The Resurrection of Christ

[Me Myself]

If it only takes people to be really sure of what they believe for i to be true, and the biggest martyr is suppose to win, then:

Thich Quang Duc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Looks like Buddha was right.

 

[outhouse]

Finally, Jesus wasn't killed for not liking the Roman taxes.

wrong.

he rode into the city probably mocking the way the roman authorities rode in to start with, showing his hatred of roman authority


the reason yeshua displayed such violence over the money changers table was the way Caiaphas and the romans were in bed together to keep the revenue flowing. Caiaphas knew if he could keep things quiet the roman leaders would leave after the holiday, Romans wanted nothing more then to rake in the revenue and as much as possible. Both powers had a objective that somewhat worked together to get through a time when the city was flooded with money.

I happen to know many scholars follow this.

It wasn't out of a need for a new religion that the resurrection took place.

agreed

it was set up to give divinity and fulfil prochecy AFTER the fact, IE help carry the movement forward.

And there wasn't really a gaping need for a religion during the time of Jesus

sure there was, just look at Johns radical teachings that effected yeshua

the fact that yeshuas teachings took off as fast as it did is plenty of proof that there was a need for a branch of judaism

 

[outhouse]

That theory would mean
a) the Diciplces had some reason that their messiah was better then anyone elses
b) that the Early Christians didn't pay taxes

What evidence do you have for either of these claims

A yes the message was one that made sense at the time

B yes there was and 2 they were not christians at yeshuas lifetime nor afterwards for quite a while

 

[outhouse]

As far as the Resurrection goes.

You had a missing body thats it. thats all that was needed to start the mythology that matches OT prophecy.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

If it only takes people to be really sure of what they believe for i to be true, and the biggest martyr is suppose to win, then:

Thich Quang Duc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Looks like Buddha was right.

He never knew Jesus however,niether did he claim that Buddha came back from the dead

Buddha was a teacher and if people died for his teachings it shows that they thought he was wise

Christ was a miracle worker, and claimed to be the Son of God, if people died for that they must have believed it

 

[ForeverFaithful]

As far as the Resurrection goes.

You had a missing body thats it. thats all that was needed to start the mythology that matches OT prophecy.

But why is Jesus the only Messiah who is said to have fullfilled said prophecy, if it was that easy to fake and that clear a requirement wouldn't the other Messiah's have similar stories or at the least the expecation of such

 

[outhouse]

Christ was a miracle worker, and claimed to be the Son of God, if people died for that they must have believed it

we dont know of a single miracle that really happened

He never claimed to be a god or the son of such


There were many reasons why people die, nothing wrong with following good advise for the time.

 

[outhouse]

But why is Jesus the only Messiah who is said to have fullfilled said prophecy, if it was that easy to fake and that clear a requirement wouldn't the other Messiah's have similar stories or at the least the expecation of such

You need to remember much of yeshusa story was built up after his death to match OT prophecy.

much of Yeshuas story exist already in the OT, basically the only thing different is a poor traveling teacher from Nazareth.

 

[outhouse]

Also yeshua did not fulfil prophecy

hebrews never have followed this at all.

 

[fallingblood]

we dont know of a single miracle that really happened

History neither supports or denies miracles. So really, this statement has little value. Historically, miracles are possible. They just may not be probable.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

wrong.

he rode into the city probably mocking the way the roman authorities rode in to start with, showing his hatred of roman authority

He rode in on a donkey. the way a king rides in to bring peace

the reason yeshua displayed such violence over the money changers table was the way Caiaphas and the romans were in bed together to keep the revenue flowing. Caiaphas knew if he could keep things quiet the roman leaders would leave after the holiday, Romans wanted nothing more then to rake in the revenue and as much as possible. Both powers had a objective that somewhat worked together to get through a time when the city was flooded with money.

I happen to know many scholars follow this.

Last time I check Christ says they had profaned the temple, nothing about taxes
and even said "Render onto Ceasar's what is his"

it was set up to give divinity and fulfil prochecy AFTER the fact, IE help carry the movement forward.

When was this added? Paul wrote at a time when many witnesses were alive.

sure there was, just look at Johns radical teachings that effected yeshua

the fact that yeshuas teachings took off as fast as it did is plenty of proof that there was a need for a branch of judaism

What proof does anyone have that Jesus was a follower of John and not the other way around, which is the only way actually presented in the gospels.

Christianity took off because of the blood of the martrys, and grew outside of Israel, making the theory that it was just a branch of Judaism unlikely

 

[fallingblood]

Also yeshua did not fulfil prophecy

hebrews never have followed this at all.

Actually, the original Jesus movement was comprised of Hebrews, so yes, some followed it.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, the original Jesus movement was comprised of Hebrews, so yes, some followed it.

A vast minority does not make it so.

We know some hebrews thought it so but most after yeshuas death after oral tradition set in

 

[outhouse]

[

Historically, miracles are possible

fact is, historically they are not as stated.

Historically for yeshua, we know most of his miracles were attributed after death by people who never knew or met him.

People turned him into a deity and even that took hundreds of years to stick

 

[ForeverFaithful]

[


fact is, historically they are not as stated.

Historically for yeshua, we know most of his miracles were attributed after death by people who never knew or met him.

People turned him into a deity and even that took hundreds of years to stick

You keep making this asseration with NO EVIDENCE, just because you think its a fact that Jesus never preformed a mircale or claimed to be God doesn't make it so.
None of his enemies in the first century denied these claims or produced a body to counter their claims of a ressurection, the New Testament was likely finished by the reign of Nero, what evidence do you have for your claims of anything? Please be rationale

 

[1137]

beating a dead horse here,

How do you discount the ressurection,if you don't believe/support it if you do.

Out of all the "Messiahs" of the first century only Jesus has a world religion based on him,

I've never read of any of the other first century messiahs being linked to a ressurection, the apostlesn who were cowardly during their lives were able to hop on boats and risk their lives for the gospels, people high in the Jewish society abandoned their beliefs to follow Christ, through all this persuection we have the witnesses of the martyrs, so my question really is, what more do you want?

Well the first century was a very long time ago. The reason you say there was no other Messiah in the 1st century is because 1 - 100 AD is purely based around the mythology of Christianity. Who knows what even really went on, as so much has been perverted through corruption even from when Jesus lived to when the myths about him were written.

However, since people cannot rise from the dead, Jesus didn't. At least not physically. If we look through myth we find Jesus was more of a mystic, and perhaps his "resurrection" was simply reaching enlightenment. Such a line of thought could horrifically lead to individuality however.

 

[outhouse]

He rode in on a donkey. the way a king rides in to bring peace

yeshus never rode in for peace. The most violent things yeshus ever did in the canon was during his stay in the temple.

outside of the canon he murdered people as a child.

Last time I check Christ says they had profaned the temple, nothing about taxes
and even said "Render onto Ceasar's what is his"

last time I checked christ never wrote a word or said anything.

fact is we know roman occupation taxed the heck out of everyone in the area. they were masters of this. They would squeeze the economy hard hitting the poor very hard. Their goal was to squeeze as much as possible without crippling the economy.

the temple and the holiday were big buisiness.

If I was you I would be going after the angle of this "the silver coins being used during that time had a pagan deity on one side and a eagle on the other and having these coins in a hebrew temple would have made yeshua furious" but fact is even that would not really insite enough anger to equal that of having to pay double or triple duty taxes just to worship and make sacrifices. Much livestock was sold in the temple for the holiday, all these transdactions were heavily taxed.

When was this added? Paul wrote at a time when many witnesses were alive.

fact is Paul is guilty of giving Yeshsua divinity. he never met Yeshua and I look at his claims as blatant lies.

You need to remember the text in the canon were those picked for content that matched each other and assembled at a much later date. There were other text. its a shame we dont have them.

But even paul never met or knew yeshua

What proof does anyone have that Jesus was a follower of John and not the other way around

because scripture even states this

 

[Nakosis]

He never knew Jesus however,niether did he claim that Buddha came back from the dead

Buddha was a teacher and if people died for his teachings it shows that they thought he was wise

Christ was a miracle worker, and claimed to be the Son of God, if people died for that they must have believed it

A lot of Jews died for what they believed it. Doesn't mean their belief was correct.

Dying for your beliefs doesn't really lend any credibility to the belief itself, only that you actually believed in it.

I'm not even sure what specific belief the Apostles died for. I mean they weren't put to death just because they claim Jesus came back to life. They were put to death because claiming Jesus was the Messiah was a threat to civil unrest/rebellion. Rome was killing Christians for 300 years. It wasn't because they believe Jesus came back to life. Same reason the Buddhists were killed. They threatened governmental authority.

 

[outhouse]

You keep making this asseration with NO EVIDENCE, just because you think its a fact that Jesus never preformed a mircale or claimed to be God doesn't make it so.
None of his enemies in the first century denied these claims or produced a body to counter their claims of a ressurection, the New Testament was likely finished by the reign of Nero, what evidence do you have for your claims of anything? Please be rationale

the gospels were all written by people who never knew or met Yeshua, they are all making claims they did not know nor witnessed.

How do you know claims were not denied???

 

[fallingblood]

wrong.

he rode into the city probably mocking the way the roman authorities rode in to start with, showing his hatred of roman authority


the reason yeshua displayed such violence over the money changers table was the way Caiaphas and the romans were in bed together to keep the revenue flowing. Caiaphas knew if he could keep things quiet the roman leaders would leave after the holiday, Romans wanted nothing more then to rake in the revenue and as much as possible. Both powers had a objective that somewhat worked together to get through a time when the city was flooded with money.

I happen to know many scholars follow this.

Many scholars follow parts of what you said. That really means little though, as I can find many scholars who disagree as well. So it is a moot point.

As for Jesus riding into town the same time that the Romans were, that is highly debatable, and no, not many scholars support that. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan do, but they are the big proponents of that. However, it is hardly fact. It is one possibility. It is also possible that Jesus simply entered into the city as everyone else did, around a week before Passover began. It is also possible that this whole occurrence didn't even occur during the Passover season, but during a different holiday. Either way though, it has nothing to do with taxes.

As for Caiaphas and the Romans being in bed, that is also debatable. Yes, Caiaphas did appease the Romans. Any High Priest would have had to do just that. One of their big responsibilities was to keep peace in Jerusalem. That meant that they had to walk a fine line. On one hand, they had to keep the Romans happy. On the other, they had to keep the citizens happy. However, when the Romans took money from the Temple, there was quite a bit of problem there. As we see in other instances in which doing so, the Romans faced some pretty serious revolts and consequences.

More so, this had nothing to do with Roman taxes. Jesus tipping over the tables had nothing to do with Roman taxes. It had to do with him having a problem with how the Temple was being ran. It wasn't with taxes.

agreed

it was set up to give divinity and fulfil prochecy AFTER the fact, IE help carry the movement forward.

The fulfillment of prophecy (which it never did) only occurred after the story was formed. The events took place, and then the "prophecy" was formed in order to support the story that already existed. We can be sure of this as the so called prophecies were never considered prophecy until after the story was created.

The movement was already going by the time that these prophecies were attributed to Jesus. The movement continued because something happened that made the disciples and followers of Jesus believe that he had risen from the dead in some form.

sure there was, just look at Johns radical teachings that effected yeshua

the fact that yeshuas teachings took off as fast as it did is plenty of proof that there was a need for a branch of judaism

John's teachings weren't really radical. There were dozens of other religious leaders who were preaching nearly the same thing. Most of them are unknown, or mentioned only briefly (such in Josephus), but there were quite a few of them from what we can tell. And their messages were quite similar.

So there wasn't really a creation of any new ideas. They worked with ideas that already were there, and that were already accepted by a number of Jews. Jesus was just one more leader preaching this same basic message.

As for his teachings taking off so fast; they didn't. In fact, it grew quite slowly.