Resurrection Refutations?

Kernunos

I was just reading the thread started in the Christianity forums by Ned78 about the historical basis of the miracles in the New Testament, particularly the Virgin Birth and Resurrection. I am doing some reading of my own at the minute about that just cuz i want to make an informed decision about it (Just finished The God Delusion and The Cause for Faith to get both sides of the story).

I have actually read a few books that claim that there is historical and archeological evidence for the events of the Resurrection and even had to participate in a 'seminar' of sorts with our religion teacher in 6th year and it seems to add up, in that the gospels have been dated to just a few years after jesus's birth and the 4 of them seem to agree with each other on most points. Problem is that i am a pretty staunch athiest at this point and was wondering if anyone had ever read anything to refutes the evidence that is put out in favour of the Resurrection? I dont want to just say 'i dont believe' unless i have soem way to back it up

Hivemind187

In order for Jesus to have been ressurected (given that it requires his death in the first place) then the laws of nature would need to be suspended. A universe in which that kind of thing can happen would by wackier than our own.

The virgin birth defies logic and rationality and when considered from an objective point of view it seems more likely that she was lying her ass off to keep from getting stoned to death. There are various theories ranging from it being an utter nonsense borrowed from older mythologies to Jesus' dad being a Roman centurian who had raped Mary.

The virgin birth myth seems to come from a miss translation from Aramaic in to Greek where the word for "young woman" is replaced with "virgin". Either way its little more than a slightly genital-centric metaphor for purity dont you think?

As for the bibles agreeing with each other, short of the character of Jesus and his mum, the various gospels have little or nothing in common. Its worth reading their accounts of the early life of Jesus one after the other to see how disparate they are -not to mention in complete! Further, the bible we know today is only a section of the complete texts. There are a number of other gospels which were removed in the name of ecumenical consistency (a laugh and a half isnt it?).

There is zero evidence for the ressurection other than hearsay and a book of fairy stories and very little evidence of Christs existance himself (save for the diaries of a certain Roman prefect in which he refers off hand to a "Nazerene" which may or may not refer to christ). There is zerop evidence for raising lazarus, the loves and fishes, water into wine, walking on water or any of the other myths - once you discount the Bible as an unbiassed account without agenda.

Zombrex

Kernunos wrote: »

Problem is that i am a pretty staunch athiest at this point and was wondering if anyone had ever read anything to refutes the evidence that is put out in favour of the Resurrection? I dont want to just say 'i dont believe' unless i have soem way to back it up

Leaving Cert Biology text book

Think of it this way. Look at all the press created by the Church of Scientology. All this is coming out in a much sorter time than the Bible was written. Would you believe that the CoS says about L. Ron Hubbard?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The virgin birth myth seems to come from a miss translation from Aramaic in to Greek where the word for "young woman" is replaced with "virgin".

Not a mistranslation, but rather the choosing of the most likely of several alternatives.

Wikipedia wrote:

Definitions and etymology

The masculine root of almah is elem ("עלם") meaning "youth" or "young man of the age of puberty". Feminizing these terms would result in "young woman" or "young woman of the age of puberty", but the actual definition is: "girl of marriageable age". This sense of the word continues to the modern Hebrew where almah still means "damsel" (a young woman or girl) and "miss" (a young or unmarried woman).

Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman and children born to an almah would be illegitimate. The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means "an unmarried girl (especially a virgin)". As with "maid", the word almah does not certainly mean "virgin" but, in cultural context, it would be abnormal for an almah to be anything other than a virgin.

Some authorities believe that almah is derived from alma, a verb meaning "to hide, to conceal". Adam Clarke speculated upon the association between alma and almah: "A virgin ... had not been uncovered, she had not known man."

Most importantly, the Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin". Since these Jewish scholars were well acquainted with the meaning of the old Hebrew words as well as the Greek, their interpretation (developed hundreds of years before Jesus) should be given special weight.

Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah and almah are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity. Martin Luther also argued that the debate was irrelevant, not because the words do not clearly mean virgin, but because almah and bethulah were functional synonyms.

Scofflaw

Kernunos wrote: »

I was just reading the thread started in the Christianity forums by Ned78 about the historical basis of the miracles in the New Testament, particularly the Virgin Birth and Resurrection. I am doing some reading of my own at the minute about that just cuz i want to make an informed decision about it (Just finished The God Delusion and The Cause for Faith to get both sides of the story).

I have actually read a few books that claim that there is historical and archeological evidence for the events of the Resurrection and even had to participate in a 'seminar' of sorts with our religion teacher in 6th year and it seems to add up, in that the gospels have been dated to just a few years after jesus's birth and the 4 of them seem to agree with each other on most points. Problem is that i am a pretty staunch athiest at this point and was wondering if anyone had ever read anything to refutes the evidence that is put out in favour of the Resurrection? I dont want to just say 'i dont believe' unless i have soem way to back it up

The resurrection is not attested in any historical source except the Bible. There is no archaeological evidence for it whatsoever.

If you read the Sherlock Holmes books, you will find that the places and historical events mentioned are substantially accurate. In 2000 years time, you will still probably be able to correlate the London described in the books with archaeological evidence and contemporary historical accounts, and you can certainly visit Baker Street now. Does this prove that Sherlock Holmes existed?

Sources that claim 'archaeological and historical evidence' for Biblical accounts are making exactly the same claim as that there is 'archaeological and historical evidence' for Sherlock Holmes. All the claim means is that the "setting" for the NT is reasonably accurate - which proves nothing at all about the the "life of Jesus".

it's elementary,
Scofflaw

Dades

Put it this way, Kernunos; if somebody today claimed their child was immaculately conceived, and was then later said they were resurrected from the dead - what standard of proof would you require to believe it? Sworn testimony from living witnesses? Medical examination? Death certificate? DNA testing? Just because those standards did not exist 2000 years ago does not exempt the claims from the same scrutiny.

IMO, there are many reasons people believe in those core bible stories - but proof they ever happened is not high on the list.

Hivemind187

I'm getting the feeling that this will turn into the usual row about prooving something doea not exist.

Zombrex

Well like a lot of religious things it comes down to whether you believe something until it is demonstrated that it isn't true, or do you not believe something until it is demonstrated it is true.

The advantage of believing in supernatural things is that it is quite difficult to demonstrate that they didn't happen, since all rules are out the window by nature of it being a supernatural event.

But one needs to ask themselves why they believe it in the first place, since it equally holds that no supernatural event can be demonstrated to be what one claims it is for the same reason.

Even if Jesus rose from the tomb that supernatural event could have actually been anything. One cannot demonstrate that it is what Christians claim it was. One cannot demonstrate that it was what Jesus himself claimed it was.

This was highlighted on the thread by Jimi where he said that if he could cure blind people would we worship God. Someone asked him how would we know it was evidence for God, and Jimi said something like that he would tell us. The obvious question next is how would we know he was right?

So there are two issues. One, did the actual supernatural event happen? And two, is the reason the event happened actually the one given by the religion. When dealing with the supernatural one cannot actually demonstrate the second part.

Of course the fact that so many theists ignore this bit suggests to me that the reason they believe in these things is not because of rational assessment, but because they want the underlying explanations to be true.

Myksyk

Kernunos wrote: »

it seems to add up, in that the gospels have been dated to just a few years after jesus's birth ...

My understanding is that the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, not years after his birth. Could someone give us the actual facts on this one.

Scofflaw

Myksyk wrote: »

My understanding is that the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, not years after his birth. Could someone give us the actual facts on this one.

I think the claim is the earliest Gospels are 70AD. Given Pilate's dates as procurator of Judea (26-36AD), that puts them at least 35 years or so after Jesus' death. The earliest surviving texts, I think, are circa 110AD.

cordially,
Scofflaw

apoch632

I think the calendar actually begins with Jesus being born not from his death. Give or take the few years lost in calender changes 1AD (or CE as i would prefer it) roughly = when jesus was supposedly born. So that would put Pilate roughly in line with Jesus (assumed)age of death.

Zombrex

apoch632 wrote: »

I think the calendar actually begins with Jesus being born not from his death. Give or take the few years lost in calender changes 1AD (or CE as i would prefer it) roughly = when jesus was supposedly born. So that would put Pilate roughly in line with Jesus (assumed)age of death.

I don't think any historian things Jesus was born in 1AD. That was a wildly inaccurate estimate.

The Bible is also contradictory by up to 20 years for when Jesus was supposed to be born, which doesn't help matters.

Of course this is assuming that Jesus was actually one person, which is doubtful. It was common for religious stories to incorporate various tales from different religious figures to construct a myth around religious leaders.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Not a mistranslation, but rather the choosing of the most likely of several alternatives.

How can describing a pregnant woman as being a virgin be the most likely alternative?

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How can describing a pregnant woman as being a virgin be the most likely alternative?

LOL

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How can describing a pregnant woman as being a virgin be the most likely alternative?

Quite easily, if we employ sound principles of exegesis rather than allowing our personal bias to get in the way.

The issue here is not whether you or I think a virgin getting pregnant is likely or not - the issue is whether Isaiah intended to prophesy something miraculous or commonplace. We know that, since Isaiah reports other miracles more dramatic than a virgin birth, he had no prejudices or presuppositions against the miraculous. Also, this conception and birth was supposed to be an unmistakable sign to Ahaz. Young women got pregnant all the time in Israel (or any other nation). How would that be a sign of anything? A virgin conceiving and giving birth, however, would be an unmistakable sign that God was at work.

This would lead an unbiased translator to conclude that the word almah was probably referring to a 'virgin' rather than to merely 'a young woman'. This was the position taken by the translators of the Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek that, long before the time of Jesus, translates almah as 'virgin'.

Of course if we want to read our Twenty-First Century presuppositions into the text, violating every known principle of textual criticism or of exegesis of ancient texts, then we may come to a different conclusion to those Hebrew translators.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Quite easily, if we employ sound principles of exegesis rather than allowing our personal bias to get in the way.

The issue here is not whether you or I think a virgin getting pregnant is likely or not - the issue is whether Isaiah intended to prophesy something miraculous or commonplace. We know that, since Isaiah reports other miracles more dramatic than a virgin birth, he had no prejudices or presuppositions against the miraculous. Also, this conception and birth was supposed to be an unmistakable sign to Ahaz. Young women got pregnant all the time in Israel (or any other nation). How would that be a sign of anything? A virgin conceiving and giving birth, however, would be an unmistakable sign that God was at work.

This would lead an unbiased translator to conclude that the word almah was probably referring to a 'virgin' rather than to merely 'a young woman'. This was the position taken by the translators of the Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek that, long before the time of Jesus, translates almah as 'virgin'.

Of course if we want to read our Twenty-First Century presuppositions into the text, violating every known principle of textual criticism or of exegesis of ancient texts, then we may come to a different conclusion to those Hebrew translators.

You say that a virgin birth would be seen as an unmistakable sign that God was at work, if so then would it not be reasonable to expect that a little more emphasis would have been put into this by the Gospel writers rather than using one vague word which probably meant virgin, but not definitely? Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I am aware it doesn’t come up anywhere else in the Bible (and isn’t even mentioned in two Gospels), the crowds who come to see Jesus don’t do it because he is the bloke with no father and whose mother was a virgin, I would assume that that would be a pretty big crowd puller to be honest and not something that would deserve just fleeting mention.

According to wiki there was a Hebrew word that specifically described a virgin, betulah. If the original writers of the Gospel intended to describe Mary as a virgin then why use a vague word which girls who were not virgins also were described as when a definite one existed which was not open to question?

Also a minor point but was Jesus not described as being of the House of David, (through Joseph)? This is something that is pointed out time and again in the New Testament; that Jesus is of the House of David. Is this not the writers of the Gospels explicitly saying that Joseph was Jesus’ father? No human father = no Joseph = no blood-line to David.



p.s. I’m no expert on ancient Hebrew or the Bible so apologies in advance if I got anything wrong.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You say that a virgin birth would be seen as an unmistakable sign that God was at work, if so then would it not be reasonable to expect that a little more emphasis would have been put into this by the Gospel writers rather than using one vague word which probably meant virgin, but not definitely?

No, any ambiguity is not in the Gospels (which were written in Greek) but in the prophecy centuries earlier in Isaiah (which was written in Hebrew). In fact Luke is even more specific in that Mary's response to the angels announcement that she is pregnant is (I translate literally) "How can this be since I have never known a man?" No vagueness there.

Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I am aware it doesn’t come up anywhere else in the Bible (and isn’t even mentioned in two Gospels), the crowds who come to see Jesus don’t do it because he is the bloke with no father and whose mother was a virgin, I would assume that that would be a pretty big crowd puller to be honest and not something that would deserve just fleeting mention.

Each Gospel writer selected and omitted material according to what was relevant to their purpose. For example, each Gospel omits certain miracles. Neither Mark nor Luke recount any details of Christ's birth at all. Theologians believe that this is because Mark's emphasis is to present Jesus as the Suffering Servant prophesied in Isaiah 53 (a servant's genealogy or circumstances of birth are irrelevant) and because John's emphasis is to present Jesus as the Logos, the pre-existent Son of God (therefore John concentrates on Christ as being present at the creation of the world, any human genealogy or circumstances of birth would be a distraction). Matthew presents Jesus as the Messiah, King of the Jews (therefore he gives a genealogy that goes back to Abraham) and Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man, the Second Adam representative of all mankind (therefore he gives a genealogy that goes back to Adam). Since human descent is important to Matthew and Luke they refer to the circumstances of Christ's birth (including clear references to Him being born of a virgin). Therefore it is not surprising that two of the Gospels omit direct reference to the virgin birth (although many scholars believe John does make a cryptic reference later on in Chapter 8). In fact, given the purposes of each Gospel, it would be out of character for either Mark or John to give an account of the virgin birth.

According to wiki there was a Hebrew word that specifically described a virgin, betulah. If the original writers of the Gospel intended to describe Mary as a virgin then why use a vague word which girls who were not virgins also were described as when a definite one existed which was not open to question?

Again, this refers to Isaiah in the Old Testament, not the Gospels. If the Gospel writers wanted to describe Mary as a virgin then they would have used the standard Greek word for 'virgin', namely parthenos, which is exactly what they did. If you remain in any doubt concerning this check out wiki's entry on the 'Parthenon' (same Greek word) in Athens. You will see that every explanation for why the Parthenon is so named centres on the concept of virgins in the Temple or a virgin goddess.

Also a minor point but was Jesus not described as being of the House of David, (through Joseph)? This is something that is pointed out time and again in the New Testament; that Jesus is of the House of David. Is this not the writers of the Gospels explicitly saying that Joseph was Jesus’ father? No human father = no Joseph = no blood-line to David.

Hebrew genealogies always followed the line of the males, not the females. Therefore the genealogies show that Jesus is, legally speaking, entitled to be called 'the Son of David'.

However, as every Jewish rabbi would have known if Joseph was Jesus' biological father then the opposite would be true - a bloodline to David through Joseph would actually disqualify Jesus from being King! This is because Joseph was a descendant of Jeconiah and, according to Jeremiah Chapter 22, Jeconiah was cursed so that no descendant of his would ever be King over the Jews. This was, prior to the birth of Jesus, a favourite subject for rabbinical discussion. How could the Messiah be the Son of David when most of David's identifiable descendants were disqualified due to this curse? The virgin birth very neatly answers the rabbinical conundrum.

In fact, as anyone who cares to read the genealogies will see, both Matthew and Luke alter their language in a very peculiar way when they get to the birth of Jesus. Matthew starts with Abraham, moves forward and is careful to designate each person as the father of the next in line. But when he gets to Jesus he completely changes this pattern and says, "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16). Luke starts off with Jesus and works back. Every generation is covered by saying x the son of y, even to the extent of describing Adam as "the son of God". The one exception to this is Jesus. Luke says, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23). So, both genealogies, in a very striking way, confirm rather than weaken the message that Christ was born of a virgin.

You may object to the idea of a virgin birth on the grounds that you believe miracles to be impossible - but to argue that the New Testament does not firmly teach the virgin birth would require one to abandon almost every recognised academic principle of biblical scholarship.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Quite easily, if we employ sound principles of exegesis rather than allowing our personal bias to get in the way.

The issue here is not whether you or I think a virgin getting pregnant is likely or not - the issue is whether Isaiah intended to prophesy something miraculous or commonplace. We know that, since Isaiah reports other miracles more dramatic than a virgin birth, he had no prejudices or presuppositions against the miraculous. Also, this conception and birth was supposed to be an unmistakable sign to Ahaz. Young women got pregnant all the time in Israel (or any other nation). How would that be a sign of anything? A virgin conceiving and giving birth, however, would be an unmistakable sign that God was at work.

This would lead an unbiased translator to conclude that the word almah was probably referring to a 'virgin' rather than to merely 'a young woman'. This was the position taken by the translators of the Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek that, long before the time of Jesus, translates almah as 'virgin'.

Actually, of course, the translators of the Septuagint did not translate it to the English "virgin", but to the Greek "parthenos", which isn't definitive either, since it doesn't mean 'virgin' in the sense most of us understand it, but indicates a young unmarried woman who should by rights also be physically virgin. Come to that, "virgin" itself doesn't necessarily indicate an intact hymen - it can be used, for example, of nuns ('those virgin sisters') despite the cloister sheltering the widow along with the maiden.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, of course, the translators of the Septuagint did not translate it to the English "virgin", but to the Greek "parthenos", which isn't definitive either, since it doesn't mean 'virgin' in the sense most of us understand it, but indicates a young unmarried woman who should by rights also be physically virgin. Come to that, "virgin" itself doesn't necessarily indicate an intact hymen - it can be used, for example, of nuns ('those virgin sisters') despite the cloister sheltering the widow along with the maiden.

I beg to differ (not the same as 'begging the question' )

Parthenos does appear to mean 'virgin' For example, I refer to Wikipedia's entry on Athena:

wikipedia wrote:

In classical myth she never had a consort or lover, and thus was often known as Athena Parthenos ("Athena the virgin"), hence her most famous temple, the Parthenon, on the Acropolis in Athens.

Again:

"The new temple built for Athena on the acropolis became known as the Parthenon, meaning “the house of the virgin goddess,” from the Greek word for a virginal female, parthenos" Thomas R. Martin, An Overview of Classical Greek History from Mycenae to Alexander

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I beg to differ (not the same as 'begging the question' )

Parthenos does appear to mean 'virgin' For example, I refer to Wikipedia's entry on Athena:

Alas, if that proves anything, it rather proves my version - "she never had a consort or lover", which is the same idea of "not subject to male control, without husband" that I am claiming for it. Consider, also, the Greek for "girl's school" - parthenagogeion.

I imagine the Oxford Greek Dictionary would be definitive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alas, if that proves anything, it rather proves my version - "she never had a consort or lover", which is the same idea of "not subject to male control, without husband" that I am claiming for it. Consider, also, the Greek for "girl's school" - parthenagogeion.

I imagine the Oxford Greek Dictionary would be definitive?

I can see us getting involved in a Clintonesque debate where we say, "It depends what your definition of virgin is."

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I can see us getting involved in a Clintonesque debate where we say, "It depends what your definition of virgin is."

It is rather beginning to look that way. Perhaps we can agree to differ on who "wins" here, but I claim the point proven that the word "parthenos", and even the word "virgin", are actually susceptible of shades of meaning that people are not always aware of. Certainly, if you'd read as much medieval history as I have (which perhaps you have) you would not find the "unmarried, or otherwise not subject to male control" meaning particularly unusual. Consider, again, Queen Elizabeth the First - the "Virgin Queen" after whom Virginia is named. There is really rather a lot of doubt (and was at the time) over whether she was physically a virgin, but no doubt at all over the second meaning - that she was not subject to the control of any man. Which meaning do you think is more important in that context?

Anyway, perhaps we should quit while we can still distantly see the original topic?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Hebrew genealogies always followed the line of the males, not the females. Therefore the genealogies show that Jesus is, legally speaking, entitled to be called 'the Son of David'.

However, as every Jewish rabbi would have known if Joseph was Jesus' biological father then the opposite would be true - a bloodline to David through Joseph would actually disqualify Jesus from being King! This is because Joseph was a descendant of Jeconiah and, according to Jeremiah Chapter 22, Jeconiah was cursed so that no descendant of his would ever be King over the Jews. This was, prior to the birth of Jesus, a favourite subject for rabbinical discussion. How could the Messiah be the Son of David when most of David's identifiable descendants were disqualified due to this curse? The virgin birth very neatly answers the rabbinical conundrum.

You have a very impressive knowledge of the Bible. I have been forced to do some background research . You mention that Joseph is the desendent of Jeconiah, this is only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, Luke gives a more comprehensive list (40 ancestors back to David compared to Matthew's 26) in which Jeconiah isn't mentioned at all. In fact except for Shealtiel and Zerabbabel there is no other connections between both genealogies.

Now it seems as if some Christian scholars take Luke's list as being the genealogy of Mary, as this would give Jesus a genetic link to David even though Luke specifically identifies it as Joseph, and it does not list Jeconiah thereby not ruling out Jesus' claim to being the Messiah. It seems that the problem with this is that the list of Luke follows the line through Nathan, son of David, not Solomon. This would also rule Jesus out of being Messiah according to Chronicles 22:9:

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. (KJV)

So if I am right in this, if we take Matthew's genealogy of the descendents of Jesus, Jesus would be forbidden to be the Messiah as Jeconiah is listed as an ancestor. However if we take Luke's version as being correct then Jesus would also be excluded as a potential Messiah because he is not linked to David through Solomon.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You have a very impressive knowledge of the Bible. I have been forced to do some background research . You mention that Joseph is the desendent of Jeconiah, this is only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, Luke gives a more comprehensive list (40 ancestors back to David compared to Matthew's 26) in which Jeconiah isn't mentioned at all. In fact except for Shealtiel and Zerabbabel there is no other connections between both genealogies.

Now it seems as if some Christian scholars take Luke's list as being the genealogy of Mary, as this would give Jesus a genetic link to David even though Luke specifically identifies it as Joseph, and it does not list Jeconiah thereby not ruling out Jesus' claim to being the Messiah. It seems that the problem with this is that the list of Luke follows the line through Nathan, son of David, not Solomon. This would also rule Jesus out of being Messiah according to Chronicles 22:9:

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. (KJV)

So if I am right in this, if we take Matthew's genealogy of the descendents of Jesus, Jesus would be forbidden to be the Messiah as Jeconiah is listed as an ancestor. However if we take Luke's version as being correct then Jesus would also be excluded as a potential Messiah because he is not linked to David through Solomon.

Inheritance of a kingdom did not, and still does not, necessarily involve biological paternity on the part of the King. For example, in ancient societies (and indeed in modern royal houses such as in the UK) the legal son of a monarch (even if he had been fathered by someone else) always had a vastly stronger claim to the throne than any illegitimate child. Also Hebrew culture had specific customs such as levirate marriage which allowed for children to be viewed as the legal heirs of someone other than their biological father.

Therefore Jesus was a legal descendant of the house of Solomon (by virtue of Mary's marriage to Joseph) but was not of the bloodline of Jeconiah (due to the virgin birth) therefore, in the eyes of the Gospel writers, clearly inheriting the blessing but avoiding the curse.

Just as an illustration of Hebrew thought on this. While legal descent, as in a genealogy, always focused on the males, bloodline is reckoned as passing through the mother. Even today, Jewishness is reckoned according to whether your mother is Jewish, not your father.

apoch632

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course this is assuming that Jesus was actually one person, which is doubtful. It was common for religious stories to incorporate various tales from different religious figures to construct a myth around religious leaders.

Yes, I did forget about this shame on me.

I just think there probably was a guy who went around ancient Israel in the time of Pilate. Whether it was Jesus or not is certainly open to debate

I was just making the point (not very well) that 1AD usually refers (at least anytime I've seen it)to the alleged birth not death of Jesus.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think any historian things Jesus was born in 1AD. That was a wildly inaccurate estimate.

The Bible is also contradictory by up to 20 years for when Jesus was supposed to be born, which doesn't help matters.

Of course this is assuming that Jesus was actually one person, which is doubtful. It was common for religious stories to incorporate various tales from different religious figures to construct a myth around religious leaders.

The Bible is not contradictory as to when Jesus was born. It doesn't give a date as such, just mentions some external events (a census and the death of Herod are among the most notable). This has caused some confusion due to Josephus giving a date for Herod's death that creates some difficulties. (Atheists like to treat Josephus as a source of impeccable accuracy in this instance but then to dismiss Josephus as inaccurate if he says anything that might be taken to support anything in the Gospels).

Most serious historians of the period (as opposed to conspiracy theorists) place the birth of Jesus at some point between 6BC and 6AD. I don't know where you're getting the 20 years from.

As for Jesus being more than one person - is there any evidence at all for that?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

As for Jesus being more than one person - is there any evidence at all for that?

No but you can't disprove it either...sound familiar?

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Also Hebrew culture had specific customs such as levirate marriage which allowed for children to be viewed as the legal heirs of someone other than their biological father.

But the levirate marriage was in the case of a man marrying his dead brother's wife, so the genealogy would be the same.

As for the bloodline passing through the mother, it seems as if there is some confusion on this issue. According to wiki laws of inheritance, descent to the Kohen priesthood, and descent of the monarchy followed the father's line, not the mother's and the policy of matrilineality may have originated as late as 70CE from the Council of Jamnia.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

But the levirate marriage was in the case of a man marrying his dead brother's wife, so the genealogy would be the same.

I'm not saying that levirate marriage altered Christ's genealogy. I'm using the levirate marriage illustration to show that legal descent was not dependent on biological descent.

As for the bloodline passing through the mother, it seems as if there is some confusion on this issue. According to wiki laws of inheritance, descent to the Kohen priesthood, and descent of the monarchy followed the father's line, not the mother's and the policy of matrilineality may have originated as late as 70CE from the Council of Jamnia.

Exactly my point. Laws of inheritance and monarchy followed the father's line. Therefore the mother's descent (through Nathan rather than Solomon) in no way contradicts 1 Chronicles 22:9.

Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon but was not a biological descendant of Jeconiah.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Exactly my point. Laws of inheritance and monarchy followed the father's line. Therefore the mother's descent (through Nathan rather than Solomon) in no way contradicts 1 Chronicles 22:9.

You make the assumption that Luke's list was intended to be the genealogy of Mary, even though he clearly states it was Joseph's. Why?

Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon but was not a biological descendant of Jeconiah.

If you flip that around it seems just as strong an argument against Jesus' legitimacy: Jesus was the legal descendant of Jeconiah and was not a biological descendant of Solomon.

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You make the assumption that Luke's list was intended to be the genealogy of Mary, even though he clearly states it was Joseph's. Why?

Because it gets around the obvious contradiction in the infallible Bible, obviously

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

Because it gets around the obvious contradiction in the infallible Bible, obviously

It does look that way alright.

I suppose getting back to the original topic of refuting the resurrection I think one of the big things that strikes me is how today in 2007 so many people truely believe that this is a fact, but how back when the event actually took place there was no massive conversion and acceptance of Jesus by the people living in Jerusalem at the time. I mean these were people who would have seen Jesus preaching in person, they would have seen him carry his cross to his death, they would have heard from actual eye witnesses who would have claimed to have seen Jesus alive. They would have been witness to his miracles or would have known people who were. They would have been able to judge for themselves just how trustworthy these followers of Jesus were instead of people today just having the reproductions of their writings to go on.

As it turned out the vast majority of Jews at the time did not believe their claims, they made a judgement call that the claims were false and that the people making the claims were either liars or misled. If the evidence was not enough for most Jews who lived alongside Jesus and his followers, why is a biased document written by actual followers of Jesus enough evidence for people living today to accept?

Scofflaw

...getting back to the original topic of refuting the resurrection...

It's not necessary, I would say, to refute the resurrection. The OP's problem was the claim that there is "archaeological and historical evidence" for the resurrection, which simply isn't the case.

The evidence for the resurrection is the Bible. That's it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You make the assumption that Luke's list was intended to be the genealogy of Mary, even though he clearly states it was Joseph's. Why?

Because I don't want to argue with everything you say, and you yourself had assumed that point in post #23.

If you flip that around it seems just as strong an argument against Jesus' legitimacy: Jesus was the legal descendant of Jeconiah and was not a biological descendant of Solomon.

Which you are free to do so, but then you would be agreeing that the virgin birth actually occurred, wouldn't you?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It does look that way alright.

I suppose getting back to the original topic of refuting the resurrection I think one of the big things that strikes me is how today in 2007 so many people truely believe that this is a fact, but how back when the event actually took place there was no massive conversion and acceptance of Jesus by the people living in Jerusalem at the time. I mean these were people who would have seen Jesus preaching in person, they would have seen him carry his cross to his death, they would have heard from actual eye witnesses who would have claimed to have seen Jesus alive. They would have been witness to his miracles or would have known people who were. They would have been able to judge for themselves just how trustworthy these followers of Jesus were instead of people today just having the reproductions of their writings to go on.

As it turned out the vast majority of Jews at the time did not believe their claims, they made a judgement call that the claims were false and that the people making the claims were either liars or misled.

You are kidding, aren't you? No massive conversion?

It's perfectly easy to see why the majority rejected the Gospel - to accept it would be to invite persecution and death at the hands of a religious establishment and a political system that were determined to stamp out anything that threatened their position of privilege.

What is truly remarkable is how such a movement spread from a small group of 120 people to tens of thousands in only a few months. Then, in a few more years it spread to millions.

If the evidence was not enough for most Jews who lived alongside Jesus and his followers, why is a biased document written by actual followers of Jesus enough evidence for people living today to accept?

I believe the majority reject the message today for the reason the majority of 1st Century Jews rejected it, for reasons of convenience, respectability & selfishness, irrespective of the evidence.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

The evidence for the resurrection is the Bible. That's it.

No argument there.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

You are kidding, aren't you? No massive conversion?

It's perfectly easy to see why the majority rejected the Gospel - to accept it would be to invite persecution and death at the hands of a religious establishment and a political system that were determined to stamp out anything that threatened their position of privilege.

What is truly remarkable is how such a movement spread from a small group of 120 people to tens of thousands in only a few months. Then, in a few more years it spread to millions.

That's an interesting claim. So by the time of Paul, there were millions of Christians?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an interesting claim. So by the time of Paul, there were millions of Christians?

I mentioned Paul? No, it would be a good while after Paul until the million mark was reached.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I mentioned Paul? No, it would be a good while after Paul until the million mark was reached.

Ah. The "few months" and "few more years" are not literal, then? I wasn't aware of any very good estimates of the growth of early Christianity, and certainly none that would have that timeframe.

I'm not contending you're wrong, just wondering what your sources were.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah. The "few months" and "few more years" are not literal, then? I wasn't aware of any very good estimates of the growth of early Christianity, and certainly none that would have that timeframe.

I'm not contending you're wrong, just wondering what your sources were.

The "few months" would be literal, but since my source is the Book of Acts I guess you won't be too impressed!

Rodney Stark, sociologist of religion, has estimated that the number of Christians hit the million mark by about 250AD.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

The "few months" would be literal, but since my source is the Book of Acts I guess you won't be too impressed!

Not very, I have to admit, but I wouldn't dismiss it, either. I wouldn't be particularly surprised by a figure in the low tens of thousands. What are the figures from Acts?

PDN wrote: »

Rodney Stark, sociologist of religion, has estimated that the number of Christians hit the million mark by about 250AD.

Highly likely. Still, two centuries is hardly "a few more years"!

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not very, I have to admit, but I wouldn't dismiss it, either. I wouldn't be particularly surprised by a figure in the low tens of thousands. What are the figures from Acts?

3000 added to the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) then increased to 5000 in Acts 4:4. Given that there are 17 other references in Acts to unspecified 'great' growth or 'large' numbers at various times, tens of thousands appears to be a reasonable estimate.

Kernunos

well cheers guys, good to see a civil debate about this thing. Ye have given me a few things to think about. Apologies for just posting and running but backpacking across New Zealand gives me plenty of time to read but less to check up internet forums.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

3000 added to the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) then increased to 5000 in Acts 4:4. Given that there are 17 other references in Acts to unspecified 'great' growth or 'large' numbers at various times, tens of thousands appears to be a reasonable estimate.

Hmm. My main reason for taking those numbers with a pinch of salt (!) is the notorious inaccuracy of ancient figures, which were frequently expressed as nice large round numbers. Also, of course, it doesn't mention those who might leave. On the other hand, explosive growth within new cults is hardly abnormal - there are several million Scientologists, for example - so it's quite possible (taking into account the slightly more limited communications).

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. My main reason for taking those numbers with a pinch of salt (!) is the notorious inaccuracy of ancient figures, which were frequently expressed as nice large round numbers. Also, of course, it doesn't mention those who might leave. On the other hand, explosive growth within new cults is hardly abnormal - there are several million Scientologists, for example - so it's quite possible (taking into account the slightly more limited communications).

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation. Hence Pentecostalism has grown from 130 in 1896 to over 600 million today.

TheThing!

Kernunos wrote: »

I dont want to just say 'i dont believe' unless i have soem way to back it up

Do you need any more proof than the fact that it is simply not possible? As an atheist surely you are used to rejecting the ludicrous claims religious nuts make. If you contacted a scientist claiming to that you can set things on fire with your mind, but that you cannot prove it, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to say no you cannot and ignore you. Some claims dont the deserve the respect that a proper investigation would lend them.

And with reference to your suggestion that there are books which back up the idea that there is evidence proving that this event occured, I would have a very very long look at the credibility of the author and any evidence put forward, I dont think that it would stand up to even the least stringent examination.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation. Hence Pentecostalism has grown from 130 in 1896 to over 600 million today.

The growth of Pentecostalism would also benefit from the massive growth in population over the 20th century. Possibly the original growth of Protestantism might be a better comparison?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation.

In that case, why didn't Jesus come to earth when broadcasting became commonplace? Or why didn't Jesus invent the radio and telly?

It's strange that an omnipotent deity would come to earth in a minor province with limited mass communications to spend his life impressing a generally uneducated population, when he could have pulled something out of a hat that would have made sure that everybody heard about him.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

No but you can't disprove it either...sound familiar?

No, it doesn't. Should it?

I just felt that, since Wicknight has, in other posts, indicated his belief in Occam's Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything), he must have some pretty compelling evidence to start multiplying entities in this case.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

In that case, why didn't Jesus come to earth when broadcasting became commonplace? Or why didn't Jesus invent the radio and telly?

It's strange that an omnipotent deity would come to earth in a minor province with limited mass communications to spend his life impressing a generally uneducated population, when he could have pulled something out of a hat that would have made sure that everybody heard about him.

We can all invent any number of hypothetical scenarios.
Why didn't God just write the Gospel message in giant letters in the sky?
Why didn't He put all the calories into broccoli instead of bacon?

I suspect that if Jesus had waited to come to earth until broadcasting was commonplace then someone would be asking, "If the Gospel message was so important then why did God wait until now to reveal it?"

I prefer to try to make sense of what is, rather than what I think should be.

Scofflaw

Kernunos wrote: »

well cheers guys, good to see a civil debate about this thing. Ye have given me a few things to think about. Apologies for just posting and running but backpacking across New Zealand gives me plenty of time to read but less to check up internet forums.

You lucky bastid.

enviously,
Scofflaw