fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
If you actually read the account, it does not state that it is a spiritual resurrection. There is a transformation, but the physical body is turned into a spiritual body, which is explained as imperishable. What we are told though is that it is still the same physical body that is transformed. There is no suggestion that it is a spiritual resurrection.
We are told that he died. It is very clear. You seem to be ignoring that the Bible clearly states that Jesus died on the cross.
There is no evidence that he was drugged to appear dead. We are told that he was dead. More so, breaking the legs was not a requirement. The one remains of a crucifixion victim we do have did not have his legs broken. So no, the legs not being broken do not signify anything.
Also, there is no suggestion that Jesus was executed on false charges. More so, it was the Romans who charged him and executed him. You have to remember that. Jesus was guilty under Roman law. There was no false charges, he was guilty.
As for the body having to be removed, the Romans would not have cared. They crucified Jesus on Passover, a holy day for the Jews. They wouldn't care about the Passover, and for the Jews, Jesus was already cursed. More so, again, it was Passover, a holy day. Removing him for the Sabbath would have done nothing.
Paul does mention a physical resurrection. If you understood what the first century Jewish idea of resurrection was, or even what Paul was stating, you would see that in fact, he believed in a physical resurrection. He just believed that the physical body was transformed to a spiritual body. However, it was the same body .
Never said there wasn't.
There is no suggestion of this. You have to try better. More so, Pilate would never have condoned this.
We are told that the Crucifixion took place at the Place of the Skull, Golgotha. That was where people were crucified. It wasn't private land. There is no reason to believe that Pilate was bribed. Knowing a little background on Pilate would show that to be a ridiculous idea.
There is no suggestion of this in the Bible. The Coptic Church using Pilate's wife as a Saint only shows that they read the Biblical account. So it is not significant at all. You are assuming way to much, and really, it is a baseless claim. There is no evidence to suggest what you are saying.
Maybe you should brush up on your knowledge of Jewish burial practices. There is nothing odd here at all.
Actually, the Last Supper was the Passover feast. There is no reason to doubt that. It makes sense that they would eat the Passover feast. That is why they went to Jerusalem in the first place, for the Passover.
More so, it is logical as to why he would have been crucified during that time as well. He committed a crime in the eyes of Romans, during a time that was readily available for revolt. So the Romans squashed an insurrectionist. Really nothing surprising at all.
Why should they accept the Quran version? It was not done by anyone remotely related to the event. It has little credibility here. There is no reason we should take it seriously in this account.
More so, the Bible states that Jesus was resurrected. That he died. There is no evidence otherwise because we are told flat out what supposedly happened.
You should do a little more research. There is little evidence that the Essenes were the followers of Jesus. The conspiracy that you are talking about was actually debunked nearly two centuries ago now. It wasn't taken very seriously then, it shouldn't be taken seriously now. The reason being that it ignores what critical scholars know about the subject. More so, there is little reason to believe that Jesus was an Essene. Maybe he studied with them at sometime; however, he is very different from them.
Only if you turn a blind eye to what critical scholarship has uncovered in the last century.
Because Matthew suggests it? Not very good evidence. Especially considering what would have happened if those soldiers were caught; severe punishment. More so the account is not mentioned anywhere else.
Possible, but there is little evidence for that. Not an undeniable fact, just one of the many possibilities.
Illogical at best. If you claim that the body of Jesus was stolen, there would have been an empty tomb.
There is no suggestion of this at all. We are told that it was meant to be literal.
The Gospels contradict themselves even; big deal.
Again, big deal.
Incorrect, we are told it happened at Golgotha, the Place of the Skull. Plus, there were witnesses to it. You have to realize that the authors of the Gospels were not actually Jesus's disciples.
Grossly incorrect. Most scholars agree that the crucifixion occurred at Golgotha. The leaders on the subject agree to that. Very few would actually disagree.
No evidence at all. More so, breaking the legs was not required. You need to do some more research. It also has to be remembered that John is the most theological of all of the Gospels.
According to Mark it was six hours. If you did any research, you would know this. More so, it doesn't always take several days. Death by crucifixion could be quite quick depending on the health of the person, as well as the severity of the flogging.
We have the remains of one victim who in fact was buried afterwards. So it is possible that Jesus was buried. More so, cause of death was thought to be asphyxiation, but modern studies are suggesting differently. You should do some more research on modern scholarship, not conspiracy theories.
And he has authority how? He has been debunked quite thoroughly a quite a few times now. He has no authority on the subject, and has little experience on the authority.
