Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

That sure is some genealogy, especially for a guy born in a manger.

Whether you think the geneology is right or wrong would be irrelavent to my point.

The point is, why would a geneology exist at all if this gospel wer one big allegory?

 

[Prometheus85]

I just pointed out to you the article mentioned the other sources other then the bible.

Plus the bible is not ONE SOURCE, ITS MANY.

clement of Rome? Virtually nothing is known about him, or if he even existed.

It is important to note that those non canonical book were not written until almost one hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived. Thus, they cannot provide first-hand evidence for the existence of Jesus, nor his resurrection and it therefore makes sense to ask where did the authors get thier information from – who were thier sources?

 

[Jollybear]

clement of Rome? Virtually nothing is known about him, or if he even existed.

Well, if he wrote a letter, would that not indicate he existed? I mean the letter dont pop out of no where. Or, mayby it does, for you also believe the universe came from nothing too, so, i gauss this could happen, lol.

It is important to note that those non canonical book were not written until almost one hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived. Thus, they cannot provide first-hand evidence for the existence of Jesus, nor his resurrection and it therefore makes sense to ask where did the authors get thier information from – who were thier sources?

There sources wer the apostles, the apostles wer the "FIRST HAND EVIDENCE".

And did you look at that chart i gave to riders? You say a book written 100 years after is unreliable, if thats the case, youd have to say all ancient books are unreliable.

Look at this chart of historical documents compared to the New Testament.

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? | CARM.org

 

[leroy]

I'm an RN and can think of a few possibilities.

Well provide 1 naturalistic explanation and explain why is it a better explanation than a resurrection

 

[Riders]

Well, if he wrote a letter, would that not indicate he existed? I mean the letter dont pop out of no where. Or, mayby it does, for you also believe the universe came from nothing too, so, i gauss this could happen, lol.



There sources wer the apostles, the apostles wer the "FIRST HAND EVIDENCE".

And did you look at that chart i gave to riders? You say a book written 100 years after is unreliable, if thats the case, youd have to say all ancient books are unreliable.

Look at this chart of historical documents compared to the New Testament.

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document? | CARM.org

I looked it up its connected to the roman catholic church 100 years later.It has to be written outside the bible in Jesus times.If he ad risen there should be writings all over the place,

 

[leroy]

Josephus was a historical writer of the time. He wrote all sorts of stiff about John The Baptist none of which connected John to Jesus, he wrote about Ceasor the Esseens
Pha roah's of that time King Herod's off spring and only 2 sentences about Jesus and 1 pf those is questionable. Had Jesus been raised from the dead there would have been a ton of writing. Wiki says the 2 sentences from Josephus are questionable not reliant either. so there's actually little to nothing said about Jesus compared to John The Baptist and other leaders of bible times.

Caiaphas was the high priest during the time of Jesus, he was the most important and powerful Jew during that time.

And apart Josephus who only wrote a few sentences about him there are no extra biblical sources about him.

But nobody denies that he existed as a historical person. Why are you arbitrary applying a higher standard when talking about Jesus ?

 

[leroy]

I looked it up its connected to the roman catholic church 100 years later.It has to be written outside the bible in Jesus times.If he ad risen there should be writings all over the place,

Just to be clear, are you expecting "non Christian reliable sources " that affirmed the Resurrection?

 

[Riders]

Caiaphas was the high priest during the time of Jesus, he was the most important and powerful Jew during that time.

And apart Josephus who only wrote a few sentences about him there are no extra biblical sources about him.

But nobody denies that he existed as a historical person. Why are you arbitrary applying a higher standard when talking about Jesus ?

because the 2 sentences written about Jesus say nothing of him rising from the dead they are only mentions of him and yet historians say its questionable if those mentions of Jesus are legitimate and say there is proof its not real in other words its a hoax.

But I will look it up in wiki do a search for you just in case. I will see what Josephus had to say on Caiaphus and jesus.

 

[Riders]

Just to be clear, are you expecting "non Christian reliable sources " that affirmed the Resurrection?

Yes exactly if there had been a resurrection there would have been tons of reports in non Christian sources at the time.

 

[Riders]

because the 2 sentences written about Jesus say nothing of him rising from the dead they are only mentions of him and yet historians say its questionable if those mentions of Jesus are legitimate and say there is proof its not real in other words its a hoax.

But I will look it up in wiki do a search for you just in case. I will see what Josephus had to say on Caiaphus and jesus.

Heres what Wiki says about Jesus and Josephus
The extant manuscripts of the writings of the first-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3] Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] broad consensus exists as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.[17][18][19] The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[20] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of Jamesand John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[17][21] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[17][22][21]

So the only passage that has been authenticated to be true by Josephus on Jesus is the passage about his brother. Ill get the on Caiaphus.

 

[Riders]

Here is what Wiki says about Caiaphus

In November 1990, workers found an ornate limestone ossuary while paving a road in the Peace Forest south of the Abu Tor neighborhood of Jerusalem.[1][6] This ossuary appeared authentic and contained human remains. An Aramaic inscription on the side was thought to read "Joseph son of Caiaphas" and on the basis of this the bones of an elderly man were considered to belong to the High Priest Caiaphas.[1][7]Since the original discovery this identification has been challenged by some scholars on various grounds, including the spelling of the inscription, the lack of any mention of Caiaphas' status as High Priest, the plainness of the tomb (although the ossuary itself is as ornate as might be expected from someone of his rank and family), and other reasons.[7][8]

Miriam ossuary[edit]
Main article: Miriam ossuary
In June 2011, archaeologists from Bar-Ilan University and Tel Aviv University announced the recovery of a stolen ossuary, plundered from a tomb in the Valley of Elah. The Israel Antiquities Authority declared it authentic, and expressed regret that it could not be studied in situ.[9] It is inscribed with the text: "Miriam, daughter of Yeshua, son of Caiaphas, Priest of Ma’aziah from Beth ‘Imri". Based on it, Caiaphas can be assigned to the priestly course of Ma’aziah, instituted by king David.

So they found a grave for Caiaphus but it is not authenticated so but the grave for his daughter Miriam is found and authenticates is proof Caiaphus was high Priest. SO theres a grave for his daughter that is a whole horse of a different tale. Find a grave for Jesus or and his family and I will believe.

 

[leroy]

Yes exactly if there had been a resurrection there would have been tons of reports in non Christian sources at the time.

The thing is that anyone who afirms the resurrection would by definition be a Christian

 

[Riders]

The thing is that anyone who afirms the resurrection would by definition be a Christian

This came later Christians came on the scene later according to the bible Jesus was speaking to Jews. Christians can not prove he rose from the death.

There was no one at the time who wrote about it no tomb that has been proven to be Jesus. I researched the tombstone too Holy Sepulcher, it has not been authenticated either.

For what its worth, I do think its possible a guy named Jesus existed. Though the statement by Josephus about jesus being the Messiah crucified on the cross is not authentic, the statement about Jesus brother by Josephus is.

There was also evidence of a Messiah movement at the time.Jesus could have been one pf these guys or maybe the leader.

All things considered I did find one truth in all this research that I did not know before. That is that there is a lot of proof that John The Baptist lived back then and sayings about him and he did Baptize for the remission of sins.

Considering that it is possible Jesus lived. Maybe he was the leader of the Messiah movement. But there is no proof that he was raised from the dead.

There's no proof he was crucified but we do know a lot of Messiahs were crucified back then maybe Jesus was. But there's no proof he was crucified and no proof he was raised from the dead.

So even if I choose to believe Josephus writings about the brother of Jesus that jesus lived its not enough to become a Christian.

 

[Jollybear]

I looked it up its connected to the roman catholic church 100 years later.It has to be written outside the bible in Jesus times.If he ad risen there should be writings all over the place,

Why should there be writings all over the place if not everyone was a witness of it? Plus add to that, not everyone knew how to write, or read.

 

[David T]

How do you understand the resurrection then?

Why did you ask me a question about nature, by asking me a question about a text about nature? There is an innate confirmational bias in that.

Writing does not manifest nature in either religion or science but both domains tend to fantize they do. They have the Identical famtasy of the intellect, they tend to debate the details.

So i ask about nature your brain automatically triggers confusion since you believe the text has zero to do with nature just like literal ressurection believers. If ypu werent confused about nature you would have started the question with nature and not about a text about nature.

What is death?

 

[Jollybear]

Why did you ask me a question about nature, by asking me a question about a text about nature? There is an innate confirmational bias in that.

Writing does not manifest nature in either religion or science but both domains tend to fantize they do. They have the Identical famtasy of the intellect, they tend to debate the details.

So i ask about nature your brain automatically triggers confusion since you believe the text has zero to do with nature just like literal ressurection believers. If ypu werent confused about nature you would have started the question with nature and not about a text about nature.

What is death?

Ok, the nature is the apostles wer warned, persecuted and killed for there claims. The claim being what typically went always against nature, that truely dead people dont return to life, particularly in the way jesus was purported to.

Why did these witnesses die for these claims and refuse to recant under pressure IF the claim is false?

 

[Riders]

Ok, the nature is the apostles wer warned, persecuted and killed for there claims. The claim being what typically went always against nature, that truely dead people dont return to life, particularly in the way jesus was purported to.

Why did these witnesses die for these claims and refuse to recant under pressure IF the claim is false?

There were a lot of people dieing for their faith being crucified back then folks being crucified for other beliefs too.The fact that they believed a certain way and got killed for it does not make that belief true.

There are Muslims who put their life down for their faith too does that make the Muslim way right?

 

[leroy]

Yes exactly if there had been a resurrection there would have been tons of reports in non Christian sources at the time.

Well the thing is that by definition any writter that belived in the resurrection .would be a christian

 

[leroy]

There were a lot of people dieing for their faith being crucified back then folks being crucified for other beliefs too.The fact that they believed a certain way and got killed for it does not make that belief true.

There are Muslims who put their life down for their faith too does that make the Muslim way right?

No. but one could conclude that the Muslim honesntly and sincerely believed in his cause.

The same is true with the apostoles, they died in the name of something that they honestly and sincerly thought was true.

Perhaps they where wrong, but they where not liers......agree?

 

[leroy]

. Christians can not prove he rose from the death.

Christians can prove that.

-Jesus died on the cross

- Was buried on a Tomb

- the tomb was found empty

- apostoles (and others) had post mortem apierences of Jesus.

- they honestly and sincerly belived that these experiences where real. (They didnt lie)

These are historical facts accepted by nearly all scholars (including non Christians)

My suggestion is that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those facts. Feel free to provide a better explanation