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
tomb of christ
Options
Comments
-
No, but then why does that make it less plausible than the Jesus story?That little phrase, "except for the crucified" is actually quite important for Christian belief.
So you are saying that one of the witnesses of Jim Jones claimed that a guy was dead & buried for 3 days, had his tomb sealed and blocked up with a big stone, had a platoon of soldiers to guard his tomb, yet rose from the dead and allowed someone to insert his hand into the resurrected person's fatal wounds? This is really interesting! Could you provide a link to these claims?
To say it isn't exactly like the Jesus resurrection story, therefore of course it didn't happy, is just nonsense.
Jim Jones is witnessed bring people back to life. He didn't bring people back to life in exactly the same way that Jesus is reported to have come back to life, but I fail to see how you argue that therefore the Jim Jones story is obviously nonsense but the Jesus story is obviously true.
And human being usually don't rise from the dead ....Roman soldiers were usually experienced enough at recognising the distinction between a corpse and a living person.
As I explained to Soul Winner, the idea that these Roman soldiers messed up royal is still a lot more plausible than the idea that a human body resurrected itself.
To argue that it is unlikely that a Roman soldier would make a mistake like that but then argue that it is likely that Jesus' body came back to life after being dead for 3 days, is nonsense.
There are a huge amount of explanations that are, how ever unlikely, still far more plausible than a human body coming back to life.
I don't see you worshipping him as Jesus ...I think it unlikely that Jones raised anyone from the dead, although I am not so dogmatic as to rule out the possibility.
Surely if he raised someone from the dead that means he is who he claims to be? Isn't that the logic you use for Jesus?0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »Just how experienced was the soldier that examined Jesus? I doubt that you know for sure that he was a battle hardened veteran of the legions and not a raw recruit just out of his toga.
In any case do you really think it is impossible to believe a 33 year old man who suffered severe injuries could be mistakenly declared dead by a supposed expert only to be later found alive by a grieving woman who came to view his body?
So, we are to believe that a 33 year-old man was scourged by the Romans, nailed to a cross for an afternoon, had a spear thrust into His side so that blood and water flowed out, was mistakenly declared dead, was laid in a tomb, then came out of a coma in the middle of the night, summoned the strength to roll a heavy stone away from the mouth of the tomb, paused to take off His grave clothes and neatly fold them up in the tomb, sneaked past the guard of soldiers outside (who also inexplicably failed to hear the big stone being rolled away) then appeared to His followers a few hours later and, rather than appearing as a staggering invalid, managed to convince them that He was the victorious Lord of Life?
No wonder you posted on 1st of April.0 -
No, but then why does that make it less plausible than the Jesus story?
To say it isn't exactly like the Jesus resurrection story, therefore of course it didn't happy, is just nonsense.
Jim Jones is witnessed bring people back to life. He didn't bring people back to life in exactly the same way that Jesus is reported to have come back to life, but I fail to see how you argue that therefore the Jim Jones story is obviously nonsense but the Jesus story is obviously true.
I think you're deliberately missing the point here. I am not saying that one story is untrue because it is different. :rolleyes:
You stated that the testimony of a witness to a supposed miracle by Jim Jones was "almost exactly" what the witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ claimed. It was not. The Resurrection of Jesus had many more attendant details and circumstances that make it more convincing.
No. I certainly would not claim that because Jesus raised somebody else from the dead then that is proof positive that He was who He claimed to be.I don't see you worshipping him as Jesus ...
Surely if he raised someone from the dead that means he is who he claims to be? Isn't that the logic you use for Jesus?
His own resurrection, as He had Himself predicted on many occasions, is strong evidence that He was who He claimed to be. I am unaware of Jim Jones rising from the dead after Jonestown.0 -
I think you're deliberately missing the point here. I am not saying that one story is untrue because it is different. :rolleyes:
Er, that appeared to be exactly what you were saying herePDN wrote:Nor do any of them come close to eye-witnesses saying that they saw someone scourged, crucified, declared to be dead and then raised from the dead.
Care to clarify then what you meant by "nor do any of them come close" if your point wasn't to imply that one is untrue because it is a different kind of resurrection? How does a group of people watching a dead man rise be brought back to life "not even come close" to Jesus' resurrecting himself in a cave, alone, with no witnesses?
It is more plausible that Jesus was a twin and the man they saw was his brother (familiar to anyone who has seen The Prestige), than the idea he rose from the dead. At least with Jones miracle people actually saw the event.
It is in so far as they both saw a dead person rise from death and be alive again.You stated that the testimony of a witness to a supposed miracle by Jim Jones was "almost exactly" what the witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ claimed. It was not.
I can understand your objection if Jones made a car levitate, or walked through a wall, but in this instance the miracle is exactly the same, someone being brought back to life from death.
Of course. This guys wasn't wearing a throne of thorns, so obviously Jones' isn't Jesus :rolleyes:The Resurrection of Jesus had many more attendant details and circumstances that make it more convincing.No. I certainly would not claim that because Jesus raised somebody else from the dead then that is proof positive that He was who He claimed to be.
His own resurrection, as He had Himself predicted on many occasions, is strong evidence that He was who He claimed to be. I am unaware of Jim Jones rising from the dead after Jonestown.
You can't be serious?
The claim was that Jesus resurrected himself that demonstrates he is who he claimed to be, but resurrecting himself is different to resurrecting someone else how exactly? Are there rules to resurrection?
How does Jesus resurrecting himself demonstrate he is who he claimed to be in a way that Jesus/Jones resurrecting other people doesn't.
What, liars can't resurrect themselves but they can resurrect other people?0 -
So, we are to believe that a 33 year-old man was scourged by the Romans, nailed to a cross for an afternoon, had a spear thrust into His side so that blood and water flowed out, was mistakenly declared dead, was laid in a tomb, then came out of a coma in the middle of the night, summoned the strength to roll a heavy stone away from the mouth of the tomb, paused to take off His grave clothes and neatly fold them up in the tomb, sneaked past the guard of soldiers outside (who also inexplicably failed to hear the big stone being rolled away) then appeared to His followers a few hours later and, rather than appearing as a staggering invalid, managed to convince them that He was the victorious Lord of Life?
No wonder you posted on 1st of April.
Or we believe that every single known physical and biological law was suspended for a few hours as a dead decomposing body repaired itself and started functioning again ... umm, yes, that makes more sense ... :rolleyes:
Why are you allowed a really really really implausible explanation but DP not very plausible but still far more plausible than yours, explanation is criticized?
Hypocrisy of the highest level.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, we are to believe that a 33 year-old man was scourged by the Romans, nailed to a cross for an afternoon, had a spear thrust into His side so that blood and water flowed out, was mistakenly declared dead, was laid in a tomb, then came out of a coma in the middle of the night, summoned the strength to roll a heavy stone away from the mouth of the tomb, paused to take off His grave clothes and neatly fold them up in the tomb, sneaked past the guard of soldiers outside (who also inexplicably failed to hear the big stone being rolled away) then appeared to His followers a few hours later and, rather than appearing as a staggering invalid, managed to convince them that He was the victorious Lord of Life?
I am certainly not suggesting that we should "believe" that that was what happened, I do not believe that that was what happened because I do not know what happened. What I am suggesting is that we should weigh up the possible scenarios and judge them according to just how plausible they are.
In my mind a simplified version of the scenario you portray is possible and this began to be seriously padded and distorted by story tellers over the 40 - 60 years prior to the four Gospels being written. We know this distortion happens because we see that the later the accounts are of the story the more fanciful they become. This is found both in the canonical texts and the non canonical texts. The first accounts are by and are extremely vague with no specifics at all about Jesus, the earliest Gospel is Mark and is wonderfully subtle yet also lacking in the pretty much the entire miraculous resurrection story, when we get to the latest accepted gosel, John, the story becomes very elaborate and fanciful. After John even Christians cannot bring themselves to accept the later gospels because this trend of chinese whispers adding to the original story makes the tale even more absurd.
What I have tried to do in my own mind to do is form a picture of a plausible original event and strip away the conjecture and padding. I can imagine a situation where a man was crucified and taken down from the cross prior to his death, this may have been because of a lazy Roman soldier not doing his job properly or intentionally done for some reason. If it was unintentional and Jesus was put in the tomb alive then it could be possible that purely natural events occuring in his body could have led him to temporarily recover, he was found alive and seen by some people but died about a month later from his injuries. I am not saying that this definitely happened, just that to my mind at least it is more plausable than the Christian alternative.
As I mentioned earlier in this discussion Josephus mentions finding three men he knew being crucified after the Jewish revolt and asked the Roman commander for them to be taken down, two later dying and one surviving. Apart from the possibility that I mentioned earlier that the Christian story is a version of this real world event where Josephus (Joseph bar Mathias) was mistaken for Joseph of Arimathea, that aside it is an occassion that we have where a crucified man apparently survived after being taken down prior to death. Yes, this man did recieve medical attention but then I find myself wondering who were the mysterious men found at the tomb of Jesus?
But as I say I do not suggest that we should necessarily "believe" any of the alternative theories, just that we should weigh up the plausibility of them all and ask which is more likely. Could it be possible then that these alternatives were altered by story tellers to make them more interesting, for example could the story of the soldiers being posted at the tomb be an attempt by the story tellers to counter the natural assumption that many had that the body was stolen? Could the story of Jesus being pierced in the side be an attempt to confirm to skeptics that Jesus was dead? In my mind if an alternative scenario is at least possible, no matter how unlikely, then it has to trump an impossible scenario.0 -
Doesn't sound very plausible to me I must say, but why exactly any neutral would think the Christian version of events to be more plausible I don't know.So, we are to believe that a 33 year-old man was scourged by the Romans, nailed to a cross for an afternoon, had a spear thrust into His side so that blood and water flowed out, was mistakenly declared dead, was laid in a tomb, then came out of a coma in the middle of the night, summoned the strength to roll a heavy stone away from the mouth of the tomb, paused to take off His grave clothes and neatly fold them up in the tomb, sneaked past the guard of soldiers outside (who also inexplicably failed to hear the big stone being rolled away) then appeared to His followers a few hours later and, rather than appearing as a staggering invalid, managed to convince them that He was the victorious Lord of Life?
No wonder you posted on 1st of April0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »What the article should do is throw some doubt in the overly confident Christian mind that Jesus was definitely dead when put in the tomb. The man in the article was declared dead by modern medical professionals who spent many years in University learning about the human body and they made a mistake, a Roman recruit was nowhere near as qualified at pronouncing death.
Let us look at the claims of the Gospels. Jesus supposedly died after an unusually short length of time. The usual Christian response is that the scourging he recieved quickened the death, however we do not know for certain just how bad this scourging was. All we know is that he was still capable of making a good effort in carrying his cross, even just carrying the patibulum would be a major effort for a fully fit man yet Jesus did surprisingly well. Perhaps the scourging was not quite as bad as we imagine. Bear in mind that Pilate was well aware that Jesus was punished by his soldiers yet he was still surprised Jesus died so soon. If the scorging had been as severe as Mel Gibson makes out in The Passion then Pilate would have had no reason to be surprised. In fact the whole belief that Jesus recieved an exceptionally harsh whipping is classic circular reasoning: Why did Jesus die so quickly? Because he was almost flayed alive by the soldiers. How do we know he was almost flayed alive by the soldiers? Because he died so quickly on the cross.
The evidence from the Gospels seems to me to suggest a relatively mild initial punishment of Jesus: Frstly the Gospels say nothing about how badly injured Jesus was from the whipping so it is not reasonable to assume it was any worse than any other prisoner would recieve. Secondly he was capable of carrying his cross unaided at least some of the way. I know for a fact I would need help to carry such a heavy weight without any whipping. Thirdly his quick death surprised even the man who ordered the severity of his scourging. If this was the case then the possibility of Jesus being alive after burial increases significantly.
Getting back to the article though, imagine the man in question was a less scrupulous person and said that in fact he did die and was raised back to life because he is the son of God. Would you believe him and worship him? If anything there is far more evidence for his "miraculous" resurrection as we actually know that he exists and we also have a medical document confirming his death. Neither of these we can say for Jesus.
If what you say is the proper explanation about what happened then it is your contention that either Christ or His Disciples were frauds? Possibly both but certainly either or.
Firstly, let us go along the lines that it was Christ who was the fraud and that the Disciples were innocent parties honestly reporting what they thought they saw.
So if, as you say, He resuscitated in the tomb because He wasn't really dead in the first place, then how did He get out of the tomb unnoticed by the guards? The Disciples record that the Romans put a guard at his tomb, we assume this is true because we are assuming the Disciples are not lying about that, because it was Christ who did all the deceiving not they right? And assuming that the disciples were genuinely mistaken about what they saw then they also had nothing to do with getting Him out of the tomb. But let us assume that He did get out by sneaking passed the guards and running away. This would have been really difficult even if He hadn’t receive any scourging because evidence of Roman crucifixions holds that the nails hammered in the feet of the crucified person penetrated the ankles which would have rendered it impossible for Him to walk never mind run away un-aided. So who aided Him? Not the disciples because we are assuming they had nothing to do with this fraud right? And if he was unable to walk then how did He move the stone after a three days three nights fast and untreated crucifixion injuries? Assuming the reports are correct that it was a pretty big stone. But even a moderatley sized stone would have been pretty hard to move by someone with the crucifixion injuries that Jesus would have had even if He hadn't received any scourging prior to His crucifixion.
Also who are the guys at the tomb the women reported as affirming that Jesus rose? They are obviously liars too because He didn't rise. Because he either crawled or hobbled away un-noticed by the guards. Who were those guys assuming the women were not lying about them?
So assuming that Jesus was still alive somewhere after His resurrection, then where was He? Where did He go? Not with the disciples because they think He rose.
When the disciples were going around preaching that He rose Jesus must have known about it if He was still alive right? Then why didn't He stop them from doing this knowing that it would put them in a lot of danger which could quite possibly lead to their deaths? Oh yeah we are assuming He conned them and wanted all this right? Sorry forgot that.
So assuming the disciples are still not lying, then who was the person that the disciples thought was Jesus that appeared to them in the upper room of John Mark's mother's home? How did He ‘walk’ through the locked door? Did he have crutches? How did the crutches get through the door? Remember we are assuming that Jesus survived his execution and that it was He that was the fraud and not the Disciples. If they are simply honest reporters then how do you explain the mysterious person who walked through the locked door assuming it couldn't have been Jesus because He is off licking His wounds somewhere in a natural body incapable of walking through locked doors.
You see the more you depart from the original report and try to explain the story the more ridiculous it sounds, even more ridiculous than the resurrection story itself, but let us continue, we are still assuming that Jesus was the fraud and that the disciples were the innocent victims of a huge hoax.
Then how could they have gone to such lengths to make up such a story as they did? They had to have made it up because none of it happened. If they made it up then they are liars, but they can’t be because we are assuming they were not liars. So if they were all just innocent victims finding out that they were conned by Jesus, then why were they not really angry at Him for not actually raising as promised? Why do they go around praising Him? If I followed somebody around for 3 years who claimed He was the Messiah that we expected to come and then He died and didn't actually rise again as promised I would be pretty pissed off at Him. I’d be going around telling people that He was in fact a fraud and a crook and a liar. I would have joined Saul of Tarsus and put anyone who went around preaching that Jesus rose from the dead in prison because I was witness to these lies and know that he didn’t rise. Yet you are assuming that ALL of the disciples made up this story in order to heap praise upon Him? Talk about implausible. I can understand one possibly two who were genuinely mistaken about some of the events, but ALL of them mistaken about ALL of the events? If the story wasn’t true then it is psychologically inconceivable that one of that group would not have given a reality check speech to the others who wanted this to be true, this is of course assuming they were all innocent parties to the events.
Ok so let us look at the other possibility, that it was Christ who was the innocent (all be it deluded) party in all of this. And that He never actually rose. Then that means that Jesus was in fact dead, because if He was still alive (but not risen from the dead) then He would have told His disciples to stop preaching that He rose because that would have been a lie. We are assuming Jesus was good right so He would have stopped them right? So that must mean He was in fact dead right?
So who took His body?
We’ve been over this and over this in other posts and in this one but I will do it again here. If the Romans took the body then they would have produced it. They did submit to the requests of the Jewish leaders to put a guard at the tomb so they would have also submitted to any requests by these same leaders to produce the body too had they taken it. They probably would have produced the body anyway due to the controversy in their realm over this issue. Going around preaching people raised from the dead would have been seen as a threat to Caesar, as only the God’s have such power so the person who rose would have been considered greater than Caesar so the best thing to do to shut up the preaching about this person would have been to produce the body that they (the Romans) had stolen.
Same message for the Jewish leaders. They would have done anything to stop the preaching so if they had taken the body then they would have produced it in an instant. So it couldn’t have been either the Romans or the Jewish leaders.
If the Disciples took the body then they are liars but then we are already assuming that they are liars aren’t we? Ok so if they are liars then they know that they are liars right? And if they are lying and know that they are liars, then why do they hurt their stories so much by adding things that would detract from it?
Why do they have in their reports that it was women who first reported the empty tomb and that they saw the resurrected Jesus. If all they are out to do is deceive people into believing that Jesus rose from the dead and that He was the son of God then why have it in the report that is was women? The word of a women was not legally binding in those days, it meant nothing so why say it was women if you are lying about the story anyway? It doesn't make sense? If they were in fact lying, then they did not know that their words would be scrutinized like this 2000 years later would they? Why in that day would they have it that is was women who first reported the resurrection if all they wanted was people to believe them? Why not say that it was Peter and John who first seen the empty tomb and the resurrected Jesus?
All scholars agree that Mark wrote to either Romans or Egyptians but certainly to non Jews. So why does Mark in his Gospel have Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man instead of the Son of God? The phrase Son of Man only makes sense to a Jew because it refers to the Messiah but to a Roman or an Egyptian it just means that he was like an ordinary man. Now if you are a lair and don’t care about the truth, and all you want to do is convince people that Jesus was the son of God, then why would you time and again have Jesus refer to Himself in your Gospel as the Son of Man? It makes no sense for Mark (the liar) to be true to what Jesus actually said if all he is out to do is convince non Jews that Jesus was in fact the son of God.
If they were all liars making up the story as a bunch of frauds then why don’t their stories match each other perfectly? If you were just part of a bunch of liars then you would make sure they all your stories matched up wouldn’t you? You don’t see that in the Gospel record though. What you see are different viewpoints of the same events, which in certain areas, on the surface at least look contradictory, but when you delve into their stories a bit more you can see why there are variations. Just like the newspapers the day after September 11 2001. All reporting on the same events but not all agreeing with each other on the intricate details. For instance one newspaper has the headline “World War III” yet another has the headline “War on America” and it is yet another newspaper which states “U.S Attacked”, all fairly accurate headlines but not entirely in agreement with each other but also not contradicting each other either. If 911 didn’t actually happen and all the newspapers with the headlines above were just one big global conglomerate that was just lying about those events, who’s only wish was to convince people 2000 years into the future about what happened on 911 was actually true, then they would have made sure that all their newspapers said the same thing wouldn’t they?
Plus why would these disciples lie about a God who hates liars anyway? Think about it, if they know they are liars then they know that they are going to be judged by Him who hates liars in the end anyway.
So which is it DM? Was it Christ or the Disciples who were the frauds? Or both?
You cannot be genuinely and innocently mistaken about these events. If the story is not true then someone somewhere is lying. But who?0 -
Have you ever stopped to think how the authors of the Bible knew that Matthew 28:11-15 took place?Soul Winner wrote: »Also who are the guys at the tomb the women reported as affirming that Jesus rose? They are obviously liars too because He didn't rise.
Its a bit like the movie The Perfect Storm. If all on board died how do they know that is what happened?
If the priests and the guards settled on a lie to tell everyone how do the authors of the Bible know that is what happened?
Who witnessed the guards and the priests coming up with that story?
It seems like a handy excuse to explain away Jesus' followers simply stealing his body.Soul Winner wrote: »You cannot be genuinely and innocently mistaken about these events. If the story is not true then someone somewhere is lying. But who?
You cannot come back to life after being executed .... it is a bit rich to be playing the "cannot" game Soul Winner :rolleyes:
DP doesn't need to know who. That someone, or heck all of them, is lying is still more plausible than a man coming back from the dead. I just made that explanation up. But it is still more plausible than a man rising from the dead.
It is more plausible that Jesus had an unknown twin brother, who went around pretending to be him after Jesus himself was executed, and the disciples believed this was Jesus, than it is that a man rose from the dead.0 -
You seem to have missed my point. Yes if all the minute details about the resurrection are true then it would be very hard to explain away, but the thing is that I don't believe them to be true. I think they are far more likely to be embellishment. It may not necessarily have been a case of either Jesus or the disciples lying, it may have been the story tellers who took liberties in their retelling of the story.Soul Winner wrote: »When the disciples were going around preaching that He rose Jesus must have known about it if He was still alive right? Then why didn't He stop them from doing this knowing that it would put them in a lot of danger which could quite possibly lead to their deaths? Oh yeah we are assuming He conned them and wanted all this right? Sorry forgot that.
According to the Bible how many deaths are recorded for the 12 disciples? Only three and two of those were for the one person. James dying the traditional once and Judas presumably dying twice (hanging himself in Matthew and exploding in Acts).You see the more you depart from the original report and try to explain the story the more ridiculous it sounds, even more ridiculous than the resurrection story itself, but let us continue, we are still assuming that Jesus was the fraud and that the disciples were the innocent victims of a huge hoax.
This is the problem. We do not know what the original report actually was. We have a number of stories written decades after the event by people who were quite likely to have been not eye-witnesses.Why do they have in their reports that it was women who first reported the empty tomb and that they saw the resurrected Jesus. If all they are out to do is deceive people into believing that Jesus rose from the dead and that He was the son of God then why have it in the report that is was women? The word of a women was not legally binding in those days, it meant nothing so why say it was women if you are lying about the story anyway?
Who says the word of women was not legally binding in those days? Judaism had numerous prominant female figures, for example Rachel, Sarah, Ruth, Deborah and Huldah. Jews did not find the idea of these women playing prominant roles as being repulsive or disgraceful.
So where does your idea that women were unreliable come from? It isn't supported by the Gospels. In Mark they never tell anyone so we will ignore this one. In Matthew they tell the apostles that Jesus told them to go to Galilee and the 11 men believe them and go. In Luke we find Peter believes them immediately and runs to the grave, we do find some others disbelieving them but not necessarily because they were women but more likely that it was a bizaare claim they were making. In John the women claim the body has been stolen and again Peter immediately believes them and goes to the tomb with two others. In the three accounts of the women telling men about an outlandish claim they are believed by some of the men in two accounts and all of the men in the other one. I'm pretty sure if anybody told me a dead man had come back to life I would not believe them, irregardless of gender, yet the men in your own Gospel accounts had such high esteem for the tesimony of women that they were believed.
And here is another possible idea why the women were the first people at the tomb. Maybe this was very intentional. Women could well have been a target of the early Christian message, look at Acts 16 where Paul visits Timothy, Paul was allowed stay in the house of Timothy's parents and only the mother was Christian, the father was not, yet Paul was welcomed. Acts 17:4 has Paul visiting Thessalonica and again we find it is the leading women, not men, who are Christian. Paul in Berea in Acts 17:12 shows yet again it is the Greek women "of high social standing" who are believers. Intentionally putting women at such an important event would have been only beneficial if women were a target for conversion.
Outside of the Bible we again see women's accounts as being trusted. Josephus basis his entire account of the Jewish sacrifices at Masada and Gamallah on the testimony of women. Josephus had no problem with the fact that his sources were women. We have accounts of Cicero calling women to give testimony in court, in fact there are accounts of women representing themselves at trial and could advocate for others. Where men did object to women appearing in court during antiquity in the Greco Roman world it was in no way because their testimony was unreliable, instead it was the scandal of women participating in the traditionally male spheres.
Palestinian Jews admittedly had a low view of women, but Hellenic Jews, Greeks and Romans were a different matter, who do we find the being the main targets and converts to the Christian message? These very people.If they were all liars making up the story as a bunch of frauds then why don’t their stories match each other perfectly? If you were just part of a bunch of liars then you would make sure they all your stories matched up wouldn’t you? You don’t see that in the Gospel record though. What you see are different viewpoints of the same events, which in certain areas, on the surface at least look contradictory, but when you delve into their stories a bit more you can see why there are variations.
I agree with you here, I would expect certain errors to crop up if they were telling the truth, after all they waited for soooo long before writing them down. That said I would also equally expect errors to arise if the original story travelled through different chains to get to the eventual author.Plus why would these disciples lie about a God who hates liars anyway? Think about it, if they know they are liars then they know that they are going to be judged by Him who hates liars in the end anyway.
Not a great argument. Christianity has a proud tradition of liars, fakes and frauds. Why would some Christians decide to add the miraculous ending to Mark knowing it to be a lie? Why would other Christians invent the story of the adulteress saved from stoning by Jesus knowing it did not really happen? Why did others make up the claim that Jesus said you have to be born again knowing that he actually made no such claim? Why would some Christians scribes ommit Jesus' plea for forgiveness for the Jews when copying the NT knowing what they were doing was covering up the truth?
All those are examples of Christians lying when making copies of the Gospels knowing that their God hates liars as you say, so why should the original story be any more truthful?0 -
Advertisement
-
Hume’s Maxim springs to mind in this thread, which is “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”0
-
Tim_Murphy wrote: »Hume’s Maxim springs to mind in this thread, which is “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.”
Well said Mr Hume0 -
Have you ever stopped to think how the authors of the Bible knew that Matthew 28:11-15 took place?
Read the second half of verse 15 and you will get your answer.
"15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
According to this it was common knowledge among the Jews.Its a bit like the movie The Perfect Storm. If all on board died how do they know that is what happened?
It is a bit like the movie The Perfect Storm except that all on board didn't die, only Jesus. They all eventually died but, they had been telling their story well in advance of that.If the priests and the guards settled on a lie to tell everyone how do the authors of the Bible know that is what happened?
Like I said it was common knowledge according to the verse itself.Who witnessed the guards and the priests coming up with that story?
I don't know.It seems like a handy excuse to explain away Jesus' followers simply stealing his body.
Which would make them liars right?You cannot come back to life after being executed .... it is a bit rich to be playing the "cannot" game Soul Winner :rolleyes:
That is where you are wrong. It happens all the time. DM showed proof in the article he posted. That guy was pronounced dead and was in the morgue for three days then came back to life. It happened in the Matter Hospital last year too. Read here. With all the scientific medical advances and training doctors have today I'm sure they can tell if someone is dead or not.DP doesn't need to know who. That someone, or heck all of them, is lying is still more plausible than a man coming back from the dead. I just made that explanation up. But it is still more plausible than a man rising from the dead.
If God exists then their is nothing really special about raising someone from the dead. The amazing thing about it in Jesus case is the other claims He made about Himself. If I died tomorrow and rose from the dead 3 days later then it is no big deal in terms of effecting history except that it is a really interesting story, especially to those who are close friends and family. But if before I died I had said the things that Jesus said and claimed the things that He claimed then things would be a whole different wouldn't they? Especially if you see me ascend into the sky with the witnesses standing by telling you not to be amazed that I will return in like manner.It is more plausible that Jesus had an unknown twin brother, who went around pretending to be him after Jesus himself was executed, and the disciples believed this was Jesus, than it is that a man rose from the dead.
There are a billion more plausible explanations if that is the case. Any one of which is more acceptable because the actually story that has come down to us cannot happen. How do you know it cannot happen?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Read the second half of verse 15 and you will get your answer.
"15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
According to this it was common knowledge among the Jews.
That the guards claimed they fell asleep was supposed to be common knowledge, that doesn't explain how the authors of the Bible can write about the meeting where these men were supposed to have come up with the idea to lie.
How do the authors know this meeting took place and what was said at it?
Who from the priests or the guards told their story to the authors of the Bible?Soul Winner wrote: »It is a bit like the movie The Perfect Storm except that all on board didn't die, only Jesus. They all eventually died but, they had been telling their story well in advance of that.
Possibly, but as we have already established it is not necessary for someone to be lying for them to say something that is untrue. I'm not lying when I say I remember meeting Mary Robinson, but that didn't happen.Soul Winner wrote: »Which would make them liars right?
None of these people were dead, they were mis-diagnosed.Soul Winner wrote: »That is where you are wrong. It happens all the time. DM showed proof in the article he posted. That guy was pronounced dead and was in the morgue for three days then came back to life. It happened in the Matter Hospital last year too. Read here. With all the scientific medical advances and training doctors have today I'm sure they can tell if someone is dead or not.
I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility of Jesus being mistaken for dead rather than actually dead, and that explains why his followers (and possibly even himself) believed he had risen. But you dismiss that off hand.Soul Winner wrote: »How do you know it cannot happen?
I don't know it cannot happen.
What I do know is that your assumptions that it had to happen as described are baseless.
It then becomes a choice between a really implausible situation, and a far more plausible situation (one that seems to happen all the time).
You can guess which one I would pick0 -
I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility of Jesus being mistaken for dead rather than actually dead, and that explains why his followers (and possibly even himself) believed he had risen. But you dismiss that off hand.
How can you be ready to accept this viewpoint that Jesus was not really quite dead yet?0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »How can you be ready to accept this viewpoint that Jesus was not really quite dead yet?
Because things like that have happened in the past, and it plausibly fits into what is known about human biology.
I'm not saying it did happen, but it is certainly plausible, where as his body being deceased and then rising from the dead is not plausible.
Given the choice between an explanation that fits within what we know about physics chemistry and biology and an explanation that requires the temporary altering of the universe, I'll go with the former over the later.0 -
Because things like that have happened in the past, and it plausibly fits into what is known about human biology.
I'm not saying it did happen, but it is certainly plausible, where as his body being deceased and then rising from the dead is not plausible.
Have you ever examined what hapens during a scourging and crucifixion?0 -
Certainly. I would find it doubtful that a person would survived a crucifixion. But then I find it very doubtful that he would be then placed in a tomb guarded by soldiers. And I find it even more doubtful that he would rise from the dead.BrianCalgary wrote: »Have you ever examined what hapens during a scourging and crucifixion?
As I said to Soul Winner, given that you believe something that defies all known biological, physical and chemical systems happen it seems rather strange to be poking holes in alternative theories because they are unlikely.0 -
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »Why would you doubt this?
Because Jesus was supposed to be a rebel leader.
The purpose of crucifixion is that a person is not buried. It is not actually the horrible death that is the ultimate punishment, it is the lack of burial, because the Romans believed that lack of burial meant a person was dishonored in this life and the next.
To allow the burial of Jesus, a rebel leader, after his crucifixion would undermine the whole purpose of crucifixion in the first place, which was to send a message to other rebel leaders. While there is evidence that burial was allowed for some criminals with very wealthy families it was the exception not the rule, and it would have certainly been strange for someone who was supposed to have caused such problems. It would be like letting Jesus off some of his punishment. Why would they do that?
It is possible that Jesus was not as big a deal to the authorities as made out in the Bible, and he was simple executed without a fuss and had burial bought for him through corrupt Roman soldier without the higher authorities being aware or caring. But then it is unlikely that the Romans would have guarded his tomb or even been aware of him.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »Have you ever examined what hapens during a scourging and crucifixion?
How bad was the whipping of Jesus? From the Gospel accounts it doesn't seem to have been a major event and is only mentioned in passing.Wicknight wrote:The purpose of crucifixion is that a person is not buried. It is not actually the horrible death that is the ultimate punishment, it is the lack of burial, because the Romans believed that lack of burial meant a person was dishonored in this life and the next.
This is an interesting point, it have heard the argument that the Romans would have allowed the bodies to be removed in order to appease the Jews as Jewish law forbids an executed body to be left hanging overnight, however it does not seem in keeping with the historical accounts we have of Pilate who seemed to be a man with little time for respecting Jewish customs.
Even if the Romans felt generous and allowed Jesus to be taken down there is still the problem of Jewish law to be overcome. The Torah forbids executed men from being buried the normal way. Their bodies were required to be put in atoning graveyards away from the ordinary graves.
If the Romans were not sensitive to Jewish traditions then Jesus would have been left on the cross, if Romans were sensitive to them then he would have been dishonorably buried. For me the whole story is unbelieveable before we even get to the miraculous resurrection.
P.S. What was a man from Arimathea (wherever that was) doing with a family tomb in Jerusalem?0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »P.S. What was a man from Arimathea (wherever that was) doing with a family tomb in Jerusalem?
According to some of the Bible he just laid Jesus in a freshly cut tomb (handy) that happened to be near by in a garden.
Which is a bit suspect, tombs weren't just left open for anyone to use, and cruxifictions didn't tend to be done beside gardens. It's suggested that it was his "own tomb" in Matthew, which as you say is a bit implausible.
You though again have the issue of the Romans giving this council member the body of Jesus to bury, which is rather implausible (again even before you get to the rising from the dead issue)0 -
Boy you guys talk such crud. Why would Joseph of Arimathea having a tomb in Jersualem be implausable?0
-
Depeche_Mode wrote: »How bad was the whipping of Jesus? From the Gospel accounts it doesn't seem to have been a major event and is only mentioned in passing.
?
He was whacked 39 times with a whip that had boneshards and I belive stone in them. The stone would cause a bruise and the shard would break it open. Most died after the 25th or so whip. Jesus stuck around for the duration.
Use your common sense here DM, when the gospels where written everyone reading would have known how and quantity of scourging took place. There was no need to go into details.
It was a mjor whipping that most died from. His back would have been torn open to teh born. Exposed ribs and a huge loss of blood.0 -
Because Jesus was supposed to be a rebel leader.
The purpose of crucifixion is that a person is not buried. It is not actually the horrible death that is the ultimate punishment, it is the lack of burial, because the Romans believed that lack of burial meant a person was dishonored in this life and the next.
To allow the burial of Jesus, a rebel leader, after his crucifixion would undermine the whole purpose of crucifixion in the first place, which was to send a message to other rebel leaders. While there is evidence that burial was allowed for some criminals with very wealthy families it was the exception not the rule, and it would have certainly been strange for someone who was supposed to have caused such problems. It would be like letting Jesus off some of his punishment. Why would they do that?
It is possible that Jesus was not as big a deal to the authorities as made out in the Bible, and he was simple executed without a fuss and had burial bought for him through corrupt Roman soldier without the higher authorities being aware or caring. But then it is unlikely that the Romans would have guarded his tomb or even been aware of him.
Jesus was not supposed to be a rebel leader. He was a rabbi whom the Jewish authorities wanted dead because of His 'heretical' teaching. As such they wanted him killed and had to persuade a reluctant Roman governor to sanction the execution.
The Gospels actually portray Jesus as having a pretty positive relationship with the Romans.0 -
He was a rabbi whom the Jewish authorities wanted dead because of His 'heretical' teaching. As such they wanted him killed and had to persuade a reluctant Roman governor to sanction the execution.
...as a rebel leader. Jesus' official crime (according to the Bible) was sedition, attempting to subvert the authority of Rome.
Luke 23:1-2
1 And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.
The authority of Rome rested in its association with the Temple. The Romans regularly dealt very harshly with any perceived threat to the authority of the Temple because it was through the temple that Rome channelled its power.0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »How bad was the whipping of Jesus? From the Gospel accounts it doesn't seem to have been a major event and is only mentioned in passing.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” Genesis 1:1
Pretty 'major events' wouldn't you agree? And yet they are all encapsulated into 10 English words, and only 7 words in the Hebrew.
I would pay money and even buy popcorn to go and see someone (who is as adamant as you that a Roman Scourging is not such a big deal) to undergo one to prove it. That’s really putting your money where you mouth is. And if you were to survive such a scourging I would pay the hospital bill myself. I’d even visit you and feed you grapes.0 -
Most people survived the scourging. In fact most survived the scourging long enough to be on the cross for up to 5 days before they died from choking due to the pressure on the lungs cause by the crucifixion.Soul Winner wrote: »And if you were to survive such a scourging I would pay the hospital bill myself. I’d even visit you and feed you grapes.
Jesus "died" surprisingly fast even by Roman standards as the Bible describes the Romans come back to speed up Jesus' death to find him already dead after only 9 hours up there.
If one assumes Jesus was dead after 9 hours either Jesus was very weak or received a very harsh scourging (as 1 Peter 2 suggests) and someone wasn't doing their job properly because a speedy death is the opposite to what the crucifixion was supposed to be about.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »He was whacked 39 times with a whip that had boneshards and I belive stone in them. The stone would cause a bruise and the shard would break it open. Most died after the 25th or so whip. Jesus stuck around for the duration[...]It was a mjor whipping that most died from. His back would have been torn open to teh born. Exposed ribs and a huge loss of blood.
So he carried his cross how exactly? He'd apparently been whipped over half again as much as your average joe can survive and then relatively succesfully carried a pretty large lump of heavy wood quite a distance.0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »He was whacked 39 times with a whip that had boneshards and I belive stone in them. The stone would cause a bruise and the shard would break it open. Most died after the 25th or so whip. Jesus stuck around for the duration.
Use your common sense here DM, when the gospels where written everyone reading would have known how and quantity of scourging took place. There was no need to go into details.
It was a mjor whipping that most died from. His back would have been torn open to teh born. Exposed ribs and a huge loss of blood.
Out of interests where does the claim of 39 lashes come from? I have heard it before but I don't see it in the Gospels. Matthew just says "he had Jesus whipped", Mark says "he had Jesus whipped", Luke claims Jesus was hit by the guards but he was not whipped, John says Pilate "had him whipped".
I do agree that there would be no need to go into detail if everyone reading the accounts understood the usual severity of a whipping prior to crucifiction, however I don't think that the whipping was as bad as you imagine. The whole point of a crucifiction was to cause prolonged suffering, crucifying a man who was already close to death kind of defeats the whole purpose.
There were two types of whip, the flagella which as I believe was like a leather strap and the flagra which was an iron chain with shards of bone or iron. The flagella was the usual device used for whipping and the flagra used only in the most extreme cases of heinous crimes. There is nothing in the accounts to suggest that the flagra was used on Jesus. The average reader back then when seeing that Jesus was whipped would assume the flagella was used, if it was an unusual case where extreme punishment was given then we would assume this would have been mentioned.
From what I understand whipping prior to execution was a Roman tactic not intended as a punishment in itself but as a method for ensuring the criminal would not put up much of a fight when recieving his actual punishment, crucifiction, the more agitated the criminal was the harsher he would be whipped and the severity would be decided by the Roman Lictors overseeing the process. Jesus' demeanor in the Gospels was one of a broken, dejected man, there is no reason to assume a vicious scourging would have been inflicted. Let us not forget that Pilate was surprised how quickly Jesus died. If Jesus was close to death prior to crucifiction then why on earth would the man who ordered his prior whipping be surprised?
All the evidence points to a relatively mild whipping:
(1) The Gospel writers do not clarify that a flagra was used which would be extremely unusual punishment and very worthy of mention.
(2) Jesus' behaviour prior to execution did not necessitate a harsh whipping.
(3) Jesus was capable of carrying his cross / cross beam a significant distance mostly unaided.
(4) Jesus was able to carry out conversations whilst on the cross.
(5) The man who ordered his whipping was surprised he died so quickly.
Finally we come to the story in John of the spear in the side to confirm death. This comes back to the point you made that people back then would have known how harsh his punishment would have been prior to death. It could well be the case that the original story was just not convincing enough and many people were suspicious that Jesus was still alive prior to being taken off the cross. They would have known that Jesus would have recieved a normal whipping prior to crucifiction, certainly no worse than his two neighbours on the other crosses. They would have also known that people do not die after just three hours on a cross, they usually are up there for days. People would have been suspicious.
I think that these criticism were being made towards the Christian preachers from very early on so in an effort to counter them the final Gospel written includes a lttle detail not mentioned in the first three, "proof" that Jesus was dead. What really seems suspicious to me is that immediately after the claim of the spear in Jesus' side in John's Gospel the author then says "The one who saw this happen has spoken of it, so that you may believe. What he said is true, and he knows he speaks the truth". This really does appear to me to be a desperate attempt to cover over the obvious flaw with the first three Gospels and the fact that this claim to truth is made immediately after the detail of the spear really does make me think the author is lying and made this claim up and then appeals to the reader to believe the anonymous witness he references.0
Advertisement