Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by William View Post
    you are likely correct. i know nicea was in 324, but you are aware there was a counsel set by constantine to canonize scripture, no? i may be mistaken as to the specific counsel, but it is well known it was still canonized in one of constatine's counsels. i do not find the particular date or name to be important for our discussion, as i am certain we're all aware of this. however, if it's needed, i'm sure google can help us out.
    First of all..."council." Not "counsel".

    Second, no...there was no council "set by Constantine" to do this. The most that can be said of his role is that he put a kibosh on canon development by ordering that 50 copies of the New Testament be made. Once that happened, it would be hard to add or subtract from what was copied. But that doesn't mean he chose the books or even had any idea what they were. He was a military grunt, not a theologian. He was more likely to use a copy of Luke to wipe mustard off his sleeve than he was to recognize it as Luke's Gospel.

    Third, don't EVER rely on Google for information like this. Use real scholars. Like this one.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800637909/

    Okay?

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=Sparko;221829]If the Jews had the body, then they would have produced it to stop the resurrection stories.


      And you forgot:

      11) Joseph of Arimathea was hopped up on drugs and forgot where he buried Jesus. (yes, we actually had someone suggest that once)[/QUOT

      Here is another naturalistic, much more probable scenario:

      Sabbath, and Passover, ended at sundown Saturday night. (Nick seems to think that Saturday night is still the Sabbath, for some reason) So there is no prohibition about working, touching a dead corpse, or burying a corpse on Saturday night AFTER sundown.

      Aramathea only put Jesus' body in his tomb because the Jews did not want dead Jewish bodies hanging on crosses during Passover. However, once Passover was over, Aramathea wanted this blasphemer's body OUT of his tomb. So, after sunset Saturday night, with Pilate's permission, he opens the tomb, takes the body, and tosses it into an unmarked hole in the ground and covers it up with dirt. And that is where the remains of the body are today.

      The women come the next morning (Sunday), see the empty tomb...and you know the rest.

      You will probably ask: Why wouldn't the Jews reproduce the body when the Christians start claiming a resurrection? Possible reason: The followers of Jesus, at this point, are just a few ignorant Galilean peasants. "Let's let Saul deal with them. Leave the body where it is: hidden and buried."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        some translations say:

        Acts 26:12 “On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

        But either way, Acts was written in Greek.
        Interesting point. Anyone know the original Greek on this one? I'd be curious how one translator arrives at "Hebrew" and one "Aramaic". They are not the same. Anyway, it is still odd to me that a perfect, sinless being would use an expression borrowed from a pagan mythology. It would not bother me if it were Paul saying it, but I have a hard time believing that God would say it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          The Jews didn't bury bodies in the ground at that time, Gary. This is why you need to study the time period and society instead of making assumptions based on your modern ideas. They would wrap the bodies and place them in tombs on shelves. Once the body decayed they would bury the bones in a box, or store them in the tomb, so it would be ready for future bodies.
          There is a very big difference between what an ancient society would USUALLY do and what they would ALWAYS do without exception. I can't give you the source but I have read somewhere that criminals were sometimes buried in the ground in first century Judaism. However, you are assuming that Jesus was buried by Jews. You cannot prove that he was not buried by Romans, and the Roman custom was to toss the remains of the criminal in a common, unmarked grave...in the ground.
          Last edited by Gary; 07-24-2015, 03:58 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Keep in mind that many of those who witnessed what Jesus said and did along with those who heard what the apostles said when they first went out spreading the news were still around during this time. If people just simply started "writing down stories about Jesus" that weren't true these witnesses would have noticed and called them out on them. The Gospels would have been rejected as fiction rather than being accepted.
            That didn't exactly happen with any other religion and it certainly doesn't happen with mythology and legend today. This idea that there had been evidence against Christianity that would have died in it's tracks goes against everything we know about the development of religions, and how their followers react to evidence that the religion is false by critics. Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Messianic cults, Scientology, and even legends surrounding folk like Elvis show use the nature of religions to continue on when evidence is available disproving it. So we shouldn't discount the possibility that these debates did occur, and we simply never got to hear about them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Well Paul does quote Luke's gospel, and Luke's gospel use parts of some of the other gospels, so that would mean that Paul and Luke were traveling together when the synoptic gospels were already written. So we are back in the 50's and 60's.
              One quote in Timothy which could be from Pauls time or well after is not exactly what we're looking for.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Yes there is.



                Regardless of how your grandmother was buried, if she rose three days later, her body would no longer be in the place it was when she was dead. The place she was buried would be empty.



                But that simply isn't the case. Not only do we have the early attestation of the Gospels, but we also have the Babylonian Talmud's description of criminal burial, and we have archaeological evidence for how people were buried in Jerusalem. There are plenty of non-Christian scholars who accept that when Paul said that Jesus rose on the third day, what he meant was that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that the tomb he was placed in was thus empty. So it can't be that I believe this on the basis of the Christian belief system.



                You can "what if" until pigs fly, but what does this have to do with whether or not Paul said that Jesus' tomb was empty? What we know is that criminals were typically placed in criminal tombs, one for decapitated and strangled criminals, and one for stoned or burned criminals. It was a known place prepared by the Sanhedrin. We know the place was common knowledge because when the flesh had rotted from the bones, the bones were gathered up by the family and brought to their family grave. If Jesus' was put into the common criminal grave instead of Arimathea's that wouldn't change the fact that Paul knew that he was buried and that he was risen, and thus the tomb had to be empty.



                Again, what does this "what if" have to do with whether or not Paul specified that the tomb was empty?



                We don't have to assume. We know. The Biblical, extra-Biblical, and archaeological evidence suggests that tombs were commonly used in Jerusalem. There's no good reason to reject this idea, or to assert that Paul meant anything other than an empty grave when Jesus was risen. The only people who say that Paul says otherwise are mythicists, who believe that Paul really meant that Jesus rose spiritually, but not physically, and you've already stated that you're not a mythicist. Carrier tried to make that argument in his debate with Mark Goodacre, and Goodacre could barely contain his bewilderment, because its the sort of goofy critique of Paul that only a mythicist would make as they disregard the reasonable reading of the text for one that's extremely eccentric.
                "We don't have to assume. We know. The Biblical, extra-Biblical, and archaeological evidence suggests that tombs were commonly used in Jerusalem."

                "Suggests" is not certitude of fact. "Commonly" is not the same as "always without exception."

                You cannot prove that it was not the Romans who buried Jesus in an unmarked hole in the ground. The idea that Pilate would have the King of the Jews executed for high treason and then turn the body over to the Jews to bury in a first century equivalent of a mausoleum, a future shrine that every trouble-making Jew could visit, is absolutely preposterous.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  On what topic overall?

                  I'll see and then let me wait until Saturday to answer.

                  I have my fifth anniversary today. We have a full evening planned and sorry, but she's much cuter than you all are.
                  The resurrection. Please make it better than Strobel or McDowell.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jpholding View Post
                    First of all..."council." Not "counsel".

                    Second, no...there was no council "set by Constantine" to do this. The most that can be said of his role is that he put a kibosh on canon development by ordering that 50 copies of the New Testament be made. Once that happened, it would be hard to add or subtract from what was copied. But that doesn't mean he chose the books or even had any idea what they were. He was a military grunt, not a theologian. He was more likely to use a copy of Luke to wipe mustard off his sleeve than he was to recognize it as Luke's Gospel.

                    Third, don't EVER rely on Google for information like this. Use real scholars. Like this one.

                    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800637909/

                    Okay?
                    To this day, there is still no one Canon of the Bible, for all of Christendom, unless you are a fundamentalist Baptist who believes that the King James dropped from heaven into your lap.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                      The idea that Pilate would have the King of the Jews executed for high treason and then turn the body over to the Jews to bury in a first century equivalent of a mausoleum, a future shrine that every trouble-making Jew could visit, is absolutely preposterous.
                      Er...it's fairly clear that the sign above Jesus' head was intended to be sarcastic. That is, Pilate wasn't really evincing a lofty respect for the Jews. The joke behind the sign was that this whipped, crucified man who was being punished in the most shameful manner was still by comparison the most honorable man among the Jews--thereby indicating how lowly the Jews were held to be.

                      ETA: Basically, he didn't really believe it and couldn't have cared less about them after the crucifixion.
                      Last edited by fm93; 07-24-2015, 04:18 PM.
                      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                        "We don't have to assume. We know. The Biblical, extra-Biblical, and archaeological evidence suggests that tombs were commonly used in Jerusalem."

                        "Suggests" is not certitude of fact. "Commonly" is not the same as "always without exception."


                        You cannot prove that it was not the Romans who buried Jesus in an unmarked hole in the ground. The idea that Pilate would have the King of the Jews executed for high treason and then turn the body over to the Jews to bury in a first century equivalent of a mausoleum, a future shrine that every trouble-making Jew could visit, is absolutely preposterous.
                        That seems unlikely since it was the Jews themselves that desired the execution while Pilate washed his hands of it. The Tractate Semahot states that "No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state" (2.9), meaning the Roman government.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                          Er...it's fairly clear that the sign above Jesus' head was intended to be sarcastic. That is, Pilate wasn't really evincing a lofty respect for the Jews. The joke behind the sign was that this whipped, crucified man who was being punished in the most shameful manner was the most honorable man among the Jews--thereby indicating how lowly the Jews were held to be.
                          Jesus was executed for high treason, for claiming to be the King of the Jews, when Caesar was the king of the Jews. The Romans did not execute Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah, or a god. History tells us that Pilate was so ruthless to the Jews that the Roman emperor eventually replaced him. Yet, Christians want us to believe the Gospel accounts of a hesitant Pilate shaking in his sandals for fear of a Jewish mob demanding the crucifixion of a man that Pilate could find no fault with. Preposterous.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post




                            That seems unlikely since it was the Jews themselves that desired the execution while Pilate washed his hands of it. The Tractate Semahot states that "No rites whatsoever should be denied those who were executed by the state" (2.9), meaning the Roman government.
                            Except in cases of high treason.

                            Comment


                            • Think about this point: Abigail and other Christians here have said that the quality of the evidence for the Resurrection is sufficient for a reasonable person to accept or reject.

                              So if you are a conservative Christian, and you agree with this statement, what you are saying is that God will send billions of people to eternal suffering in Hell because they rejected evidence that was just so-so.

                              Sad. How in the world can you guys call your god just?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Think about this point: Abigail and other Christians here have said that the quality of the evidence for the Resurrection is sufficient for a reasonable person to accept or reject.

                                So if you are a conservative Christian, and you agree with this statement, what you are saying is that God will send billions of people to eternal suffering in Hell because they rejected evidence that was just so-so.

                                Sad. How in the world can you guys call your god just?
                                lol.

                                er, on what moral standard are you judging God? You would agree there would be no absolute morals, right?
                                "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
                                -Unknown

                                "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


                                I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                I support the :
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X