Jesus Resurrection

[leroy]

Scholars today know that at best the author of Luke was mistaken.

Yes luke probably made a mistake, even if this is the case that is not a big deal, all ancient historians made mistakes. For example jesephus has the dead of James incorrect ......in my opinion it is not a big deal.

This minor mistake is irrelevant competed to all the historical data that he got correct.

But those who hold un to the doctrine of biblical inherrancy can still argue that there where 2 different census.

By the way, you do realize that Luke was probably not written by Luke that followed Paul, don't you?

All the evidence indicates that Luke (Paul's travel companion ) is the author.

But even if someone else was the author, it is irrelevant, Luke and Acts was written by ssfirst class historian who did proper research and had access to proper sources.

 

[leroy]

No, I am not being inconsistent. Why would you make such an obvious false claim? The Romans kept good records of what they did. There are contemporaneous records of the people that I am talking about. There are no such records for Jesus. Like many creationists you seem to think that there is only one source for a belief.

Try again.

You claim that the gospels are not reliable because they where written 40+ years after the events, because the authors where not eye witnesses, .aad because there are no external sources that validate the claim .right?


But then you afirm
that there was a census on 6BC despite the fact that you don't have any document written by an eye witness, the only document that we have is date 100+ years after the event and you don't have other independent sources to corroborate that census.

Don't you see your double standard?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes luke probably made a mistake, even if this is the case that is not a big deal, all ancient historians made mistakes. For example jesephus has the dead of James incorrect ......in my opinion it is not a big deal.

This minor mistake is irrelevant competed to all the historical data that he got correct.

But those who hold un to the doctrine of biblical inherrancy can still argue that there where 2 different census.

Sorry, but they can't. That part of the story was one error after another. It was obviously a false from whole cloth. Censuses for taxation purposes tax people where they live.. It makes no sense and would be disastrous to require people to return to ancient lands. Herod ruled a kingdom that
was not part of Rome proper. It was a vassal state and would have paid tribute. It was not until after he died and his kids screwed up that Rome took over and then ran a census. Mary would not have needed to travel,and why would she risk her child?

All that those that believe in biblical inerrancy have are ever weaker excuses.

All the evidence indicates that Luke (Paul's travel companion ) is the author.

But even if someone else was the author, it is irrelevant, Luke and Acts was written by first class historian who did proper research and had access to proper sources.

The author of Luke And Acts merely had place names right. That hardly makes him a stellar researcher, especially if he lived in the area.

and where do you think that the records of the various censuses are from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claim that the gospels are not reliable because they where written 40+ years after the events, because the authors where not eye witnesses, .aad because there are no external sources that validate the claim .right?


But then you afirm
that there was a census on 6BC despite the fact that you don't have any document written by an eye witness, the only document that we have is date 100+ years after the event and you don't have other independent sources to corroborate that census.

Don't you see your double standard?

where did you get thatidea?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

According to Josephus, James the brother of Jesus died in 62AD, according Hegesippus and Clement, he died in the year 69AD, But nobody makes a big deal, at worst we can say that we don’t know the date of his death, but that doesn’t mean that we most drop Josephus and ignore all of his work, just because he disagrees with other authors.

Is Josephus claiming to be God's Word and inerrant?

But those who hold un to the doctrine of biblical inherrancy can still argue that there where 2 different census.

But the people who say that would have to find the other one.

 

[Jollybear]

Because that’s not what the scriptures say. Subductionzone said your reading comprehension skills are bad.

And hes wrong, like you and kelly who likes your post.

I believe you don’t care to study, u just look for stuff that confirms your beliefs and ignore things that goes against your beliefs.

Oh? Why do you believe that now?

Hmm, do you do that yourself?

Now, if you have read to understand Hosea Chapter 6, then you will know that chapter was about a call for the people to repent and return to God. The significance of the “two days” was a symbolic reference to a short period of time and “on the third day He will raise us up” was a symbolic reference to a time AFTER we have been revived - it’s symbolic and has nothing to do with Jesus rising from the dead in a 3-days limit period because Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.

So, jesus was not killed or crucified?

On page 49 you said this

"1. Jesus predicted his death not resurrection and Peter’s response to Jesus’ first such about his death is to rebuke him. Jesus then calls Peter “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). And there is nothing implausible about Jesus foreseeing death as at least a real possibility because he was a wanted man."

And page 53 you said

"As I said before Jesus ‘predicting’ his death CANNOT be said a prediction BUT an EXPECTATION because Jesus knew the Jews hated him and were determined to kill him and in those circumstances, Jesus knew its HIGHLY LIKELY he will be arrested, put on trial under false charges, will be found guilty and under the laws of the day, will be sentenced to death ie. to be killed by crucifixion. So, clearly, Jesus was not predicting his death BUT he was EXPECTING his death.

So, umm, before you start saying the bible contraficts itself, why dont you stop contradicting YOUR self.

Which one is it, he was crucified or not?

Also your other contradiction was also quoted. First you said he predicted his death then said it wasnt a prediction, but a expectation.

But, hey, who cares about these nitpicky words and samantics of yours.

The FACT that Jesus had used the same ‘on the third day will be raised to life’ reference as what was written in the Old testament tell us that Jesus too knew the people of his times have diverted and will continue to divert from God’s path and by using the same ‘third day’ reference as Hosea Chapter 6, Jesus was in fact calling on his people to repent from their MAN-MADE laws and return to God.

I agree, but, the context and syntax of mark 8 is a literal death and rising.

So, did Jesus predict his death and resurrection ?

Obviously NOT. ( three death predictions are redactional creations of the author) Jesus was NOT predicting his death BUT, under those circumstances, Jesus was expecting death and by using the same ‘third day will be raised to life’ reference as what was written in the Old Testament? Jesus was NOT predicting his resurrection, BUT was reminding his people of the last day that is, the day of the Resurrection (when all the dead WILL BE resurrected) and was calling on his people to repent and return to the one and only true God, the same God to whom he himself had prayed to, the same God he had told his people as the only one to be worshiped and to be served, the same God who had sent him to them.

Ok, so, if Jesus did not say or MEAN he would rise from death, then, why does the story end with him rising and appearing to the woman and disciples? Was that symbolic too?

 

[Jollybear]

Is Josephus claiming to be God's Word and inerrant?


But the people who say that would have to find the other one.

Subduction wont answer my question. Mayby you will.

What motive would luke have in making up a census when a census is not needed for a virgin birth? Nor is it a part of his main theims and purpose of his narative.

So, whats his motive?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction wont answer my question. Mayby you will.

What motive would luke have in making up a census when a census is not needed for a virgin birth? Nor is it a part of his main theims and purpose of his narative.

So, whats his motive?

I answered your question multiple times. You did not like the answer. Not liking the answer does not mean that you did not get one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And hes wrong, like you and kelly who likes your post.

Please note that I am not the only one that has noticed your poor reading skills. But then as I have pointed out before cognitive dissonance can do strange things to one's thinking process. People that are normally very intelligent suddenly have trouble following a line of thought when their cherished beliefs are threatened.

 

[Jollybear]

I answered your question multiple times. You did not like the answer. Not liking the answer does not mean that you did not get one.

No, you responded, you did not answer.

Saying you cant read minds is a response, not an answer.

 

[Jollybear]

Please note that I am not the only one that has noticed your poor reading skills. But then as I have pointed out before cognitive dissonance can do strange things to one's thinking process. People that are normally very intelligent suddenly have trouble following a line of thought when their cherished beliefs are threatened.

And THIS IS YOU. Thats you your talking about here, why dont you SEE this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you responded, you did not answer.

Saying you cant read minds is a response, not an answer.

Nope, I answered. The problem is that you tend to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions and then get irritated when people will not answer the way that you want them to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And THIS IS YOU. Thats you your talking about here, why dont you SEE this?

Because as anyone that reads this thread can see I am not the one with that problem. You seem to have a problem seeing the errors in the Bible. They exist whether you like it or not. That does not necessarily refute Christianity, but it does show that the reason to believe is not well founded at all.

 

[joelr]

Just because you say that dont mean anything to me. Heres what i want from you.

The quoted section THEN the source by it. Otherwise how do i know your not using some factor and slanting it with your perspective in order to misslead?

No, you don't want that. I gave you an article sourced by Richard Carrier, complete with books and page numbers. You can't argue with that so you're pretending that I didn't give sources and then in other answers you admit there were sources but say they were "bad" sources.
Why would I want to mislead? I'm passing on information, what you do with it is your choice.
You know you could google "Kata Matthaion euangelion" and "gospels" and figure it out for yourself. You will just wank around in every direction and use denial or slander no matter what source I give so why waste my time?

Your perspective.

Not mine, I use only scholarship.

Paul mentions Jesus was crucified and put in tomb and appeared to the apostles. Paul met with peter, james and john.

Like I said he mentions only the resurrection, no aspects of his Earthly life Paul mentions only knowledge from scripture and revelation (hallucination).

All your perspective. And i dont care about your perspective. I care about debating where the facts lay and the issues that come from the facts.

Isn't my perspective, it's Phd historians perspective.

There is no debate. You already lost. I gave sources about other historical savior demigods which you ignored. Again, you can easily corroborate the Greek at the beginning of each gospel.
When facts go against your beliefs you just play games. Go back to the essay and show me one source which is wrong.
The "issues that come from the facts" are denial and silly games.

Well.....i care. So, if you dont care, why are you putting your own worthless 2 cents in here?

I'm not putting any cents in. I told you you lost, you haven't dealt with the sources on an issue we were discussing. The end.

Well that was some people, yea, not all though. And i dont know how you could even possibly know how it could be "most".

Because back then there were people called historians who give actual information about the time.
Tell me where Justin Martyr says most people were not superstitious. Use one of these "sources" you are barking for.
Even in the bible the non-believers are believing OTHER gods.

Man, your incredable. Everytime you do that means nothing to me. Quote the section then the source next to it, otherwise how do i know your not speaking a factor with your slanted spin? And seeing your careless additude makes me not trust you on top of it either.

That's funny, by "careless attitude" you mean an educated person who doesn't blindly follow superstitious nonsense and actually reads what historians say about the era.
I just gave you an essay sourced from a Phd yet you keep pretending like I just made a bunch of stuff up? The denial is thick.

Maybe you "know your not speaking a factor with your slanted spin" because the article was written by a historian. DER!!!

I care because for me thats the most important thing in this debate. So if you dont TRY to care, well, get lost because i dont care to talk to you.

Again, when I have facts you pretend like I don't care then say you DO care so you can't possibly talk with me. Hilarious.
Now, if I say "who cares" about some ridiculous bible passage that makes perfect sense because the bible has ZERO credibility. There are no outside sources that support it.
Any mention of the religion are just talking about members of the cult.

Using gospel passages proves nothing so there is no debate there. The historical arguments are relevant. Unfortunately you can't deal with historians. Fine. You lose.

Yes it DOES matter and if you dont try to care, again, get lost, people like you **** me off.

I can see that educated people annoy you. All those facts.

The worst part is when I say "it doesn't matter" I'm talking about YOU. Any source I use YOU will ignore. You are not interested in a historical debate. So it does not matter.
Now you're pretending like "oh it matters to me!" Ok, then go back, look at any source and then tell me why you don't believe it.

You just looked at like 100 sources and shut them down in probably 1 second. In fact I'm pretty sure you didn't even look at anything. You just came here and asked for more sources.

Because the sources you gave me are crap. On top of it, you didnt quote the relavent sections with sourcing the section near it. Thats what i want. You dont care to do that, get lost. Im not a hypocrite either, i do that very same thing for my debate opponents.

Is that right? Hmm let's see are there any mentions of physical resurrection of demigod Osiris’s body? There are. Where? Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676.

Now that essay gives dozens.
I could post 100 more essays and endless history from historians and you'll just say "they are crap". You are a fraud.

Quote the section and provide the exact relative spot plutarch says the angel son of god jashua. Come on man, if you gave a crap to put your 2 cents in, give a real crap and do that curtisy for me.

I just gave you a Greek passage that is so easy to look up and you got all paranoid and said I'm trying to mislead you? Done. I'm not spending time looking it up again.
Carrier mentions it here at 8 min

The apostles, the witnesses, the church fathers who knew the witnesses, THOSE being persecuted have bearing. Subductionzone has done a better job debating then you have and that dont mean i agree with him because i dont. But, at a minimum, hes done way better then you.

Oh no, I'm not at suboxonezone level, oh no?!

Using gospels as a historical source is hilarious. It's fan fiction.

Exactly, you dont know your crap. Care, quote the relative section, source the relative section.

Except not Greek because then I'm trying to mislead you.
Also not the 50 sources in the article right.
Please stop kidding yourself. Any sources I post you will call crap. Your not looking for a debate. I really don't know what your doing?

I wont do that if you CARE, QUOTE the relative sections and source the relative SPOTS.

ok, please see my other post with all the sources and page numbers then tell me why you don't agree with them
If you want to say "those are crap" then explain why.

-(hint, I already know you are not going to deal with any historical facts.)

If you dont care if i "burry my head in the sand" then why are you adding your 2 cents?

I don't know but I definitely don't care if you want to believe in Hercules, Osirus or Jesus.
Jump right in.

You quote the relative sections, source the relative spots then ill show you where its wrong.

Oh is that right?
Let's go back to the top of the post,

In Greek the gospels start with euangelion kata -
The Gospel of Matthew = [To euangelion kata Matthaion]
which is how Greek writers said "as told to me by"

Let's confirm that with a Ph.D. bible historian,

"Because regardless of how codex or scroll tags worked, Kata Markon simply means “as told by Mark,” not “as written by Mark” (a different Greek phrase was used for the latter). It is a designation of source, not authorship. Which, as a title, generally was something invented ad hoc (otherwise you would have the author, “as written by,” saying he got his information from Mark and who Mark was and so on). In any case it never means “written by.”

Christians (alone in antiquity, and solely in this case) quickly conflated these concepts because they needed the sources to be the authors themselves, and legends grew advocating that view (e.g. it’s obvious Irenaeus, and everyone else, got this idea from Papias, who says he learned it from dubious oral lore, even though Papias was a stupid and gullible man, as Eusebius reports, and what he wrote about the Gospels is either false or not even referring to our Gospels, since we can see it fails to match them).

Amazing Proofs of Jesus! • Richard Carrier

 

[leroy]

The author of Luke And Acts merely had place names right.

He had names, titles, cities, geografy, political structure etc right.

That hardly makes him a stellar researcher, especially if he lived in the area

.

Ok so we both agree that the author of Luke and acts lived in the area, not in a land far away.

This means that he was likely to have access to proper sources,

 

[Subduction Zone]

He had names, titles, cities, geografy, political structure etc right.

.

Ok so we both agree that the author of Luke and acts lived in the area, not in a land far away.

This means that he was likely to have access to proper sources,

Again, something that would not be surprising for a person living in the area at that time. It does not make him a historian at all. He also got some major claims wrong. You can't only look at what he got right, you also have to consider what he got wrong. So not that amazing of a historian after all. But that is what happens when one tries to create a false narrative.

 

[Jollybear]

Because as anyone that reads this thread can see I am not the one with that problem. You seem to have a problem seeing the errors in the Bible. They exist whether you like it or not. That does not necessarily refute Christianity, but it does show that the reason to believe is not well founded at all.

Oh im sure not everyone reading this thread would agree with your statement here.

And errors are not the same as dishonesty. I know what the bibles REAL errors are, and there not of the type you like to claim.

 

[Jollybear]

No, you don't want that. I gave you an article sourced by Richard Carrier, complete with books and page numbers. You can't argue with that so you're pretending that I didn't give sources and then in other answers you admit there were sources but say they were "bad" sources.
Why would I want to mislead? I'm passing on information, what you do with it is your choice.
You know you could google "Kata Matthaion euangelion" and "gospels" and figure it out for yourself. You will just wank around in every direction and use denial or slander no matter what source I give so why waste my time?



Not mine, I use only scholarship.



Like I said he mentions only the resurrection, no aspects of his Earthly life Paul mentions only knowledge from scripture and revelation (hallucination).



Isn't my perspective, it's Phd historians perspective.

There is no debate. You already lost. I gave sources about other historical savior demigods which you ignored. Again, you can easily corroborate the Greek at the beginning of each gospel.
When facts go against your beliefs you just play games. Go back to the essay and show me one source which is wrong.
The "issues that come from the facts" are denial and silly games.



I'm not putting any cents in. I told you you lost, you haven't dealt with the sources on an issue we were discussing. The end.







Because back then there were people called historians who give actual information about the time.
Tell me where Justin Martyr says most people were not superstitious. Use one of these "sources" you are barking for.
Even in the bible the non-believers are believing OTHER gods.



That's funny, by "careless attitude" you mean an educated person who doesn't blindly follow superstitious nonsense and actually reads what historians say about the era.
I just gave you an essay sourced from a Phd yet you keep pretending like I just made a bunch of stuff up? The denial is thick.

Maybe you "know your not speaking a factor with your slanted spin" because the article was written by a historian. DER!!!



Again, when I have facts you pretend like I don't care then say you DO care so you can't possibly talk with me. Hilarious.
Now, if I say "who cares" about some ridiculous bible passage that makes perfect sense because the bible has ZERO credibility. There are no outside sources that support it.
Any mention of the religion are just talking about members of the cult.

Using gospel passages proves nothing so there is no debate there. The historical arguments are relevant. Unfortunately you can't deal with historians. Fine. You lose.



I can see that educated people annoy you. All those facts.

The worst part is when I say "it doesn't matter" I'm talking about YOU. Any source I use YOU will ignore. You are not interested in a historical debate. So it does not matter.
Now you're pretending like "oh it matters to me!" Ok, then go back, look at any source and then tell me why you don't believe it.

You just looked at like 100 sources and shut them down in probably 1 second. In fact I'm pretty sure you didn't even look at anything. You just came here and asked for more sources.




Is that right? Hmm let's see are there any mentions of physical resurrection of demigod Osiris’s body? There are. Where? Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676.

Now that essay gives dozens.
I could post 100 more essays and endless history from historians and you'll just say "they are crap". You are a fraud.




I just gave you a Greek passage that is so easy to look up and you got all paranoid and said I'm trying to mislead you? Done. I'm not spending time looking it up again.
Carrier mentions it here at 8 min

Oh no, I'm not at suboxonezone level, oh no?!

Using gospels as a historical source is hilarious. It's fan fiction.



Except not Greek because then I'm trying to mislead you.
Also not the 50 sources in the article right.
Please stop kidding yourself. Any sources I post you will call crap. Your not looking for a debate. I really don't know what your doing?



ok, please see my other post with all the sources and page numbers then tell me why you don't agree with them
If you want to say "those are crap" then explain why.

-(hint, I already know you are not going to deal with any historical facts.)



I don't know but I definitely don't care if you want to believe in Hercules, Osirus or Jesus.
Jump right in.



Oh is that right?
Let's go back to the top of the post,

In Greek the gospels start with euangelion kata -
The Gospel of Matthew = [To euangelion kata Matthaion]
which is how Greek writers said "as told to me by"

Let's confirm that with a Ph.D. bible historian,

"Because regardless of how codex or scroll tags worked, Kata Markon simply means “as told by Mark,” not “as written by Mark” (a different Greek phrase was used for the latter). It is a designation of source, not authorship. Which, as a title, generally was something invented ad hoc (otherwise you would have the author, “as written by,” saying he got his information from Mark and who Mark was and so on). In any case it never means “written by.”

Christians (alone in antiquity, and solely in this case) quickly conflated these concepts because they needed the sources to be the authors themselves, and legends grew advocating that view (e.g. it’s obvious Irenaeus, and everyone else, got this idea from Papias, who says he learned it from dubious oral lore, even though Papias was a stupid and gullible man, as Eusebius reports, and what he wrote about the Gospels is either false or not even referring to our Gospels, since we can see it fails to match them).

Amazing Proofs of Jesus! • Richard Carrier

Ill respond in a meticulious way to you when i get the chance. Ill build my post a little each day before posting the whole thing. Because what you want from me will take alot of time. However after i put all that time in, i doubt youl look at me as honest just like you currently persist in looking at me that way now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh im sure not everyone reading this thread would agree with your statement here.

And errors are not the same as dishonesty. I know what the bibles REAL errors are, and there not of the type you like to claim.

No, you seriously do not. You could not handle the errors that the author of Luke made. You probably cannot handle the errors of the made up lineage of Jesus. When you are reduced to making excuses the argument has been lost.

 

[Jollybear]

No, you seriously do not. You could not handle the errors that the author of Luke made. You probably cannot handle the errors of the made up lineage of Jesus. When you are reduced to making excuses the argument has been lost.

So far here is what ive learned from you and some others from our debate.

Im dishonest. Im ignorant. I have cognitive dissonance. I dont study or research.

Also the apostles never really claimed to be witnesses. They wernt really myrters or persecuted. And even jesus prediction of his resurrection meant symbolically. In fact the whole new testament is a figurative resurrection. Also the natural avents in the bible are made up too, not just the supernatural stuff.

Oh and the story of jesus is plagurized from pagan myths.

Thats a nutshell summery of 54 pages of debate.

Quite pathetic.