• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It is a wrong notion that Mary was begotten by the Christian-God. Mary was not a wife unto G-d.

Regards


Then have a discussion with those that believe that. I was trying to explain that the virgin birth story was a myth that was based upon a mistranslation of a verse that was not even a prophesy in the first place. Some Christians put far too much stock in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
A previous poster wrote: "From the Bible we learn that Jesus did die, and his God resurrected the dead Jesus from the grave."

Not according to Mark...

Yes, according to Mark 16:6-7 - "“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him just as he told you.’”
Mark chapter 15 records Jesus' death.

It's verses 16:9-10 that are not in the earliest manuscripts (though they could have been oral traditions).
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
You are mistaken on who has the burden of proof in this case.

Nope. If you Christ-deniers make a claim like dogs ate the body of Jesus THEN IT IS UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP WITH SOME EVIDENCE.

You just can't throw a barrack's bag of nonsense against the wall and yell out for someone else to clean up and verify your mess.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
A previous poster wrote: "From the Bible we learn that Jesus did die, and his God resurrected the dead Jesus from the grave."



Yes, according to Mark 16:6-7 - "“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him just as he told you.’”
Mark chapter 15 records Jesus' death.

It's verses 16:9-10 that are not in the earliest manuscripts (though they could have been oral traditions).
Chapter 16 is a later addition to Mark. Mark’s narrative ends with “for terror had seized them.”
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Chapter 16 is a later addition to Mark. Mark’s narrative ends with “for terror had seized them.”

Not so. It's only verses 16:9-20 that are not in the earliest manuscripts (though they could have been oral traditions). Most study Bibles have that specifically noted.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
To sojourner: Here's a photo of Mark chapter 16 showing it's only verses 9-20 that are not in the earliest manuscripts.

d38a6db3-bd4e-4462-b587-5e0764af14dd-Mark-16.jpg
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nope. If you Christ-deniers make a claim like dogs ate the body of Jesus THEN IT IS UP TO YOU TO BACK IT UP WITH SOME EVIDENCE.

You just can't throw a barrack's bag of nonsense against the wall and yell out for someone else to clean up and verify your mess.
Nope, if you want to claim that something that occurred that was far outside of the norm occurred the burden of proof is upon you. But you know that you have no reliable evidence so you play the shift the burden of proof game. There is evidence of how those that were crucified were treated. You want to claim an exception. The ball is in your court.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Nope, if you want to claim that something that occurred that was far outside of the norm occurred the burden of proof is upon you. But you know that you have no reliable evidence so you play the shift the burden of proof game. There is evidence of how those that were crucified were treated. You want to claim an exception. The ball is in your court.

Nope. You make wild claims YOU back them up. And where's Crossan's evidence that dogs ate the body of Jesus????
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
I am curious. What wild claim did I make?

Post # 784 - You inferred I have the the burden of proof to dispel Crossan's claim that dogs ate the body of Jesus.

Post 778 - You wrote: "They will make excuses for James. He was the son of Joseph from an earlier marriage."

Where's your evidence James was the son of Joseph via a previous marriage?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Post # 784 - You inferred I have the the burden of proof to dispel Crossan's claim that dogs ate the body of Jesus.

Post 778 - You wrote: "They will make excuses for James. He was the son of Joseph from an earlier marriage."

Where's your evidence James was the son of Joseph via a previous marriage?

Neither of those are wild claims. You do have a burden of proof to show that Jesus was not treated as every other criminal that was crucified was treated. And your reading comprehension needs a tune up. I never said that about James. That was an example of the excuses that believers that Mary remained a virgin tend to make.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And a poster said that it wasn't supported, you then told said poster the burden of proof was on him.

Which goes back to my first post. If he disagrees with a claim, says it 8snt supported, how is the burden of prove upon him?

If you could ask politely and properly you might get an answer.
 
Top