very close to ‘original condition’. This is how they were written. There is no reason to think they were tampered with. None of them can be trusted as a literal account of actual history, although there are undoubtedly real-life events embedded in them.

If you still think the Gospels were tampered with rather than written the way we se them (with minor exceptions), answer the question I keep asking. Point out exactly what you think was changed and what leads you to think it was changed. Be specific.

I do not understand your comment “A mindset that only seeks real-life reason for reports that seem like 'miracle' can help towards 'the balance of probabilities'.“ I never offered any ‘real-life reasons’ for reports of miracles. The miracles are made-up is all. People who say silly things like ‘Jesus could walk on the water because a freak storm created ice’ are IMO totally missing the point. If you want to believe in miracles, go ahead and believe in them. If you do not believe there were miracles involved, why believe any part of the story?

Why don't you just read the gospel with my brief suggestions in mind? You are so way off the mark ( ), probably because of your over complex 'spin'.

The Baptist was furious about the disgusting attitude of a hypocritical priesthood that pretended to be genuine but was in fact greedy, hellenist, corrupt and (no doubt) careless about the old laws, especially the poor laws and those which supported the working people. Just read what he said about them. You write all about the Temple coinage whilst completely overlooking how such a slap in the face to Judaism would have so upset folks like the Baptist.

So he offered went to the main route South which all the Northern peasantry had to take on its journey to the Temple, with their savings for the locals to fleece and the priesthood to take............... and he offered redemption of sins and cleansing in the Jordan without the need for them to spend any money and they could turn around and go home. The Temple taklings would have fallen away, which is why Antipas was told to go and bring him in................. he was on the East bank no doubt) and beyond the jurisdiction of the Iudean Prefect. And yes, he did get executed over ranting about Antipas's unlawful marriage to Philip's wife, but that all happened after his arrest.

Andrew and/or Philip were probably followers of the Baptist and took Jesus down to meet with him.

Now........ if you'll just take that bite-sized chunk of common sense in we could move on to the next chapter.

There's no point in moving you forward from that if you cannot take in that basic first lesson. I will read your next two posts, no doibt bundled full of spin, but there's no point in me responding to them until you can accept the Baptist's main mission.

 

[oldbadger]

If you have a problem with what I said, be specific about it. As it is, it sounds like you do not have an answer and that the actual take home from what you quoted is what I have been saying all along.

Let's just start with what what the Baptist's AIM and MAIN OBJECTIVE was. I've clearly shown in a short post what he was doing, how and why, and if you could just accept that then we could move on to Jesus, free of the Christian waffle and spin.

 

[oldbadger]

Really? Can you find a single source that I ‘parroted from’ concerning the argument that the Tyrian shekel and half-shekel were in common use because it was expected that these coins would be readily available to anyone living in the area and that if it was not commonly used currency, it would do the Temple no good to collect it because what would they then use it for? This is a conclusion based on knowledge present in multiple sources. The coins used for the Temple T and for payments made at the Temple were therefore commonly used coins in the region as I said originally. If you have a problem with that, present specific detailed arguments against it. Referring to the Australian numismatic society does not seem to be relevant than anything. What was the point of that except perhaps some kind of diversion from the topic?



On the contrary, there were many kinds of official Roman currency but the Tyrian shekel was not one of them. The shekel was minted in Tyre beginning about 300 BC and was popular in the region because of its purity. The Romans shut down the mint so that their ‘official’ currency could be continually debased. See this about the denarius and this about debasement in general. According to that second link “Although the denarius remained the backbone of the Roman economy from its introduction in 211 BC until it ceased to be normally minted in the middle of the third century, the purity and weight of the coin slowly, but inexorably, decreased.”

Jesus was obviously not opposed to the payments to the Temple for sacrificial animals since he willingly participated in the Passover rituals, which included buying a sacrificed lamb.

John the Baptist was not in competition with the Temple. Karbanot is sacrifice, which was performed at the Temple.

“The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.”
Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot)

Atonement for deliberate sin did NOT involve sacrifice at the Temple. Or do you think that every time someone sinned they made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice?




The coin was already in widespread use. And because of its reputation for purity, it was ideal for Temple use. The pagan references were mandated by the Romans. All in all, it was preferable to the frequently debased Roman currency.

“After the Roman Empire closed down the mint in Tyre, the Roman authorities allowed the Jewish rabbanim to continue minting Tyrian shekels in Israel, but with the requirement that the coins should continue to bear the same image and text to avoid objections that the Jews were given autonomy.”
Tyrian shekel - Wikipedia





Interesting.

“Celtic tribes brought the concept [staters] to Western and Central Europe after obtaining it while serving as mercenaries in north Greece. Gold staters were minted in Gaul by Gallic chiefs modeled after those of Philip II of Macedonia, which were brought back after serving in his armies, or those of Alexander and his successors. Some of these staters in the form of the Gallo-Belgic series were imported to Britain on a large scale.”
Stater - Wikipedia



The material I presented, including the above quote from me, showed that Matthew wrote well after Jesus went away and addressed concerns of Matthew’s own times.

I'll have to reply to all this tonight.
But one point.......... You just cannot have any conception about how much the Jewish peasantry would have been upset by knowing that the Temple coinage was struck with Caesar's abbreviated name, a graven image and features of Baal.

And Galileans tried to avoid handling denarii as well.................... Jesus preferred to deal in kind, even.

....later

 

[Dawnofhope]

Soft tissues are datable with 14C dating method. A half-life of Carbon is 5730 years. If tested with 14C and found out that it was indeed less than 10,000 years then all those millions of years or billions of years would be in question, right?

Another important point is the limitations of carbon dating. Because C-14 is found in such small quantities (one carbon particle in a trillion) and it has a half life of 5730 years, then after about 10 half lives it becomes very difficult to detect given the minute quantities as well as confounding factors. So it is thought to be unrelaible at measuring organic material that is more than 50,000 years old. There are other isotopes of course such as argon and potassium.

Argon–argon dating - Wikipedia

The science around radioisotopes is solid as agreed amongst the vast majority of scientists.

For me the science just days what it says. I don't need to twist it to fit my agenda.

For the YECs who desperately need to believe the earth is 6,000 years old, its become a source of attention to try to discredit it. However the scientific evidence is simply overwhelming strong against YEC.

How many scientists agree with the YECs?

Young Earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus of the scientific community. A 2006 joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies enumerated the scientific facts that young Earth creationism contradicts, in particular that the universe, the Earth, and life are billions of years old, that each has undergone continual change over those billions of years, and that life on Earth has evolved from a common primordial origin into the diverse forms observed in the fossil record and present today Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation that fully accounts for all the observations, measurements, data, and evidence discovered in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.

As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. For their part, Young Earth Creationists say that the lack of support for their beliefs by the scientific community is due to discrimination and censorship by professional science journals and professional science organizations. This viewpoint was explicitly rejected in the rulings from the 1981 United States District Court case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education as no witness was able to produce any articles that had been refused publication and the judge could not conceive how "a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought". A 1985 study also found that only 18 out of 135,000 submissions to scientific journals advocated creationism.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

The foundation of my faith does not rest on a literal interpretation of the entire bible so I don't need to reject science to fit my world view. The foundation of faith for the YECs looks weak for those with eyes to see.

 

[Neb]

Although I have a science background, I have not considered chemistry and isotope decay for a very long time.

As far as I know, the carbon-14 isotope decays at a relatively consistent rate. As C-14 is naturally present in organic matter, it can be detected in organic matter such as wood and bones.

The organic matter stops taking up C-14 when it dies. So, given the known rate of decay, the date of death can be estimated based on measuring the current level of C-14 in the sample.

However, the levels of C-14 present in a sample depend on both the levels of C-14 to begin with and the age of the specimen.

You are playing with words. C14 decays while C12 do not. If C12 remains 100% and the amount of C14 decrease or decays to about 50% of C12 it means the age of the organism from the time of death is half-life and a half-life of C14 is 5730 years. So, by testing that soft tissues with C14, and not with radiometric dating method, there is a possibility that it is NOT REALLY a 70 million years old T-rex but around the same time of the flood in Genesis or Noah's day.

 

[metis]

C-14 is virtually unusable with any fossil that's millions of years old.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Why don't you just read the gospel with my brief suggestions in mind? You are so way off the mark ( ), probably because of your over complex 'spin'.

With a few minor interpolations, each of the Gospels is clearly a coherent whole with the parts you consider objectional really being key features essential to the individual stories. Again I ask if you think there were earlier versions of the Gospels that were changed, state what parts were changed, in what way they were changed and how you know this. Be specific.

The Baptist was furious about the disgusting attitude of a hypocritical priesthood that pretended to be genuine but was in fact greedy, hellenist, corrupt and (no doubt) careless about the old laws, especially the poor laws and those which supported the working people. Just read what he said about them. You write all about the Temple coinage whilst completely overlooking how such a slap in the face to Judaism would have so upset folks like the Baptist.

As I have repeatedly shown, John the Baptist never mentioned the priesthood at all. The priesthood was concerned entirely with the running of the Temple. It was the Pharisees and the law experts who were so focused on slavish obedience to a plethora of rules that they lost sight of the reason for the Law. This is exactly the attitude of those of the House of Shammai, the predominant Pharisaic school of thought in that era, and evidence that this derives from an early tradition about Jesus. By the time the Gospels were written, the House of Shammai was essentially non-existent due to their active participation in the War. Rabbinic Judaism was founded by Hillel Pharisees who did not participate in the fighting.

Neither John nor Jesus ever said a word about the priests. If you think they did, quote chapter and verse.

If you think people were so upset about the Tyrian shekels and half-shekels, please provide a source supporting that idea. Anyway, I have already shown that John the Baptist was not taking any business away from the Temple. Very few sins required sacrifice at the Temple. And again I ask, do you think people made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every time they sinned?

So he offered went to the main route South which all the Northern peasantry had to take on its journey to the Temple, with their savings for the locals to fleece and the priesthood to take............... and he offered redemption of sins and cleansing in the Jordan without the need for them to spend any money and they could turn around and go home. The Temple taklings would have fallen away, which is why Antipas was told to go and bring him in................. he was on the East bank no doubt) and beyond the jurisdiction of the Iudean Prefect. And yes, he did get executed over ranting about Antipas's unlawful marriage to Philip's wife, but that all happened after his arrest.

John was baptizing on the east side of the Jordan River. All the Gospels agree that it was in the wilderness. This is nowhere near the main route south to Jerusalem. Check out the map.

According to John, John baptized at Bethabara.

Andrew and/or Philip were probably followers of the Baptist and took Jesus down to meet with him.

The Gospel of John might be interpreted that way.

Now........ if you'll just take that bite-sized chunk of common sense in we could move on to the next chapter.

There's no point in moving you forward from that if you cannot take in that basic first lesson. I will read your next two posts, no doibt bundled full of spin, but there's no point in me responding to them until you can accept the Baptist's main mission.

Your ’basic first lesson’ has no discernible support and runs contrary to fact and reason. I have shown that your premise is in error and you have not responded to my arguments except to reiterate your original claim. If you do not want to reply any more, I have no problem with that.

Let's just start with what what the Baptist's AIM and MAIN OBJECTIVE was. I've clearly shown in a short post what he was doing, how and why, and if you could just accept that then we could move on to Jesus, free of the Christian waffle and spin.

You have made a claim. I have provided facts and arguments that negate your claim. You continue to make the same claim without support. There is nothing for me to accept. You need to accept that your premise is wrong.

I'll have to reply to all this tonight.
But one point.......... You just cannot have any conception about how much the Jewish peasantry would have been upset by knowing that the Temple coinage was struck with Caesar's abbreviated name, a graven image and features of Baal.

And Galileans tried to avoid handling denarii as well.................... Jesus preferred to deal in kind, even.

Please indicate where Caesar’s abbreviated name appears on the Jerusalem mint Tyrian shekel.

As I have argued all along, the shekel was a commonly used coin in the region. If it were not, people would not be able to pay the Temple Tax, and collecting the tax and the payments at the Temple would not do the Temple any good if the coins were not in common use. After the destruction of the Temple, the denarius and other coins such as the Greek drachma were used to pay the tax (now going to the Romans). The shekel and half-shekel were no longer being minted and the Temple treasury was raided by the Romans. What Tyrian style coins that were still around would likely be hoarded since the denarius and drachma were not as pure and the denarius was frequently debased.

 

[Neb]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

In the beginning was God and the Word was with God. Then when God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word that was with God became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the divine perfections of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity Jesus declared God and made God known, but no man has ever seen God, as the verses below states.

Did you intentionally left out or omitted the 3rd clause “And the Word was God” – kai theos en ho logos?

Who is the subject in John 1:1? The one with the definite article and that is, “the WORD/ho logos”, right?

“In the beginning was/en the WORD” or this is the subject. IOW, John was talking about “the WORD”, right?

So, this “SUBJECT” was/en with “WHOM” before the beginning? With “the GOD” as the 2nd clause was suggesting, “and the WORD was with God”, right?

So, in the 2nd clause before the beginning, you will see the distinction between “the WORD” and “the GOD” both with the definite article or “And the Word was with the God” –word for word in Greek to English.

Are you following this?

IOW, before the beginning there was a distinction ALREADY between “the Word” and “the God” or we read two personal beings in existence already before the beginning as God, side by side, as John 1:18 was suggesting.

And since you intentionally omitted the 3rd clause “And the Word was God” – kai theos en ho logos, I think it’s only appropriate that it should be explained also to avoid a total misunderstanding of the whole context of John 1:1.

The word order in Greek should read “And God was the Word”. In English translation, it should read “And the Word was God”

Now, why there is no definite article in front of “GOD”? If there is a definite article then it should read like this “And the Word was the God” or “the Word”, i.e., Christ, and “the God” are the same or the Father is the Son or the Son is the Father then it will CONTRADICT the 2nd clause “And the Word was with the God” where we see a distinction between the Son/God, who was with the Father/God before the beginning.

I know what you gonna say, this is not Baha’u’llah’s interpretation of this verse.

 

[Neb]

Another important point is the limitations of carbon dating. Because C-14 is found in such small quantities (one carbon particle in a trillion) and it has a half life of 5730 years, then after about 10 half lives it becomes very difficult to detect given the minute quantities as well as confounding factors. So it is thought to be unrelaible at measuring organic material that is more than 50,000 years old. There are other isotopes of course such as argon and potassium. Argon–argon dating - Wikipedia

Scientist say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, right? Where do we find argon? Earth atmosphere, right?

Since argon is found in the earth atmosphere and the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old therefore the argon should be the same, i.e., 4.5 billion years old, right?

In theory, you could see potassium decaying into argon.

If you test an igneous rock with potassium/argon dating method and if it senses potassium decaying into argon then they would assume this rock to be about millions, if not billions, of years old and this is how they dated fossils or even that questionable T-rex with soft tissues. They did NOT test the tissues with C14 but tested the igneous rocks where there is potassium decaying into argon and that’s how they date the strata below and above and that’s how they date the fossils with their millions of years.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I started such a book.....when I was sooooooo much younger

I have it somewhere on floppy disk

(now where did I put that darn thing?)

Next you will need to find a device that can read a floppy.

 

[Neb]

C-14 is virtually unusable with any fossil that's millions of years old.

They don't test the fossil itself but the strata above and below.

 

[metis]

They don't test the fossil itself but the strata above and below.

Yes, but that's besides the point since C-14 simply cannot be used going back anywhere near that far, plus it has to be adjusted using tree rings because there's variability in the amount of radiation that the organisms absorb, plus it cannot be used on aquatic organisms.

 

[Neb]

Yes, but that's besides the point since C-14 simply cannot be used going back anywhere near that far, plus it has to be adjusted using tree rings because there's variability in the amount of radiation that the organisms absorb, plus it cannot be used on aquatic organisms.

but we are talking about soft tissue from t-rex.

 

[metis]

but we are talking about soft tissue from t-rex.

That doesn't make any difference since they died out long before C-14 could be applied to any organic material since, under optimum conditions, it's only usable back to around 40,000 years b.p. See:Carbon-14 - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

Really? Can you find a single source that I ‘parroted from’ concerning the argument that the Tyrian shekel and half-shekel were in common use because it was expected that these coins would be readily available to anyone living in the area and that if it was not commonly used currency, it would do the Temple no good to collect it because what would they then use it for? This is a conclusion based on knowledge present in multiple sources. The coins used for the Temple T and for payments made at the Temple were therefore commonly used coins in the region as I said originally. If you have a problem with that, present specific detailed arguments against it. Referring to the Australian numismatic society does not seem to be relevant than anything. What was the point of that except perhaps some kind of diversion from the topic?

You just have no idea. Silver of an exact consistency and purity is the value, and not the coin. A % of all Temple takings must have been given in tribute to Rome, it was one of the main siurces of taxation, and Rome could use the silver in any way it. pleased.
And if you think that Jews would willingly handle such disgraceful abominations as coins with pagan Gods and graven images upon them then you've lost the plot.
And Jesus preferred to deal in kind.

On the contrary, there were many kinds of official Roman currency but the Tyrian shekel was not one of them. The shekel was minted in Tyre beginning about 300 BC and was popular in the region because of its purity. The Romans shut down the mint so that their ‘official’ currency could be continually debased. See this about the denarius and this about debasement in general. According to that second link “Although the denarius remained the backbone of the Roman economy from its introduction in 211 BC until it ceased to be normally minted in the middle of the third century, the purity and weight of the coin slowly, but inexorably, decreased.”

Please don't quite the history of the denarius over 500 years in relation to the Great Temple's silver coinage.

Jesus was obviously not opposed to the payments to the Temple for sacrificial animals since he willingly participated in the Passover rituals, which included buying a sacrificed lamb.

Rubbish. If you actually believe that John's account with three passover reports is the true story, instead of one passover incident over an 11-12 month story then you've lost the plot. The last supper was not a sacrifical meal, mate, it was a last supper. Sacrificial meals were eaten in the Temple refectories.

John the Baptist was not in competition with the Temple. Karbanot is sacrifice, which was performed at the Temple.
“The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.”
Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot)

Atonement ritual costs FEES! The Baptist was against the whole corrupted money-go-round.
The Baptist:- Matthew; {3:7} O generation of vipers
Jesus: Matthew; {12:34} O generation of vipers

Atonement for deliberate sin did NOT involve sacrifice at the Temple. Or do you think that every time someone sinned they made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice?

The Baptist was ensuring that no visits to the Temple would be required.
The whole journey was a rip off, from the services of the locals to the Prieshood's fees, to the money-chage fees.

The coin was already in widespread use. And because of its reputation for purity, it was ideal for Temple use. The pagan references were mandated by the Romans. All in all, it was preferable to the frequently debased Roman currency.[/QUITE]
Oh dear! The Tyrian shekel was deliberated struck for Temple use! And you just don't seem to inderstand that the peasant classes didn't want to handle the denarius either, the people preferred the drachma if anything. Jesus advocted dealing in kind to reduce the chances of taxation.

“After the Roman Empire closed down the mint in Tyre, the Roman authorities allowed the Jewish rabbanim to continue minting Tyrian shekels in Israel, but with the requirement that the coins should continue to bear the same image and text to avoid objections that the Jews were given autonomy.”

Consistent silver and weight! And the Caesars wanted to be recognised as Gods as well as their Greeek and Roman Deities. They were shoving all this down the Jews' throats.
[QUOTETyrian shekel - Wikipedia

I thought you needed good old Wiki.

 

[oldbadger]

Please indicate where Caesar’s abbreviated name appears on the Jerusalem mint Tyrian shekel.

You see?
I've told you that the Tyrian shekel struck in Jesus's time had the abbrevisted initials (Greek) of Caesar on the Reverse, and you have put up a Tyre Mint shekel pre-19BC which did not.
The initials are both KAP and KP, as shown on the 'NEW' shekel pasted below. It's just a case of knowing what you're looking for.

I didn't need to read the title, it was obvious as soon as I saw the pictures of such a well struck coin. The Jerusalem mint after circa 19 BC was much less careful with the strikes, but the silver purity and weight were still consistent so nobody cared.

 

[oldbadger]

. Very few sins required sacrifice at the Temple. And again I ask, do you think people made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem every time they sinned?

The Northern peasants may only have visited the Temple for one feast each year. But temple sacrifices were many, where possible:-
Here:- (Thanks to Tumah)
Sacrifices are split into two major types: the individual's sacrifice and the public's sacrifice.

The individual's sacrifice was paid for by the individual. If I recall correctly, Jerusalem had a lower market and upper market. The upper market had all the animal stalls, money changers and other assorted Temple-centric merchants. As it was prohibited to take your money belt up the Temple Mount, you'd purchase your animal or change your money for the Half Shekel there and then ascend the Temple Mount.

The public sacrifice was paid for by everyone, from the Half Shekel everyone had to bring once a year. There were a number of public sacrifices as well as the incense (burnt twice daily 365 days a year plus an extra three portions for the Day of Atonement) that fall under this category.

There are eight major categories:

The Burnt Offering, the Sin Offering, the Fault Offering, the Peace Offering, the Tithe Offering, the First-born Offering, the Passover Offering and the Meal Offering. They're categories are based on different rules that apply to them.

In addition to the animal itself, every Burnt Offering, Peace Offering as well as the Sin Offering and Fault Offering of a Leper is brought with a Meal Offering and a Wine Libation. Each individual animal was brought with its own Offerings and Libations. The Meal Offering was burnt on the altar completely. The wine was poured into one of two holes (one was for wine the other for the Water Libation brought once a year on Tabernacles) that lead to a space under the altar ~ 1.5' x 1.5'. See Below for Meal Offerings.

Almost all sacrifices have at least certain parts that are burnt on the Altar of Burnt Offerings. Those are: the fat encasing the innards of the animal (I believe it's called caul fat) kidneys and the fat on them and the flanks near them, a piece of the liver that juts out as well as a small piece of the main body of the liver.

Another commonality between the sacrifices is that if they were not completely eaten within the allotted time or became ritually impure or invalid, they were required to be burned at a designated place outside the Temple.

Burnt Offering

Burnt Offerings are called as such, because they are burnt entirely on the altar with the exception of the skin (of animals) which was given to the priests. They were slaughtered in the northern area of the Inner Courtyard and it's blood was collected there as well. It's blood was sprinkled on the altar twice, once at two different corners (NE and SW), such that the blood went on all four sides.

There are three major types of Burnt Offerings:

Voluntary Offerings

Donation Burnt Offering (Lev. 1) - the Donation Offering is a voluntary offering. If a person makes a vow to bring a Burnt Offering for whatever reason, this is what he brings. It has a slight atonement aspect as it can be used to atone for a handful of sins that do not have a punishment or sacrifice associated with them.

Provision for the Altar (Lev. 1:2) - Money left over from the Half Shekel tax that was not needed for regular year-round sacrifices, was used to buy additional sacrifices that were burned when there were no sacrifices that were currently burning on the altar. This sacrifice is considered a public voluntary offering.

Obligatory Personal Sacrifices

Sight Offering (Deut. 16:16) - Every one of the Three Pilgramages (Passover, Weeks, Tabernacles), its required that one bring this sacrifice on the first day (or the following days if the first day is missed). This sacrifice can be brought from bull, ram or sheep.

Puerperal Offering (Lev. 12:6-8) - Forty days after giving birth to a male and eighty days after giving birth to a female, a puerperal mother has to bring this sacrifice as well as a Sin Offering. This sacrifice is either a lamb within it's first year or if she's poor, a dove or pigeon.

(Note: Yes, puerperal is a word. I was surprised too.)

Rising and Falling Offering (Lev. 5:1-12) - Brought for (1) a swear accidentally made in vain or unfulfilled oath, or (2) purposely falsely swearing in court that one has not testimony to present in favor of a party or (3) accidentally entering the Temple or eating a sacrifice while impure. Called so because of the three options one has with regards to the form of sacrifice depending on the degree of wealth the person has. In the middle option, two birds can be brought, one of which is a burnt offering.

Note: There are other sacrifices that have secondary options for the poor and are often called "Rising and Falling Offerings" as well. However this one is distinct in that it has three options instead of two.

Convert's Offering (Num. 15:14) - A convert has to bring this sacrifice from either an animal or two birds (dove or pigeon) both of which will be treated as Burnt Offerings.

Leper's Offering (not really leprosy) (Lev. 14:10) - Eight days after the leper is purified, he brings a lamb or if he can't afford that, a dove or pigeon.

Nazirite's Offering (Num. 6:10, 14) - A Nazirite who became impure through contact with a dead body before the length of his vow is completed brings two doves or pigeons. When he completes his vow, he brings a lamb.

Flow Offering (not for rhyming skill) (Lev. 15:14-15, 29-30) - A male of female who has had certain types of abnormal emissions bring two birds one of which is a Burnt Offering.

Ram of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:3) - Among the sacrifices the High Priest brings over the course of the Day of Atonement is a personal Burnt Offering in the form of a ram for himself and his household.
Obligatory Public Sacrifices

Perpetual Offering (Num. 28:3-4) - Brought twice daily: in the morning and the afternoon. This sacrifice is brought from a lamb.

Additional Offering - There are eight additional offerings brought at various times of the year.

Sabbath (Num. 28:9) - Two lambs

New Moon (Num. 28:11) - Two bulls, one ram, seven sheep

Passover (Num. 28:19) - Two bulls, one ram, seven sheep each of the seven days

Weeks (Num. 28:27) - Two bulls, one ram, seven sheep

Tabernacles (Num. 29:13-34) - Two rams and seven sheep each of the seven sheep. In addition to that, 13 bulls are brought the first day, 12 the second, etc. until the seventh day when 7 are brought.

Eighth Day of Convocation (Num. 29:36) - One bull, one ram and seven sheep.

New Year (Num. 29:2) - One bull, one ram, seven sheep.

Day of Atonement (Num. 29:8) - One bull, one ram, seven sheep

Brought with the Sheaf Offering (Lev. 23:12) - On the second day of Passover, together with the barely Sheaf Offering, a lamb was brought as a burnt offering (in addition to the regular Additional Offering).

Brought with the Two Breads (Lev. 23:18) - On Weeks, together with the Two Breads, bull, two rams and seven sheep were brought (in addition to the regular Additional Offering).

Ram of the Public Offering for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:5) - On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest offers a ram as a Burnt Offering. One opinion is that the ram from the Additional Offering was used. Another opinion is that a separate ram was used for this.

Bull for Idolatry (Num. 15:24) - If the Sanhedrin makes a mistake in their judgement and causes the nation to perform idol worship, a bull is brought as a Burnt Offering

 

[oldbadger]

John was baptizing on the east side of the Jordan River. All the Gospels agree that it was in the wilderness. This is nowhere near the main route south to Jerusalem. Check out the map.

Ah ha! So you never read all my post which clearly said that it was the duty of Antipas to go and bring John in because he was on the EAST bank of the Jordan, and outsidse the Prefect's authority. Hmmm?

And you think that the Northern Jewish peasants came south through Samaria? No no...... they came along the East bank of the Jordan.

And John was Baptising at various places along the Jordan as (no doubt) was Jesus's group at times.

 

[oldbadger]

With a few minor interpolations, each of the Gospels is clearly a coherent whole with the parts you consider objectional really being key features essential to the individual stories.

Wrong, Your key features are only essential to the Christian story, not the Jesus story. And they are fabrications, just as Christians fabricated Josephus's entry about Jesus.

Again I ask if you think there were earlier versions of the Gospels that were changed, state what parts were changed, in what way they were changed and how you know this. Be specific.

I already told you to edit out any parts which try to tie N actions and conditions to ancient prophecies, and any actions which are spun into supernatural miracles. But I do accept that many of the amazing things that Jesus did could well have happened and appeared (more or less) as reported.

You can trawl through G-John for useful anecdotes but you can trash the timeline used as junk. Either that or trash G-Mark's timeline although that appears to be the real one to me.

Matthew and Luke, neither being even partial witnesses, needed to copy G-Mark and G-Q + one other report each into their gospels, so you might as well just trawl those for useful info and incidents.