The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

Not one single scene written of in the gospels can be verified nor would a non believer expect there to be when reading a fable.

What is or is not embarrassing is a subjective exercise and a futile, fallacious argument.

Ironically what some claim is "embarrassing" only shows an ignorance of the culture at the time. Taking care of corpses was one of the garbage jobs heaped on women. Women would be the ones to clothe and wrap a corpse quite often. So that women went to tend to Jesus's body was what would be expected. it was not "Oh how embarrassing, the women found him first". They would have been the first. It was accuracy not embarrassing.

 

[lukethethird]

Ironically what some claim is "embarrassing" only shows an ignorance of the culture at the time. Taking care of corpses was one of the garbage jobs heaped on women. Women would be the ones to clothe and wrap a corpse quite often. So that women went to tend to Jesus's body was what would be expected. it was not "Oh how embarrassing, the women found him first". They would have been the first. It was accuracy not embarrassing.

True, and what is truly embarrassing is the criterion of embarrassment as well as other such criterion invented to bring about an historical Jesus. It exposes how un academic these Christian seminaries can be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, and what is truly embarrassing is the criterion of embarrassment as well as other such criterion invented to bring about an historical Jesus. It exposes how un academic these Christian seminaries can be.

With knowledge one can see how weak one's argument is. If one just wants to believe then ridiculous excuses have to be made. Christian apologists have to make some of the worst arguments possible and act as if they made a point when they often in reality they only undermine their beliefs by arguing in that way.

 

[lukethethird]

There is evidence to the contrary. The Sanhedrin would have executed Jesus after convicting him of blasphemy were it permitted. According to the story, the were forced to take him to Pilate for judgment and punishment. They understood that the same statements that they considered blasphemy against their god would be seen as treason against the emperor, and they could get him executed that way.

In Acts the trial is rewritten with Stephen as the defendant and the Jewish leaders stoned him. I think the real reason Jesus is brought before Pilate in the gospels is to make Jesus appear as someone important.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Acts the trial is rewritten with Stephen as the defendant and the Jewish leaders stoned him. I think the real reason Jesus is brought before Pilate in the gospels is to make Jesus appear as someone important.

Interesting. One of the problems with the resurrection myth is that Jesus was taken down from the cross. If it was a Roman crucifixion that would be extremely unlikely and they would need a very good reason to take him down. No such reason is given in the Bible. But if it was a Jewish crucifixion, and yes, the Hebrews imitated their overlords at times, they would have followed Jewish law and taken his body down before the Sabbath.

 

[lukethethird]

Interesting. One of the problems with the resurrection myth is that Jesus was taken down from the cross. If it was a Roman crucifixion that would be extremely unlikely and they would need a very good reason to take him down. No such reason is given in the Bible. But if it was a Jewish crucifixion, and yes, the Hebrews imitated their overlords at times, they would have followed Jewish law and taken his body down before the Sabbath.

Yes, and in fact it would have been the passover feast the next day. So yes, they would have taken him down, something that would not have concerned the Romans.

 

[lukethethird]

And to add, Jesus was just one of many miscreant rebel rousers executed during the Roman occupation, but our Jesus was brought before Pilate as if he was so important.

 

[leroy]

Not one single scene written of in the gospels can be verified nor would a non believer expect there to be when reading a fable.

The crucifixion for example can be verified in other sources

What is or is not embarrassing is a subjective exercise and a futile, fallacious argument.

the crucifixion was an embarrassment………… nobody was expecting a messiah that was crucified…………jews where expecting a strong warrior like David that would free them from all his enemies (Rome for example)

if the authors had the liberty and the intention to invent any lies that they wanted to push their agenda, they would have not invented such a humiliating death for their messiah

 

[leroy]

Interesting. One of the problems with the resurrection myth is that Jesus was taken down from the cross. If it was a Roman crucifixion that would be extremely unlikely and they would need a very good reason to take him down. No such reason is given in the Bible. But if it was a Jewish crucifixion, and yes, the Hebrews imitated their overlords at times, they would have followed Jewish law and taken his body down before the Sabbath.

Interesting. One of the problems with the resurrection myth is that Jesus was taken down from the cross. If it was a Roman crucifixion that would be extremely unlikely and they would need a very good reason to take him down. No such reason is given in the Bible. But if it was a Jewish crucifixion, and yes, the Hebrews imitated their overlords at times, they would have followed Jewish law and taken his body down before the Sabbath.

Yes the gospels do provide a Reason, namely Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body………so there is an explanation for why Jesus was treated differently

Will you admit your mistake???????????????? No

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes the gospels do provide a Reason, namely Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body………so there is an explanation for why Jesus was treated differently

Will you admit you mistake???????????????? No

LOL! That is not a reason. That is a claim. Why would it matter if a person who is unknown outside of the myth have asked for his body? We are assuming that it was a Roman crucifixion as the myth says. And that he was supposedly wealthy is not much of a reason either. You need to find some valid reason for someone to have some influence over Pilate, which the Jewish priests themselves would not have had, that would take cause them to take him down.

 

[lukethethird]

The crucifixion for example can be verified in other sources



the crucifixion was an embarrassment………… nobody was expecting a messiah that was crucified…………jews where expecting a strong warrior like David that would free them from all his enemies (Rome for example)

if the authors had the liberty and the intention to invent any lies that they wanted to push their agenda, they would have not invented such a humiliating death for their messiah

The entire crucifixion scene comes from Psalm 22 and Amos 8.

The whole point is that our dying and rising god had to be crucified by the same means that the people of Israel suffered under Roman occupation. You should be embarrassed for not understanding this theology.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Atheist critics won't accept datation that indicates the book include prophecies that occurred centuries later

Well I am not an atheist and I don’t see any evidence that the prophecies predate the events.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What you don't see is that Christians received from Jesus the mission of spreading their faith.

Did they? He specifically said that he was there for Jews. It’s almost like after he died that the apostles realized ratings were low so they broadened their marketing efforts.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In more recent events, atheist Cold Case investigator J. Warner Wallace set out to investigate it within his expertise and became a Christian. I doubt he had any bias.

If I was a lawyer, I would review anyone convicted by his utter lack of integrity and logic.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Kent Hovind

An old jailbird is an example of an honest scholar? Well, if you think he has integrity, I’m sorry for you.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't agree, but I can stipulate to the idea that somebody resembling the description of Jesus less the miracles lived in that time and place. As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me if that is true or not if Jesus was just another man

I suspect Jesus Christ is just Jesus Barabbas with some extra magic stories attached.

 

[lukethethird]

If I was a lawyer, I would review anyone convicted by his utter lack of integrity and logic.

As an author of books he knew what side his bread was buttered on, there is no shortage of Christians that love to read how their Jesus really and truly walked the earth, so it would be profitable in that instance to toss integrity and logic aside.

 

[Kenny]

Talk about strawmen, although I can't confirm any of the details of your personal life, I have not disputed everything in your memory.

Not a strawman at all. It just goes to show that 40 doesn't make a difference and much more so if you are talking about it for 40 years. (like Spanish) -

First of all there are elements of Jesus message that according to my understanding He is only alleged to have said once such as the sermon on the mount.
Second of all I'm disputing that eyewitness testimony is sufficient for claims of miracles, it appears to me you didn't even address the statement I made about if 12 of us made the claim of miracles etc you would dismiss it without a second thought.

Yes. And you are going down the same rabbit whole as the others. Let me translate, "nothing you say will ever convince me"... which I have no problem with. I really am not trying to convince you, rather just showing how faulty your position is.

We have three people which were witnesses (Matthew, Mark and John). One who spoke to the witnesses, Luke. One who preached and talked to the witnesses, Paul

That would pretty much stand up in a court.

Ok, so let's put this claim to the test, if I can show you an actual video of a Hindu "miracle" will you accept that Hinduism is the true religion? I think even witnessing it yourself will not be enough to convince you that an actual God-given miracle occcured - or that such a miracle would prove all the other claims in the religion in question.

So here is a link of a Hindu priest praying and an island allegedly moves across the water in response to his prayer

Oh, I would believe it was miraculous in nature but not from God. Like Pharaoh magicians who performed some of the miracles that God performed through Moses.

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone in this thread that there are miracles. It isn't the subject matter.

I think I missed the part where we actually established that Clement of Rome knew Peter let alone the others you are now adding to your claim (are you trying to do a gish gallop or seeking a resolution?) I would accept testimony as testimony of eye witnesses if I could know that it was the testimony of eyewitnesses, but I would not accept that their testimony accurately reflected actual events without sufficient evidence, which considering the miraculous nature of the claims being handed down I don't believe you have provided.

\

Historical... not going to go through the effort again.

 

[Kenny]

An old jailbird is an example of an honest scholar? Well, if you think he has integrity, I’m sorry for you.

Nice... One gives dozens and dozens and dozens and you pick one listed in a site. What is your point?

 

[Kenny]

If I was a lawyer, I would review anyone convicted by his utter lack of integrity and logic.

Ohhhh... you wanted an atheist lawyer...

Why didn't you say so from the beginning