Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
tomb of christ
-
21-03-2008 2:02am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Depeche_Mode wrote: »Without doubt I would.
You answered that without actually taking into acount that your relative actually rose. You're unbeliving frame of refernace is unconciously governing you're thought patterns you're just not aware of it. I hate put downs do you?Depeche_Mode wrote: »Well what exactly were you saying?
Read it again and find out.Depeche_Mode wrote: »Why did nobody bother visiting the site of the salvation of humanity of the resurrection story was believed from the very beginning?
?????
?????? You may want to reword that.Depeche_Mode wrote: »Neither of these points are so far fetched as to make reanimation of a dead body the most likely scenario.
I never said they were. All I said was that the tomb was empty. If it wasn't then the powers that be would have produced the body in order to put a stop to the preaching.Depeche_Mode wrote: »Maybe he did have an assistant, Nicodemus perhaps. It is possible that both died. Unlikely but possible. Maybe he had a younger son who helped him and who went with his father on his travels.
Or maybe the person who helped him was deaf and dumb and couldn't write and was trying to explain to the disciples that Jesus was actually dumped on some trash heap but they couldn't understand what he was saying so they just kept on lying.Depeche_Mode wrote: »The same way you explain away Mohammed's ascension into the presence of Allah.
How many of Mohamed's followers preached his ascension under torture and until death? Where does Mohamed prophecy of his own death and resurrection in the Quran? Did he actually die and raise again or just ascend? and what did he say his death meant for all mankind?Depeche_Mode wrote: »In any case the earliest Gospel, Mark, originally ended with the women finding the empty tomb. The original Gospel had no appearance to the eleven disciples, no appearance to the two disciples along the road and no ascension into Heaven. All these were later additions to the original. The first Gospel written finished with the women finding an empty tomb.
But it has a record of Jesus walking on water and feeding thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fishes, healing blind people, is states that Moses and Elijah who were dead for centuries beforehand were transfigured on the mount where He prayed and a passage where in fact Jesus talks about the resurrection as being a real happening and all this before the women went to the tomb were you say the original gospel ends.
Does the fact that these stories were included in the original gospel of Mark make these stories true? A yes or no answer will suffice. If yes then how could these things happen? And if no then why use an omission of the resurrection story in the original as proof that it didn’t happen? It works both ways don’t you think?
I must go out now I will answer your other post later.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
No, you are quite wrong in this -- it's not 'based upon my atheism'. The fact that I don't believe that the christian god exists, and the fact that I don't believe that Jesus walked and talked after he was executed are entirely unrelated disbeliefs. Here is not the place for me to reiterate my reasons for refusing to accept the existence of the christian deity.So, you have a pre-existing assumption that the normal laws of biology and physics can not be suspended in a spectacular way (an assumption that is based on your atheism).
On the other hand, my rejection of the walking-and-talking-after Jesus' death is based upon my experience of the literature of the time which is full of similarly miraculous and bizarre tales, even in the text of writers who didn't have a stake in the truth of what they were writing; it's based upon the simple fact that many, many people have produced similar tales between then and now which I similarly reject, as I suspect you do too (remember my comment about Sai Baba and the resurrection he carried out? do you accept or reject this story?); it's also based upon my native suspicion of the self-supporting approach to truth that religions use. I could produce more reasons, if you like, but I think you get the idea.
Whereas you accept it as true -- uncritically as far as I can make out -- because it's written in a book.
Who's the one with the unlikely 'preexisting assumptions' here?
Indeed, and I have never said that they didNo-one is arguing that willingness to die for one's beliefs makes those beliefs true.
And the deaths of the doomsday cult members in Jonestown members equally testifies to the fact that they at least some of them believed what they were preaching too, but I assume that you reject the species of christianity that they held to be true?However, such willingness to die does testify to the fact that the potential martyrs themselves actually believe what they are preaching
Why do you accept such testimony in the case of Paul, but reject it in the case of Jonestown?
And, for what it's worth, if somebody said to me that they were prepared to die for an idea, then generally, I would suspect that they were emotionally unstable and certainly not in a position to provide an unbiassed judgment of the truth or falsity of the proposition that they were apparently prepared to die for.0 -
-
-
You can explain an empty tomb or grave in any number of different ways that don't involve the dead coming back to life.
Well that’s what I was asking for. The resurrection issue assumes the empty tomb to be fact. If the scripture is true then the first message of the Church was preached by Peter in Acts 2 and right there he was already preaching Christ raised from the dead so how you can imply that it was a later add on is beyond me. You see what you fail to realise is that your reasoning is based on the premise that “resurrections cannot happen” so on that basis you proceed to explain the resurrection story, and any other explanation other that the actual story given is a plausible explanation. Isn’t that the exact opposite of how scientists arrive at their conclusions? That everything must be tested as much as possible first before it can be discounted as not true?You are also making the mistake of assuming that the circumstances around the empty tomb are exactly as described in the Bible, which is quite an jump.
Not at all. All I need to know is are the disciples lying or telling the truth? The conclusion that they were in fact telling the truth can be arrived at when one reads the many books written on the subject. Books like: “Who moved the stone” by Frank Morrison, “The Trial of the witnesses by Thomas Sherlock and the one I’m reading at the moment which is “The Testimony of the Evangelists” by Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University 1833-1848 who also wrote his three volume work, “A treatise on the Law of Evidence” which is considered a classic of the American jurisprudence and which forms his basis for his study of the Gospels.
He maintains that if the gospel accounts where to go on trial that no lawyer in the world would contest their admissibility as evidence. Professor Greenleaf was highly regarded as one the most important lawyers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Here’s what The North American Review has to say about him: “It is the production of an able and profound lawyer, a man who has grown grey in the halls of justice and the schools of jurisprudence; a writer of the highest authority and legal subjects, whose life has been spent in weighing testimony and sifting evidence, and whose published opinions on the rules of evidence are received as authoritative in all the English and American tribunals; for fourteen years the highly respected colleague of the late Mr Justice Story, and also the honoured head of the most distinguished and prosperous school of English law in the world.”
And here’s what the London Law Magazine says about him:
“It is no mean honour to America that her schools of jurisprudence have produced two of the first writers and best esteemed legal authorities of this century-the great and good man, Judge Story, and his worthy and eminent associate, Professor Greenleaf. Upon the existing law of evidence (by Greenleaf) more light has shone from the new world than from all the lawyers who adorn the courts of Europe.”
It is intellectuals like this that have convinced me that the reporters of the resurrection where not lying or deluded when they wrote down their accounts. Hence Jesus rose and ascended as reported and if that’s all true then He’s also coming again. Simple really. It all hinges on the veracity of the reporters. Anyone who just doesn’t want to accept the story as true will forever be coming up with theories to explain the story. You’re trying to prove to me that the story is not true and you present various theories as plausible explanations, theories that contradict each other at times and none of which you ever say you believe in anyway. You just call them plausible explanations, but they are only plausible explanations if what is being explained is not true to begin with. You have still yet to establish that the story is not true on any other basis except the basis that you just don’t believe that it can happen by any stretching of man's limited apparatus.Imagine for a minute that there was actually a tomb but it was not sealed as described in the Bible. Anyone could have robbed the body of Jesus, and the followers could have interpreted the empty tomb as a sign. With this rumour spreading among the believers it is not inconceivable that "I saw him!" stories start to emerge, further reinforcing the idea that he rose from the dead.
You cannot escape the fact that Christianity has had a profound effect on the world for the last 2000 years or so. Granted a lot of evil has been done in its name in that time as has a lot of good but none of that makes any difference to the issue of whether Christ actually rose from the dead or not. If what you say is true then there is no way that Christianity could have had the effect it has had on history. There’s just not enough power there to get it off the ground in the first place.Years later, to further justify the story of the resurrection, the detail of the huge stone that could not be moved, and the guards outside, could have been added. These are details that have never really sat right with a plausible explanation for how the Roman would have dealt with what they considered a rebel leader (a massive tomb, sealed, with guards?) but they do conveniently offer the resurrection as the only explanation.
Just because the earliest extant manuscripts are dated to within 30 plus years of Christ death and resurrection does not prove that there was no earlier manuscripts in circulation before that time. Professor Greenleaf makes some interesting observations in the following: (yes I retyped it)
“Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine and they are permitted to be read in evidence unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgement of charity. It presumes that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document found in its proper repository and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the Church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for. They come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book, the Ancient Statutes of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been published under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the Churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith. There is no pretence that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by Angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose name they respectively bear, made public at the time they where written and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequentially made, there is no pretence that the originals were anywhere corrupted. If it be objected that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also affords a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian communities had an interest; and it is a rule of law, that: In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, moreover, who multiplied these copies, maybe regarded, in some manner, as the agents of the Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit dew to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves, the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence, and, as in the case of official registers and other public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document concerning our public rights were lost, copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels have been, would have been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the slightest hesitation. The entire text of the Corpus Jurus Civilis is received as authority in all the courts of continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Texts has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects, beyond and moral possibility of corruption while that of the Roman Civil Law has been preserved by tacit consent without the interest of any opposing school, to watch over and preserve it from alteration.”
He goes on but you get the message.What evidence do you have that they would have even tried?
No evidence except the common sense that tells me that the body of such a controversial figure as Jesus would in no wise have been fed to the dogs by those in power who could have used it to put a stop to any future controversy in their realm which said controversy was the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.What evidence do you have that the Romans and Jews were even aware that the Christians were now preaching this in a plausible time frame when they would produce the body.
They anticipated it before the resurrection remember. The Jews prevailed upon the Roman authorities to put a guard at His tomb so that the disciples couldn’t steal His body and then preach that He rose. They had more than a casual interest in making sure Jesus did not raise from the dead.The Romans were not in the habit of keeping bodies of dead criminals lying around on the off chance that the followers were going to claim he rose from the dead. Christianity at that time would have been very underground, it is doubtful that the Romans would have even been aware that the Christians were claiming Jesus was resurrected until much later.
Like I said they anticipated the preaching beforehand which is why they put a guard at His tomb. I’m not saying that because the tomb was empty that that proves He rose. I’m simply asking you to explain the empty tomb if neither the Jews, Romans nor the Disciples took the body. If someone else took the body then how did they get passed the guards? And considering the risks involved and the potential consequences what motive would these phantom robbers have in stealing the body? If the Romans just threw His body to the dogs then who gave the order to do it? The first preaching of Christ as the messiah was in Acts 2 which was at the feast of Pentecost, fifty days after the resurrection, the record is clear that the women who first reported the empty tomb did so on the day that He rose. And why did they take so long to start preaching if He was out of the tomb after three days assuming they had taken the body? Why wait fifty days? Why not just start preaching straight away? And if you are going to argue that it took them fifty days to think up the story then you are admitting that they are in fact liars. Plus even if they were smart enough to think the story up in the first place then they would not have included in their story that they started to preach fifty days after the resurrection because that inclusion just hurts their story. To me they just come off as simple minded reporters, reporting what they actually saw and experienced.You are using hindsight to say that they would have keep the body because they would have found out some time in the future that the Christians were now claiming Jesus was resurrected and having the body would come in handy in proving them wrong. Which is nonsense.
No I’m not saying that at all. The Romans only needed to seal the tomb until the third day because that was the day that Jesus before His death prophesised He would rise. If they seal the tomb until the third day and nothing happens then they can publicly put down any subsequent resurrection preaching (which they anticipated) by showing off the body to everyone. “See here’s his body, he truly was a fraud.” That’s what I would have made sure of if I were one of the Jewish leaders. My bread and butter livelihood was at stake. A resurrection from the dead of somebody that I had condemned as a blasphemer would result in me looking for another job very quickly. Who would listen to my religious pronouncements after that? The Jewish leaders would have made sure that the body of Jesus was shown in public on the third day. And anybody who would have started preaching that He rose would quickly be laughed to scorn because everyone would have seen that His body was shown in public after the three days and nights prophesied by Jesus were completed.Even if they did know they certainly weren't in the habit of attempting to reason with all the claims of all the cults and rebels that were around at that time, who they considered nut jobs. You would end up with a debate that makes the Creationist thread look tame.
None of those so called nut jobs made the claims Jesus made or did the things Jesus did. Even Pilate could find no crime or malice in Him. There was probably a lot nut jobs and maybe Jesus was considered to be one of them, and He was one if the resurrection didn't happen, so only the resurrection from the dead could give validity to His extraordinary claims.It is simply nonsense to say that because the Romans didn't produce that body of Jesus that this is some how strong support that Jesus was resurrected. It ignores all the vast array of far more plausible explanations.
Well I never said that the Romans not producing the body was evidence that Jesus rose. All I was saying was if they had taken it they would have produced it, if not of their own accord then definitely at the behest of the Jewish leaders in order to put down any future resurrection preaching, which didn't start until Pentecost which was fifty days after First Fruits which is when Jesus rose.That is certainly an interesting question (which does of course assume that everything up to that point in the story is accurate), but the possible explanations are long and many and all are more plausible than a dead man rising from the grave.
Well I’m all ears. I would love to hear these plausible explanations. Like I said they are only plausible if He didn’t actually rise. And if He didn’t actually rise then He is either the greatest fraud to ever grace the bindings of sandals or the greatest megalomaniac in the history of the world. He cannot not be put in the category of Good and Wise Teacher but not supernatural as the academic world is eager to put Him. And if He is in fact good and wise then He must also be supernatural because the same source that make people call Him good and wise also has Him making supernatural claims about Himself that precludes the option that He was only good and wise but not supernatural. And if He was not in fact supernatural then He cannot be both of the others at the same timeThe body could have simply been stolen.
By who? How? Why?Or the Romans may have taken it and simply thrown it to the wild dogs, as was common practice for crucified bodies.
That might have happened after the third day because they would have already proven He was not who he said He was because His body was still in the tomb. The disciples would have been powerless to preach their story after such public humiliation of having Jesus body shown to everyone then thrown to the dogs. Think about it for a minute. If you were around in those days and seen this public humiliation would you believe the disciples fifty days later? Nobody would, and yet it states in Acts that 3000 people were born into the Church in the first day of preaching. Preachers who were cowering in fear only days before. They still needed the Holy Spirit to empower them to preach to the mocking mobs in Acts 2. Something cataclysmic happened that day because they were cowering in fear one minute and then preaching to mocking mobs the next.None f these explanations are any less plausible than the idea that a human rose from the dead.
He wasn’t merely human if He rose from the dead. I’m sorry if this conflicts with your scientific mind but you cannot get away from this earth shattering explosion onto the stage of history. It blows all known scientific ideas out of the window if it is true which is why atheistic scientific type people try so hard to discredit the reporters as being somewhat nutty and not to be respected. But if the likes of Professor Greenleaf can respect them as genuine then who am I to contend with the likes of him?0 -
-
No, my reasoning is based on the premise that people being mistaken, having false memories, or simply making stuff up is a far far more plausible explanation that a man rising from the dead.
You still abiding in your comfort zone of “resurrection can’t occur so therefore they didn't occur and anyone who reports that they do occur is a bad reporter because resurrections can’t occur and therefore didn’t occur so anyone reporting etc etc etc…” Circular reasoning which you hate so much? I think so.People are wrong about supernatural events the believe have happened all the time. People tend not to rise from the dead.
Yes people don’t generally rise from the dead but we are not talking about some normal everyday average Joe here are we? We are talking about a person who went around making ridiculous claims about Himself. The only thing that can verify these claims is the claim that He would rise from the dead. Just because Science cannot explain it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. You put too much FAITH in science. Science which you readily admit in other discussions hasn’t go the answers to everything. I’m not out trying to look better or smarter than you on an Internet forum Wick, I’m trying to get a point across that you flat out refuse to even look at. Of course resurrections can’t occur by any method known to man but we are not talking about the power man here. You hold everything up to the litmus paper of science and if it doesn’t turn a certain colour then it’s not such and such and element. Maybe this is this is an element that you have not encountered before, ever think of that?Even if all this stuff actually happened as described as an observer 2000 years later it is still less plausible that a human being came back from the dead than people living 2000 years ago, in a culture seeped in superstition and belief in the supernatural, mistakenly though he did.
Here’s what Professor Greenleaf has to say about the reporters, its long but worth the read if one wants to gain an understanding into the actual mind set of the reporters. And I didn’t retype it this time I actually found the text on line
“The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.
Let the evangelists be tried by these tests.
And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teaching of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propogate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.
Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication.
It would also have been irreconcilable with the fact that they were good men. But it is impossible to read their writings, and not feel that we are conversing with men eminently holy, and of tender consciences, with men acting under an abiding sense of the presence and omniscience of God, and of their accountability to him, living in his fear, and walking in his ways. Now, though, in a single instance, a good man may fall, when under strong temptations, yet he is not found persisting, for years, in deliberated falsehood, asserted with the most solemn appeals to God, without the slightest temptation or motive, and against all the opposing interests which reign in the human breast. If, on the contrary, they are supposed to have been bad men, it is incredible that such men should have chosen this form of imposture; enjoining, as it does, unfeigned repentance, the utter forsaking and abhorrence of all falsehood and of every other sin, the practice of daily self-denial, self-abasement and self-sacrifice, the crucifixion of the flesh with all its earthly appetites and desires, indifference to the honors, and hearty contempt of the vanities of the world; and inculcating perfect purity of heart and life, and intercourse of the soul with heaven. It is incredible, that bad men should invent falsehoods, to promote the religion of the God of truth. The supposition is suicidal. If they did believe in a future state of retribution, a heaven and a hell hereafter, they took the most certain course, if false witnesses, to secure the latter for their portion. And if, still being bad men, they did not believe in future punishment, how came they to invent which was to destroy all their prospects of worldly honor and happiness, and to insure their misery in this life? From these absurdities there is no escape, but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed and considered, and well knew to be true.
In the second place, as their ability. The text writer before cited observes, that the ability of a witness to speak the truth, depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the fact, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known. Of the latter trait, in these witnesses, we of course know nothing; nor have we any traditionary information in regard to the accuracy of their powers of discerning. But we may well suppose that in these respects they were like the generality of their countrymen, until the contrary is shown by an objector. it is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence. This is not the judgment of mere charity; it is also the uniform presumption of the law of the land; a presumption which is always allowed freely and fully to operate, until the fact is shown to be otherwise, by the party who denies the applicability of this presumption to the particular case in question. Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector, by the common and ordinary rules of evidence, and of practice in courts. No lawyer is permitted to argue in disparagement of the intelligence or integrity of a witness, against whom the case itself afforded no particle of testimony. This is self afforded in particle of testimony. This is sufficient for our purpose, in regard to these witnesses. But more than this is evident, from the minuteness of their narratives, and from their history. Matthew was trained, by his calling, to habits of severe investigation and suspicious scrutiny; and Luke's profession demanded an exactness of observation equally close and searching. The other two evangelists, it has been well remarked, were as much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master's Life, as these were too learned and acute to be deceived by any imposture.
In the third place, as to their number and the consistency of their testimony. The character of their narratives is like that of all other true witnesses, containing, as Dr. Paley observes, substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred. That they conspired to impose falsehood upon the world is, moreover, utterly inconsistent with the supposition that they were honest men; a fact, to the proofs of which we have already adverted. But if they were bad men, still the idea of any conspiracy among them is negatived, not only by the discrepancies alluded to, but by many other circumstances which will be mentioned hereafter; from all which, it is manifest that if they concerted a false story, they sought to its accomplishment by a mode quite the opposite to that which all others are found to pursue, to attain the same end. On this point the profound remark of an eminent writer is to our purpose; that "in a number of concurrent testimonies, where there has been no previous concert, there is a probability distinct from that which may be termed the sum of the probabilities resulting from the testimonies of the witnesses; a probability which would remain, even though the witnesses were of such a character as to merit no faith at all. This probability arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence should spring from chance, is as one to infinite; that is, in other words, morally impossible. If therefore concert be excluded, there remains no cause but the reality of the fact.
The discrepancies between the narratives of the several evangelists, when carefully examined, will not be found sufficient to invalidate their testimony. Many seeming contradictions will prove, upon closer scrutiny, to be in substantial agreement; and it may be confidently asserted that there are none that will not yield, under fair and just criticism. If these different accounts of the same transactions were in strict verbal conformity with each other, the argument against their credibility would be much stronger. All that is asked for these witnesses is, that their testimony may be regarded as we regard the testimony of men in the ordinary affairs of life. This they are justly entitled to; and this no honorable adversary can refuse. We might, indeed, take higher ground than this, and confidently claim for them the serverest scrutiny; but our present purpose is merely to try their veracity by the ordinary tests of truth, admitted in human tribunals.
If the evidence of the evangelists is to rejected because of a few discrepancies among them, we shall be obliged to discard that of many of the contemporaneous histories on which we are accustomed to rely. Dr. Paley has noticed the contradiction between Lord Clarendon and Burnett and others in regard to Lord Strafford's execution; the former stating that he was condemned to be hanged, which was done on the same day; and the latter all relating that on a Saturday he was sentenced to the block, and was beheaded on the following Monday. Another striking instance of discrepancy has since occurred, in the narratives of the different members of the royal family of France, of their flight from Paris to Varennes, in 1792. These narratives, ten in number, and by eyewitnesses and personal actors in the transactions they relate, contradict each other, some on trivial and some on more essential points, but in every case in a wonderful and inexplicable manner. Yet these contradictions do not, in the general public estimation, detract from the integrity of the narrators, nor from the credibility of their relations. In the points in which they agree, and which constitute the great body of their narratives, their testimony is of course not doubted; where they differ, we reconcile them as well as we may; and where this cannot be done at all, we follow that light which seems to us the clearest. Upon the principles of the skeptic, we should be bound utterly to disbelieve them all. On the contrary, we apply to such cases the rules which, in daily experience, our judges instruct juries to apply, in weighing and reconciling the testimony of different witnesses; and which the courts themselves observe, in comparing and reconciling different and sometimes discordant reports of the same decisions. This remark applies especially to some alleged discrepancies in the reports which the several evangelists have been of the same discourses of our Lord.
In the fourth place, as to the conformity of their testimony with experience. The title of the evangelists to full credit for veracity would be readily conceded by the objector, if the facts they relate were such as ordinarily occur in human experience, and on this circumstance an argument is founded against their credibility. Miracles, say the objectors, are impossible; and therefore the evangelists were either deceivers or deceived; and in either case their narratives against the possibility of miracles, was founded on the board and bold assumption that all things are governed by immutable laws, or fixed modes of motion and relation, termed the laws of nature, by which God himself is of necessity bound. This erroneous assumption is the tortoise, on which stands the elephant which upholds his system of atheism. He does not inform us who made these immutable laws, nor whence they derive their binding force and irresistible operation. The argument supposes that the creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put up out of his own power to change them. The scheme of Mr. Hume is but another form of the same error. He deduces the existence of such immutable laws from the uniform course of human experience. This, he affirms, is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; and whatever is contrary to human experience, he pronounces incredible. Without stopping to examine the correctness of this doctrine, as a fundamental principle in the law of evidence, it is sufficient in this place to remark, that it contains this fallacy: it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone, and thus depriving us of any knowledge, or even rational belief, or the existence or character of God. Nay more, it goes to prove that successive generations of men can make no advancement in knowledge, but each must begin de novo, and be limited to the results of his own experience. But if we may infer, from what we see and know, that there is a Supreme Being, by whom this world was created, we may certainly, and with equal reason, believe him capable of works which we have never yet known him to perform. We may fairly conclude that the power which was originally put forth to create the world is still constantly and without ceasing exerted to sustain it; and that the experienced connection between cause and effect is but the uniform and constantly active operation of the finger of God. Whether this uniformity of operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation, is a point we cannot certainly know. Its existence in all things that ordinarily concern us may be supposed to be ordained as conducive to our happiness; and if the belief in a revelation of peace and mercy from god is conducive to the happiness of man, it is not irrational to suppose that he would depart from his ordinary course of action, in order to give it such attestations as should tend to secure that belief. "A miracle is improbable, when we can perceive no sufficient cause, in reference to his creatures, why the Deity should not vary his modes of operation; it ceases to be so, when such cause is assigned."
But the full discussion of the subject of miracles forms no part of the present design. Their credibility has been fully established, and the objections of skeptics most satisfactorily met and overthrown, by the ablest writers of our own day, whose works are easily accessible. Thus much, however, may here be remarked; that in almost every miracle related by the evangelists, the facts, separately taken, were plain, intelligible, transpiring in public, and about which no person of ordinary observation would be like to mistake. Persons blind or cripple, who applied to Jesus for relief, were known to have been crippled or blind for many years; they came to be cured; he spake to them; they went away whole. Lazarus had been dead and buried four days; Jesus called him to come forth from the grave; he immediately came forth, and was seen alive for a long time afterwards. In every case of healing, the previous condition of the sufferer was known to all witnessed the act of Jesus in touching him, and heard his words. All these, separately considered, were facts, plain and simple in their nature, easily seen and fully comprehended by persons of common capacity and observation. If they were separately testified to, by different witnesses of ordinary intelligence and integrity, in any court of justice, the jury would be bound to believe them; and a verdict, rendered contrary to the uncontradicted testimony of credible witnesses to any of these plain facts, separately taken, would be liable to be set aside, as a verdict against evidence. If one credible witness testified to the fact, that Bartimeus was blind, according to the uniform course of administering justice, this fact would be taken as satisfactorily proved. So also, if his subsequent restoration to sight were the sole fact in question, this also would be deemed established, by the like evidence. Nor would the rule of evidence be at all different, if the fact to be proved were the declaration of Jesus, immediately preceding his restoration to sight, that his faith had made him whole. In each of these cases, each isolated fact was capable of being accurately observed, and certainly known; and the evidence demands our assent, precisely as the like evidence upon any other indifferent subject. The connection of the word or the act of Jesus with the restoration of the blind, lame and dead, to sight, and health, and life, as cause and effect, is a conclusion which our reason is compelled to admit, from the uniformity of their concurrence, in such a multitude of instances, as well as from the universal conviction of all, whether friends or foes, who beheld the miracles which he wrought. Indeed, if the truth of one of the miracles is satisfactorily established, our belief cannot reasonably be withheld from them all. This is the issue proposed by Dr. Paley, in regard to the evidence of the death of Jesus upon the cross, and his subsequent resurrection, the truth of which he has established in an argument incapable of refutation.
In the fifth place, as to the coincidence of their testimony with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances. After a witness is dead, and his moral character is forgotten, we can ascertain it only by a close inspection of his narrative, comparing its details with each other, and with contemporary accounts and collateral facts. This test is much more accurate than may at first be supposed. Every event which actually transpires, has its appropriate circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, is intimately connected with all and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. Hence it is, that a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances, in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial. He will rather deal in general statements and broad assertions; and if he finds it necessary for his purpose to empty names and particular circumstances in his story, he will endeavor to invent such as shall be out of the reach of all opposing proof; and he will be the most forward and minute in details, where he knows that any danger of contradiction is least to be apprehended. Therefore it is, that variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain tests of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation if it were false.
The difference, in the detail of circumstances, between artful or false witnesses and those who testify the truth, is worthy of especial observation. The former are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meager, from the fear of detection. Every lawyer knows how lightly the evidence of a non-mi-recordo witness is esteemed. The testimony of false witnesses will not be uniform in its texture, but will not be uniform in its texture, but will be unequal, unnatural, and inconsistent. On the contrary, in the testimony of true witnesses there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard either to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection. It is easier, therefore, to make out the proof of any fact, if proof it may be called, by suborning one or more false witnesses, to testify directly to the matter in question, than to procure an equal number to testify falsely to such collateral and separate circumstances as will, without greater danger of detection, lead to the same false result. The increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of the circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false, because thereby the points are multiplied in which their statements may be compared with each other, as well as with the truth itself, and in the same proportion is increased the danger of variance and inconsistency. Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the intricacy of the comparison; the number of the intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuitry of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partakes of these characters, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will repose on the conviction of its truth.”
Sorry to land all that on you but it is very relevant to our discussion. It really does boil down to the veracity of the reporters. You are free to disbelieve them if you want to, that is your right, but if you are going to convince me that resurrections can’t ever occur by any means even outside of man’s present understanding of things then you will have to come up with an argument as detailed and concise as Professor Greenleaf has to the contrary. Not that his synopsis proves that Christ actually rose but at least he drags the Evangelists out from the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ status that have held for too long and gives their account some dignity and respect as valid reporters. It is up to those who would object to this who have the burden of proof to the contrary and I’m all ears.The rather amazing thing is that both you and PDN seem to be arguing the opposite. Which is quite bizarre.
Though it does go some what to explaining a possible mind set that the early Christians may have been in. Both yourself and PDN were raised in a world with great understand about biology and physics, where the supernatural is often dismissed as pure nonsense and where we have great understanding about the human brain and the tricks it can pull on itself.
I can only point you to Professor Greenleaf’s comments above regarding our understanding of the world: “Miracles, say the objectors, are impossible; and therefore the evangelists were either deceivers or deceived; and in either case their narratives against the possibility of miracles, was founded on the board and bold assumption that all things are governed by immutable laws, or fixed modes of motion and relation, termed the laws of nature, by which God himself is of necessity bound. This erroneous assumption is the tortoise, on which stands the elephant which upholds his system of atheism. He does not inform us who made these immutable laws, nor whence they derive their binding force and irresistible operation.”And yet you both seem to think it is perfectly reasonable to propose that a man crucified on a cross was witnessed walking around days later. This doesn't seem to be implausible to you in the slightest, and you reject almost instantly any suggestion that those who claimed to witness this may have simply been mistaken or wrong.
Of course it’s implausible and impossible and ridiculous to assume that such a thing can happen but we only have the veracity of the reporters to go by when it comes to this incredible profession. A profession that has been with us now for over 2000 years and the longer it continues with us the more ridiculous it appears to be to discredit it outright without a thorough in-depth look into the reporter’s testimony. Only then can one come away with any kind of sensible insight as to their motives and end game. The problem is that nobody who has already made their minds up on the subject based on outside factors will ever look at it with any kind of neutrality, they will always start out with the a-priori assumption that these things cannot happen so no amount of reading will convince them otherwise. Even if I were completely deluded by this “fable” as you would call it, then it still leaves you with a problem when it comes to seriously studying a subject and basing your conclusions on a solidly founded understanding of the facts as they are presented to you. You have held the Evangelists guilty until proven innocent. You have assumed them to be wrong before weighing up the evidence. That cannot not be a good basis for disbelieving their report.If yourself and PDN can do this, educated modern fellows as you are, imagine how easy it would be for people living 2000 years ago, without any proper understand of biology and "educated" only a steady diet of supernatural as fact, to readily accept that their spiritual leader, their messiah, had not actually been caught and executed by the Romans, but had bested them all by rising from the dead.
Your cocktail of flattery followed by putdown doesn’t impress me one bit. I’m not as educated as you might think. I’m no dummy but I’m of only average intelligence I can assure you. People living 2000 years ago must be assumed to have had moderate intelligence and only if you have proof to the contrary can you put them in the category of lesser beings intellectually. I would contend if anything that they would have been of superior wisdom and intelligence than we are today. Okay they didn’t have the technological advances that we have to today but seriously does that really make them the intellectual lesser?Professor Greenleaf isn't exactly what I would call someone coming at this topic in a rational non-biased fashion.
Testimony of the Evangelists
Simon Greenleaf
"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true. That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true."
All he’ is saying there is that he’s not out to convince people that God exists, rather he is simply presenting the Evangelists as credible reporters and until somebody can come along and prove them other wise with strong evidence then their testimony will be heard. Like any court in the land would do.Greenleaf has already entered as assumed the fact that God exists and Jesus was real. That is a rather large jump in making the plausibility of testimony.
Yeah I know what you mean, reminds me of those who without any tangible proof assume that God doesn’t exist and therefore base all their arguments around that. Works both ways. If you can come up with strong evidence that the reporters testimony is in admissible as evidence then let us have it.Greenleaf also makes a key assumption, that
"In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs"
That assumption goes to the heart of this matter. If one assumes that all one has to do is demonstrate that a witness is not lying and one has demonstrated that what they are explaining is plausibly real, because like you it ignores that instance where a person believes they are telling the truth but their testimony does not in fact match what actually happened.
What else would we need? I mean let us assume that your child came home from school one day with a bloody nose and you asked the child what happened and he says that some bullies attacked him, you would believe him right? Until you went out and found the boy responsible and heard the other side of the story from the so called bully who tells you that it was in fact your son who started the fight by calling the so called bully names. There are witnesses who verify this and then you ask your son is this true and he says yes Dad. Then you have the whole story. In relation to the Evangelists testimony where is the testimony of the others who contradict it? Where are their ancient manuscripts? Where is the proof that their accounts are inadmissible as evidence?That might have held 150 years ago, when biological understand of the brain and things like memory were in their infancy, but it doesn't hold now.
So we understand everything about the brain now do we? Science has all the answer to all the questions now? No mysteries anymore? Where’s the fun in that?No it doesn't, because it has been shown countless times since Greenleaf, that people will report supernatural events that did not happen as truth and more importantly believe themselves that what they are saying is true.
So all claims of current supernatural events that have been proved wrong is proof that the supernatural claims of the New Testament are also false? How can you draw that conclusion? Sounds like someone saying “A man has two legs. This has two legs, therefore it is a man. No it is in fact a chicken.” I think they call it rhetoric.Greenleaf demonstrated that these authors probably believed what they were writing. He then assume that it therefore happened. That is faulty reasoning, which could be excused 150 years ago, but not today.
How is that faulty reasoning? If you can believe that not just one but many reporters to a certain event or set of events genuinely believed what they were reporting did in fact happen then what more proof do you want? Assume for a moment that you were in a comma from the day before 911 until now and that you have just woken up. And that all the video footage and photographs of that dreadful day just up and vanished into thin air. And all that was left was the reports of your family and friends to that terrible day. And for hours all these relatives were trying to explain to you what happened but could not show you any footage or photos. Would you believe their testimony? I would. Because they were people that I trust and love and you know that they would not make up such a lie and the fact that they are all in agreement just lends more weight to their testimony even if some might describe that day in a different way and who might even add facts that some of others might omit and vice versa. Well it’s the same with Evangelists’ testimony. Yes the events they describe are unbelievable, just as unbelievable as somebody telling you exactly what happened on 911 if you were not around to witness it.The issue of whether or not modern reproductions of the original New Testament are forged or not is irrelevant. I'm assuming they are not forged, as I'm sure you are. I'm also assuming the conservative Christian estimate that Acts dates to 30 years after Jesus' death, which could have been much later.
And that is proof that the testimony is invalid why? If it was proven that the same events were written down the day after they happened and that we had that record with us today, would that mean that it was true? No, of course not. You still have accept their word and believe their story unless you had proof that they are liars.It is rather unlikely that he actually did preach beforehand that he rise, or that the Romans stationed 2 guards outside his tomb.
You are using conjecture to support your arguments. The fact remains that it is recorded in the record that He did in fact prophecy a three day three night burial and on the third day He’d raise again. We are not discussing whether He did prophecy it or not, rather we are discussing the validity of the reporters and it in the testimony of these reporters that that He did in fact prophecy His death and a third day resurrection.That was standard practice for crucifixion. In fact that was the point of crucifixion to stop burial as a method of dishonouring the dead as punishment.
Again you are using conjecture to support your arguments. The accounts has it that Joseph of Arimathea who was a member of the Sanhedrin requested that the body of Jesus be put in his tomb. Again it boils down to whether you believe the accounts or not. You start out not believing it and any facts that you encounter to the contrary are obviously wrong because it cannot happen. I bet you don’t use the same modus operandi when approaching other subjects.It is rather implausible that if the Jews and the Romans want to make an example of Jesus they would allow him to be buried in a tomb in the first place. That would rather defeat the purpose of the crucifixion.
Drag yourself back in time in your mind for a minute. You are one of the Jewish leaders who condemned Him. And it was said that He would rise on the third day. You would never have His body destroyed until that third day had arrived. Think about it, if you destroy His body then anyone can come along after the three days and nights were up and start preaching that he rose. Where would your evidence be to refute such a claim? You have destroyed it. You see how stupid it would have been for the Jews to destroy or allow to be destroyed His body? That’s why the tomb was to be sealed, so that the disciples could not make this claim, because like you the Jewish leaders really didn’t believe that He was actually going to rise. Once the third day was up they could do what they liked with body but by that time it was gone and the accounts have that the reason it was gone was because He rose. If the disciples took the body and then preached that He rose then they are liars.There is evidence that families bought the bodies back off the Romans and buried them, which would match the Biblical story, but I see little reason to believe that the Romans actually posted guards outside the tomb.
Well that is what the record says happened. So they are either lying about it or telling the truth. They cannot be mistaken about a fact like that. If that fact is only in the later records because it was added to give validity to the resurrection story then they are liars, fabricators and bunch of assholes (forgive my French) into the bargain.Well I imagine that if they were actually preaching from that point it was because it took them that long to come up with the concept that he was resurrected.
Like I said already, if they are smart enough to think up such a ridiculous story then they would have been smart enough to know that the addition of the seven week wait only goes to hurt their story. If they made the story up then they are liars and don’t care about the truth so why would they hurt their story by adding facts like having to wait until Pentecost before they could start preaching? That only hurts the story, if you are a liar and don’t care about the truth then you would not add the seven week wait, not would you have it that it was women who first reported the empty tomb, nor would Mark have Jesus referring to Himself time and again as The Son of Man when Mark wrote to gentiles who would not have know what the phrase Son of Man meant, why didn’t He just use Son of God? That was what Mark was trying to convey to his gentile readers wasn’t it? Why hurt you story by having Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man all the time? Because Mark was being true to what Jesus said. Because Jesus was speaking in a Jewish environment where they understood that the phrase Son of Man meant the Messiah. You don’t find that kind of honesty and adherence to facts that only go to hurt the story in liars who are only out to deceive. It’s intrinsic evidence like this that make them at least sound like honest reporters, because they adhere to facts that hurt the story, if it is just a false story they are telling.Think of it this way. You are a member of a small religious cult devoutly following your leader who claims to be the Jewish Messiah who will fulfil the Old Testament when all of a sudden he is taken away by the Roman's and executed. What do you do? You panic. Your whole belief system has been crushed. Your all powerful leader is now dead. How can this be? Not very all powerful.
And like all good true believers you refuse to except the most likely explanation that he wasn't in fact all powerful and latch on to the idea that this was all part of his plan. And low and behold for some reason his body is gone. What does that mean! Ah ha! He must have resurrected himself.
Yet more conjecture. You theory fell away at the seams when you got to the part about the body just disappearing into thin air. And even if they assumed that He was risen simply because the body was gone they are still liars because they also preached that he appeared to them several times after His phoney resurrection and that they witnessed Him ascend into heaven.And you know Jesus prophesied his resurrection in 3 days because ... ?
Covered that already above. I don’t know if He did say it or not, nor can I ever actually know, but the reports have an account of it and until I have valid reasons to disbelieve them I will take their word for it. I also don’t know if the story of Noah is true but Jesus spoke of Noah and if I can be convinced that Jesus rose from the dead as reported then I can take it on good authority that story of Noah is in fact true simply because Jesus spoke about him, likewise the story of Jonah.If the Romans and Jews wanted to demonstrate he wasn't going to rise from the dead they would have left him on the cross to rot. It is much more likely that this little detail was added to the story after he was crucified when the followers were trying to find figure out what his death meant.
Then you’ve just proved that they were all a bunch of liars which goes against an earlier post where you said: “The important point is that these people are not lying.” Which is it?This is given support by the contradiction in the stories.The prophecy of rising after 3 days is found in Mark, Matthew and Luke, which are all similar and probably based on the same source. It isn't found in John, and in fact John explicitly mentions that the disciples didn't realise that Jesus was to rise until after he did.
It doesn’t actually say in John that they didn’t realise that Jesus was to rise from the dead until after He did does it? It just states that they didn’t understand from the scripture that He had to rise from the dead. Bit of a difference there, and as there is three against one in favour of Jesus prophesying that He was going to rise from the dead in the records then that tells me that even though they mightn’t have understood from the scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead that doesn’t mean that they were not aware of the prophecy. But let us go back and assume that they are all liars making the whole thing up, then why would they paint themselves in such a bad lights as not understanding the most basic thing of their faith? More intrinsic evidence that they were just honest reporters reporting the facts as they happened.Of some significance the guards are not mentioned in John either, and the disciples appear bewildered when Jesus goes missing. Why are they bewildered if Jesus told them just a few days ago that he would rise from the dead on the third day
Please give me the verse you are talking about and I will attempt to answer that for you.(was it on the third day or after three days?)
Chronology of Jesus' Crucifixion: (from Gracehead.com)
Please note: The Hebrew calendar observes Holy days from the evening of one day to the evening of the next. Therefore, Passover occurred from sundown on Nisan 14 to sundown on Nisan 15, and so on. The Feast of Unleavened Bread began at sundown on Nisan 15 and lasted seven days, ending at sundown on Nisan 22.
Evening of Nisan 14 (Tuesday evening): Jesus ate an evening Passover meal with His disciples and instituted the New Covenant symbols..."And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat. This is My body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28).
Tuesday night, after their meal, Jesus was betrayed by Judas, and arrested in the Garden of Gethsamane. During the night, Jesus was brought before the high priest (John 18, Luke 22, Matthew 26, Mark 14.)
Early Morning of Nisan 15 to evening of Nisan 16 (Wednesday morning to Thursday evening): Jesus was brought before Pilate early in the morning on Wednesday (Mark 14:2 & 15:1). After enduring scourging, mocking and severe beatings during the day on Wednesday, Jesus was crucified and died around 3 p.m..."And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani? That is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save Him. Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost" (Matthew 27:46-50). This was the preparation day for the annual Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath...(Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54).
The bodies could not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day..."for that sabbath day was a high day" (John 19:31), so Pilate besought that their legs be broken. The legs of the two criminals, crucified with Jesus, were broken, but Jesus' legs were not broken because He was already dead (John 19:31-33). Jesus' body was then placed in the tomb just before sunset..."When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed" (Matthew 27:57-60).
In Matthew 12:40, Jesus tells us..."As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth". Wednesday night was the first night and Thursday was the first day that Jesus slept in the tomb.
Evening of Nisan 16 to evening of Nisan 17 (Thursday evening to Friday evening): This was the "high day" Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened Bread (John 19:31 & Leviticus 23:4-7). (The Feast of Unleavened Bread began the night before at sundown). It is described as the day after the "Day of Preparation"..."Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate" (Matthew 27:62). Thursday night was the second night and Friday was the second day that Jesus slept in the tomb.
Evening of Nisan 17 to evening of Nisan 18 (Friday evening to Saturday evening): The high-day Sabbath now past, the women bought and prepared spices for anointing Jesus' body before resting on the weekly Sabbath day, which began at sunset on Friday..."And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him" (Mark 16:1)...and "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56). Friday night was the third night and Saturday was the third day that Jesus slept in the tomb. He arose at the end of the Sabbath, on Saturday, at sunset.
Evening of Nisan 18 (Saturday evening): The women rested on the weekly Sabbath (Luke 23:56), according to the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). Jesus rose at the end of the Sabbath, exactly three days and three nights after His burial..."Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from Thee. But He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40). This day was the Feast of First Fruits, which was observed on the day after the weekly Sabbath following Passover (Leviticus 23). Jesus arose Saturday evening, at sunset, this being the beginning of First Fruits. This is why Jesus is called the "first fruits" of those that slept..."But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20).
Nisan 19 day (Sunday): The women brought the prepared spices early in the morning, and at that time Jesus had already left His tomb..."Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them" (Luke 24:1 & John 20:1), finding that Jesus had already risen..."And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus" (Luke 24:2-3, also Matthew 28:1-6, Mark 16:2-6 & John 20:1). He did not rise Sunday morning, but at sunset the day before.
Why is this so important?:
This does away with "Good Friday", *"Easter Sunday" and one of the false reasons the churches use to justify changing the Sabbath to Sunday. *Actually Easter is a pagan word derived from the name of a pagan goddess. The correct name for Easter is First Fruits, which begins at sundown on Saturday (the exact time of Jesus' resurrection) and ends at sundown Sunday.
By rightly dividing the Word in the Bible, God's glory is revealed! Showing that all God does is very purposeful, precise and always points to Jesus, for He is the fulfillment of all things! Amen.So what do we have, we have the story of the 3rd day resurrection coupled with the posting of the guards. And in John we find neither. No prophecy, no guards.
Your point?You keep stating that and people keep giving you counter examples. There were Jewish rebel leaders claiming to be the Messiah who lead large groups of Jews in rebellion against the Roman forces, which was significantly more than what Jesus managed.
How where they like Jesus? What claims did they make about themselves and where is the record of their claims?It is telling that hardly any record of Jesus, the feared Messiah, even existing is present in non-Christian records.
Ah yes the oldies are always the best. Here’s a good quote from Murray Harris
Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!
Read more here http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.htmlIt is pretty difficult to get back a body you have thrown to wild animals 50 days later so you can prove to a religious cult that their lead was actually carried off by wild dogs.
Yes but if you had publicly shown the body after the 3 days and nights as prophesied we ended then you could do whatever you like with the body. I’ve pointed this out already above.By anyone who wanted to steal it. Bodies were stolen all the time. If Jesus was crucified and then buried in a tomb that demonstrates significant wealth behind such an act. That gives motive to steal from the tomb.
What can you steal from a tomb? A dead body? How valuable would that have been to anybody in that time? If bodies were of a value great enough to temp people to risk steal them then why would the Romans always (as you contend) throw them to the dogs?First of all, that assume everyone in Jerusalem saw Jesus being crucified. Which is nonsense. Jesus was just one of a handful of criminals executed that week.
Secondly on what basis do you assume Acts is in anyway accurate?
What evidence have you got that it isn’t? Do have counter records of the same events by a different author that contradict Acts?It is highly implausible that he rose from the dead. It is highly implausible that anyone rises from the dead.
And therefore He didn’t’ right? We’ve been here before me thinks.To say it isn't because he was a god is circular reasoning because you only think he was a god in the first place because of the claim that he rose from the dead. You can't demonstrate he is a god until you demonstrate he rose from the dead. So start off with the position that he wasn't a god. Now, how plausible is it that he rose from the dead?
If you claimed to be God and also claimed that you were going to die and rise again, I would think you were either crazy or putting me on. But if after the third day of your death you do indeed rise again then I would take another look at you and the claims you made before you died. That’s Christianity in a nut shell. What validates Jesus is that He rose form the dead. What makes me believe that He rose from the dead is the validity of the accounts of the reporters. What makes me believe them to valid I’ve already outlined in great detail.I'm curious why you ignore the most plausible explanation?
You’ve given me many explanations that may be plausible if in fact He didn’t rise, so which one would you like me to pick?Which is a very very good reason to think it in all likelihood isn't true.
Go for it, you never know you just might be right.0 -
-
-
And the deaths of the doomsday cult members in Jonestown members equally testifies to the fact that they at least some of them believed what they were preaching too, but I assume that you reject the species of christianity that they held to be true?
Why do you accept such testimony in the case of Paul, but reject it in the case of Jonestown?
I do accept the testimony of the people in Jonestown that their eyewitness accounts were true. They testified that they saw Jim Jones, that they heard him make certain claims etc, and their willingness to die would indicate to me that these are not some kind of mythical 'false memories' but that Jones really did make such claims.
I'm not quite sure what your point is about Paul, since I've never argued that Paul's willingness to die somehow validated the truth of his religion.
What I have said, in language that I would think is plain enough to be easily understood, is that the willingness of an eyewitness to die rather than recant indicates that the eyewitness is not telling lies.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement