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

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

You don't know what atonement and sin are, then.

Look, Any breach of any of the 507 laws was sinful.
Sin lead to verious kinds of SICKNESS.
Sin leads to Sickness.
What did Jesus say to folks after helping tghem? 'Sin no more'.

And so if you broke the shellfish law and ate a Missel, you had sinned. And Shellfish Poison Paralysis could well be the SICKNESS that you would gain from that.

The 507 were all about producing a stronger, healthier, more successful, more cohesive people. There is not one law which does not support this.

If you're stuck with the 507 being holy and religiously moral then you are lost, mate.

The lengthy material you provided specified numerous kinds of obligations relative to the Temple. Almost none of them had to do with sin and atonement. That was also the case with the material I presented earlier. Only certain sins require a Temple sacrifice. Most, including intentional malicious sins, did not. John the Baptist would have had essentially no effect on Temple revenue.

BTW there are 613 mitzvot not 507. Those are derived from the Written Torah. There is also the Oral Torah, about which Jesus argued with the Pharisees.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

.......................... which came from the Tyre Mint, and these did not have Caesar's initials.


KP and KAP are the abbreviated initials of Caesar in Greek.

You're stuck fast in some place where you cannot see that the real History of Jesus is all that matters to Historic Jesus researchers. We aren't interested in religious drivvle.

And I'm fed up with writing stuff which a few pages later yuou repeat to me as if I had disagreed with such paras!

I'm tired.............. You win............. You've worn me down with all this theological waffle!

I suggest you look at this discussion in the ancient coin forum. The comments on the figures point out that the ‘monograms’ are the years of minting. How else do think they know the year of minting even for those minted in Jerusalem (or wherever they did it)?

Look especially at he comments for Figure 7.
“It has been suggested that another half shekel in the same museum is dated PNE or year 195 (69/70 CE), however this is disputed as it may also be the year PME (19/20 CE).”

Or maybe you can explain how PME is the initials of Tiberius (14-37 AD) and how they know it was minted in 19/20 AD and not some other year of the reign of Tiberius.

 

[oldbadger]

Please provide a credible source for this claim.

You mean to say that you don't know all this?
You need to buy the books.................... here you go for one:-
The Temple of Jerusalem - Page 73 - Google Books Result
isbn:0674017978 - Google Search
Simon Goldhill - 2005 - ‎History
The Talmud gives a figure for the number of kidneys roasted on such a festival (Agrippa, on behalf of the Romans, wanted the figures for a census of the Jews and the information is still used by literal-minded historians to calculate the number of families and thus the numbers of worshippers for a Templefestival). The figure ...

 

[metis]

Are you telling me that while bones are in the process of fossilization some 65 million years ago, the soft tissues with protein that’s still in it and on top of these bones, between layers of sedimentary rocks, and in the process of being fossilized also would remain stretchy like it just died recently and would not fossilized first before the bones?

Yes, because the organic matter is not only surrounded by bone but also by rock. We've seen this many times before, such as with ancient ants encased in amber.

A wooly mammoth was found encased in ice in northern Siberia, which dated back tens of thousands of years ago, and yet the meat was so fresh that it was served to surprised guests at a meeting in London.

BTW, do you really think that paleontologists and geneticists are really so stupid as to not know what they're doing?

 

[oldbadger]

The annual Temple Tax amounted to about two days wages. Roman taxes as revised by Augustus was a 1% income tax plus “customs taxes, import and export taxes, toll bridges, crop taxes, sales tax, property taxes, and special taxes when there was a war, building project or campaign to finance”. The income tax alone was already more than the Temple Tax and surely well below the total tax collected. Consider that at most only some portion of the Temple Tax would be skimmed and you can see that it would not have been a main source of revenue, just as I said.

*Oldbadger groans* *yawns* *sniffs* *stretches*

There were 5 1/2 shekels to the ounze, give or take the odd gram.
The basic silver rate just now is $14 per ounze.
If 400,000 folks attended a great feast, then it would be reasonable to suggest that all males attending the Temple in a full year might be around 800,000?

Therefore 800,000 /5 x 14 = $2.24 million in today's currency? And silver may have been more valuable back then than now?

You might like to rethink your ideas about Roman interest in Temple revenues?[/QUOTE]

 

[oldbadger]

Since John was written much later and disagrees so much with what writings came before, I see no reason to give any credence to the details he added. The question is why you do.

Amazing. Quite amazing.
I rate G-John as a complete fabrication, but with anecdotes within that were probably based upon fact.
But in principle, so do you.....................

Rough Best Sloucher Post 815
The Gospels were each written for a particular purpose.
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.

And to a reduced extent you agree with me that G-Mark is the closest to truth......................

Rough Best Sloucher
Post 842
John chose not to repeat the ‘same old story’ found in the three Synoptic Gospels and has the last supper not be a Passover Seder as they, just as his storyline in general is quite different from theirs.
A real historical Jesus might be imagined from pieces here and there in Mark
The Gospel of john reflects the evolution of christology and the perception of the end of days
Matthew based his story on Mark but created new material for his specific purpose
..............Matthew and Luke by even more missing documents, M and L, that each one had but the other did not. Allow for large scale invention rather than referral to theoretical documents and it all fits together.

I get the impression that you do believe that a real Jesus lived, but accept that Christianity is mostly fabrication.
If I'm right you'd be much better off studying what history can be gleaned and leave the theology alone...?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

You mean to say that you don't know all this?
You need to buy the books.................... here you go for one:-
The Temple of Jerusalem - Page 73 - Google Books Result
isbn:0674017978 - Google Search
Simon Goldhill - 2005 - ‎History
The Talmud gives a figure for the number of kidneys roasted on such a festival (Agrippa, on behalf of the Romans, wanted the figures for a census of the Jews and the information is still used by literal-minded historians to calculate the number of families and thus the numbers of worshippers for a Templefestival). The figure ...

You said: “Why do you think that Caesar ordered a Temple census which involved the collection of Lambs kidneys from a main Temple feast”

I was questioning your details which did not, and do not, add up.

The event you refer to is recounted in the Babylonian Talmud (as Goldhill says). This Talmud was compiled between the 3rd and 5th centuries. The exact text is:

“Agrippa the king once wanted to know how many male Israelites there were. So he told the high-priest to keep account of the paschal lambs. The high-priest then ordered, that one kidney of each paschal lamb be preserved, and it was found that six hundred thousand pairs of kidneys were preserved; and this was twice the number of the Israelites who went out of Egypt. Naturally, this was exclusive of all Israelites who were unclean and could not offer the sacrifice, and all those who lived at a great distance from Jerusalem and were not in duty bound to be present., There was not a single paschal lamb that did not represent at least more than ten persons.”

Babylonian Talmud, Book 3, Chapter 5
Tract Pesachim (Passover): Chapter V: Regulations Concerning the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb

Kidneys were among the items carried to the altar as part of the sacrifice ritual. That is not part of any feast, despite your claim. The Passover feast (Seder) is observed in individual homes and does not involve the kidneys.

Despite Goldhill, there is no mention of Agrippa having done it for the Romans, and despite you there is no mention of Caesar having ordered this. It is simply not credible that a Roman Emperor would have any concept of the details of the Passover sacrifice process. Since this was not written down until at least the 3rd century, there is no real certainty it actually happened.

In addition, it would have been useless as a census figure because Jews came from all over the known world. This might have made sense as an estimate of the number of male Israelites there were in total, although there were certainly those who did not go to Jerusalem, and there were often entire families that did go. But for the usual Roman census purposes, it would have been meaningless.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

*Oldbadger groans* *yawns* *sniffs* *stretches*

There were 5 1/2 shekels to the ounze, give or take the odd gram.
The basic silver rate just now is $14 per ounze.
If 400,000 folks attended a great feast, then it would be reasonable to suggest that all males attending the Temple in a full year might be around 800,000?

Therefore 800,000 /5 x 14 = $2.24 million in today's currency? And silver may have been more valuable back then than now?

You might like to rethink your ideas about Roman interest in Temple revenues?

You are avoiding my point that skimming Temple revenues would not have been a major source of revenue for the Romans (your words). The Roman income tax alone was greater than the Temple tax and there were many other Roman taxes. Go back and reply to what I actually said, not your usual diversion to avoid addressing that.

In addition, remember that on two occasions (Pilate and Florus) misdirection of Temple funds was immediately and widely known with loud outcry. resulting. Whatever skimming went on would had to have been extremely circumspect, and therefore could not have been on a very large scale.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Amazing. Quite amazing.
I rate G-John as a complete fabrication, but with anecdotes within that were probably based upon fact.
But in principle, so do you.....................



And to a reduced extent you agree with me that G-Mark is the closest to truth......................



I get the impression that you do believe that a real Jesus lived, but accept that Christianity is mostly fabrication.
If I'm right you'd be much better off studying what history can be gleaned and leave the theology alone...?

I do not see John as based in fact at all, except whatever facts might have gotten carried along by accident with the snatches of other Gospels that got included (and mostly modified anyway).

Some of the pericopes in Mark sound like accurate portrayals of an era that existed decades before Mark wrote, the interactions with the Pharisees being significant examples. What we might be able to learn about a real Jesus would IMO have to come from Mark. The other Gospels do not seem to add anything that is both new and credible in that respect. But separating fact from fiction in Mark is not so easy.

As I said before, the idea of a religious figure named Jesus who was crucified an was believed by some to have risen from the dead – but none of the other supernatural aspects Paul prodvides – appears to have been already widespread when Paul wrote.

It is the what the Gospels and other NT writings are really all about that fascinates me. Mostly fabrications yes. But the why and how of the fabrications that I love to explore.

 

[Trailblazer]

Manifested from what or where? Where was “the Word” before the manifestation? Before the “BEGINNING” as the imperfect tense “WAS/EN” is suggesting, right? “The imperfect tense describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past –William Mounce”. If the imperfect tense “WAS/EN” is suggesting that before the beginning of time, meaning from eternity, “the Word” was with “the God” then there is only one conclusion and that is, “the WORD was God”. Why can’t you understand this?

The Word was not literally God, it signifies the divine appearance. Only God is God. Jesus is not God. Jesus was the divine appearance. All the Bible interpretations you can muster up only prove one thing – your ability to come up with Bible interpretations... Anybody can do that and many do.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endurethfor ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

There is no room for Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation in this verse because this is all God’s work according to John.

If it is God’s work then there is room for Baha’u’llah since He was the Representative of God among men and he had the knowledge of all that had been.

There is also room for Abdu’l-Baha because he was an appointed interpreter.

What Abdu’l-Baha wrote was very simple and it makes sense. “Therefore, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which signify the perfections of God, are the divine appearance. This is the meaning of the verse in the Gospel which says: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Some Answered Questions, p. 206

 

[Trailblazer]

This article that you cut and paste is from What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God? and they are not against Jesus is God. Presenting this article as your argument against Jesus is God only proved you did not know what you’re talking about.

I got this article from the same website and read what they saying about the Lord Jesus.

What is the Logos?

John’s Gospel begins by using the Greek idea of a “divine reason” or “the mind of God” as a way to connect with the readers of his day and introduce Jesus to them as God. Greek philosophy may have used the word in reference to divine reason, but John used it to note many of the attributes of Jesus. In John’s use of the Logos concept, we find that

-Jesus is eternal (“In the beginning was the Word”)
-Jesus was with God prior to coming to earth (“the Word was with God”)
-Jesus is God (“the Word was God.”)
-Jesus is Creator (“All things were made through him”)
-Jesus is the Giver of Life (“In him was life”)
-Jesus became human to live among us (“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”)

“Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto Him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9).” From: What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?

That is true. Jesus was a revelation of God’s Attributes in the flesh, but Jesus was not a revelation of God’s Essence in the flesh, because the Essence of God cannot be revealed in the flesh. . As Baha’u’llah wrote, God is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.

Neb said: -Jesus is Creator (“All things were made through him”)

John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:3 refers to God. All things were made by God, as we know from Genesis:

Genesis 1 New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Neb said: -Jesus became human to live among us (“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”)

That is true. Jesus became human and dwelt among us, but God did not become human.

All the analysis of the Bible you can muster up will not prove that Jesus was God. Only if the Bible is completely inaccurate or if Jesus was a liar is it possible that Jesus is God.

Jesus claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but Jesus differentiated Himself from God:

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:

John 8:40 But now ye seek to slay me, a man that have spoken to you [the] truth, that I heard of God; Abraham did not this thing.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Jesus said that God was greater than He was:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

How could Jesus pray to and go to the Father if Jesus WAS the God the Father?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Moreover, Jesus said that no man has ever seen God:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Jesus said He was from God and that God sent Him, again differentiating Himself from God:

John 17:3 And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Jesus even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son.

Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet, and was so regarded. Jesus never referred to Himself as God.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

Jesus IS NOT God Bible Quotes... Continued:

2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

1 Timothy 2:5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

[Grandliseur]

How do you know it was Jesus? Maybe it was Kermit The Frog.

You're right.
This post is a bit old, I do not believe I initially confirmed this as Christ. Since I thought you a believer, I gave in to my personal feelings which were feelings.

So, perhaps it was Kermit the Frog or his brother if you believe they have the ability to manifest themselves in that manner in our reality. Personally, I do not need that kind of external kind of evidence where we cannot claim anything really. Still, when Jesus said he would come for all to see in the clouds, that one fit nicely, don't you think?!

Did Kermit promise this? Is he even capable of it?

 

[roger1440]

You're right.
This post is a bit old, I do not believe I initially confirmed this as Christ. Since I thought you a believer, I gave in to my personal feelings which were feelings.

So, perhaps it was Kermit the Frog or his brother if you believe they have the ability to manifest themselves in that manner in our reality. Personally, I do not need that kind of external kind of evidence where we cannot claim anything really. Still, when Jesus said he would come for all to see in the clouds, that one fit nicely, don't you think?!

Did Kermit promise this? Is he even capable of it?

Next you are going to tell me you see Jesus on this toast.

 

[Grandliseur]

Next you are going to tell me you see Jesus on this toast.

I have no idea how Jesus would look like. I wasn't aware he posed for a photo shot. This kind of gimmickry doesn't appeal to me. The claims about Mary appearing to some doesn't appeal to me.

I do see a picture in the toast. I hope you do too, otherwise go to the optometrist.
If you didn't see a person standing at the top of the beam previously shown, you might need to go to the optometrist.

 

[roger1440]

I have no idea how Jesus would look like. I wasn't aware he posed for a photo shot. This kind of gimmickry doesn't appeal to me. The claims about Mary appearing to some doesn't appeal to me.

I do see a picture in the toast. I hope you do too, otherwise go to the optometrist.
If you didn't see a person standing at the top of the beam previously shown, you might need to go to the optometrist.

Pareidolia (/pærɪˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon in which the mind responds to a stimulus, usually an image or a sound, by perceiving a familiar pattern where none exists (e.g. in random data).
Pareidolia - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

BTW there are 613 mitzvot not 507. Those are derived from the Written Torah.

Dear Rough Beast Sloucher, if you remove the 106 sacrificial laws you get 507.

The 507 laws (especially the poor laws) were what Jesus wanted to be reintroduced AND KEPT, because the Priesthood had long since deteriorated into corrupt, hypocritical, careless, greedy hellenist ways.

And The Baptist (and Jesus) were both totally against the whole Temple corruption.

You claim to know the NT cold, so you probably do know that Jesus was for MERCY BEFORE SACRIFICE.

 

[oldbadger]

I suggest you look at this discussion in the ancient coin forum. The comments on the figures point out that the ‘monograms’ are the years of minting. How else do think they know the year of minting even for those minted in Jerusalem (or wherever they did it)? [/QUITE]

It amazes me that you could make such a serious mistake as suggesting that the graven image of a raptor is the God Melgath-Heracles, when in fact the head on the obverse is in fact this God. You've accessed enough Shekel articles by now to have been able to correct yourself. Here we go:-
Tyrian shekel - Wikipedia
In the latest standard, which was also the one used for the temple tax, the coins bore the likeness of the Phoenician god Melqart or Baal, accepted as the Olympian Herakles by the Greeks and derided as Beelzebub by Jews in the time of the Seleucids, wearing the laurel reflecting his role in the Tyrian games and the ancient Olympic Games.

 

[oldbadger]

I suggest you look at this discussion in the ancient coin forum. The comments on the figures point out that the ‘monograms’ are the years of minting. How else do think they know the year of minting even for those minted in Jerusalem (or wherever they did it)?

Look especially at he comments for Figure 7.
“It has been suggested that another half shekel in the same museum is dated PNE or year 195 (69/70 CE), however this is disputed as it may also be the year PME (19/20 CE).”

Or maybe you can explain how PME is the initials of Tiberius (14-37 AD) and how they know it was minted in 19/20 AD and not some other year of the reign of Tiberius.

Which part of KP or KAP didn't you understand? Post 19BC 1/2 and full Shekel was struck with these initials to signify 'Kratros Romaion' or The Power of the Romans. This was a direct reference to CAESAR!

If you would like to study initials for dates then that is up to you.

 

[oldbadger]

Y
In addition, it would have been useless as a census figure because Jews came from all over the known world. This might have made sense as an estimate of the number of male Israelites there were in total, although there were certainly those who did not go to Jerusalem, and there were often entire families that did go. But for the usual Roman census purposes, it would have been meaningless.

Of course it was a brilliant Census source if the objective was that theTemple takings be accounted.
I have info on my main computer that refers to one of these counts in 6CE but am not near it.

 

[oldbadger]

The Roman income tax alone was greater than the Temple tax and there were many other Roman taxes. Go back and reply to what I actually said, not your usual diversion to avoid addressing that.

Credible Source, please.
Please show the census results, maybe?

In addition, remember that on two occasions (Pilate and Florus) misdirection of Temple funds was immediately and widely known with loud outcry. resulting. Whatever skimming went on would had to have been extremely circumspect, and therefore could not have been on a very large scale.

Off the top of my head, wasn't one instance for aqueduct funding? I forget, but regardless of that, a % of all Temple takings went to Rome.