The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First off, before we dive in to the argument, we have to establish whether this Jesus guy existed in the first place. This fact is a given among historians, but there are some out there in the minority that are still making a fuss about it...so let’s go ahead and establish that. Since some of you will claim "you can't use the bible to prove the bible", I will first use EXTERNAL biblical sources to make my case for the existence of Jesus.

Josephus [37-100 AD]: Josephus was a Jewish historian who reached adulthood well after Jesus' death. You can read up on him, no need get into details about his life, but he made an interesting passage about Jesus in one of his most familiar works.

The passage goes like this: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day, he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Again, as some of you may know, this passage is not without controversy, as it appears as if the passage has been interpolated, as scholars don't believe that Josephus would have made the theological claims that appears to be obviously implemented in the passage. It has been accepted that a later Christian added those parts in. The interpolated parts are underlined.

Fair enough, right? So what happens when we exclude the interpolated parts...what do we get?

The passage would read: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Looks like the historical Jesus to me...

Tacitus [56-117 AD):Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian and he also mentioned Jesus.

His passage goes like this: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at that hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…”

Tacitus’ account is a lot less controversial than Josephus’, and his mentioning of Christ is just as important.

Next we have Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger [61-113 AD]:Pliny the Younger was a magistrate of Ancient Rome, and he mentions Christ, and he is talking to Emperor Trajan about the Christians.

His passage goes like this: “I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convince that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished”

“They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves to in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oat, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery.

Now, we can put the theological stuff aside for a moment, and acknowledge the fact that we have at least 3 different sources, ALL outside the bible, and ALL non-Christian sources which testify that Jesus was a real person in history…but we have at least two more…

Lucian of Samosta [125-180 AD]: Lucian was a Greek satirist.

His passage goes like this: “The poor fools have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.”

What is amazing about this passage is the fact that some (if not most) of non-Christians feel the same way about Christians that Lucian felt.

Mara bar 'Serapion [living around 73 AD]: Mara was a philosopher who lived in the Roman Empire. I wasn’t able to determine when he was born, but it seems as if the general consensus is that he wrote the passage below around 73 AD.

His passage goes like:“What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down.”

So what do we have here? Without even reading one page in the bible, what conclusion can we draw from these 5 non-Christian sources about Jesus?

• That he lived
• That he was a wise teacher
• He laid down a “new law”
• He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
• He was worshipped
• A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
• His followers lived according to his laws
• His followers were called “Christians”

Without reading one word or turning one page of any Gospel or New Testament book, and just by seeing what these 5 non-Christian sources had to say about Jesus, we can gather at the VERY least 8 facts about the historical Jesus.

Remember, these were non-Christian sources, and at least two of them weren’t even Christian friendly.

This is part 1 of my case for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. I was going to wait until everything was complete, but what the heck. I understand that some of you may grant that Jesus as a historical figure, and if you do, then this post isn’t geared towards you. This is geared towards…the OTHERS.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

sniped for room

This is actually very well put together. It sums up a lot of the facts and it was very concise.

However I don't quite understand how you can take the above and translate it to Christianity being true. I don't quite see the evidence for that. There was a guy who existed. Gained political power with Jesus and a few Greeks. Was taken down by "the man". Became a martyr. Lots of rumors and legends arose from him to create cult.

That is all we know. No independent sources of miracles or him actually being risen from the dead. If he had then that would have at least made the footnotes. But instead it had to be added later by Christians down the line.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is actually very well put together. It sums up a lot of the facts and it was very concise.

Thank you.

However I don't quite understand how you can take the above and translate it to Christianity being true.

Reading comprehension, Monk. Remember, I was only making the case that Jesus actually existed as a real person in history. The theological claims were taken out of context of my part 1, which was just to establish the fact that, historically speaking, Jesus existed, since some of you don't even want to grant that premise.

I don't quite see the evidence for that. There was a guy who existed. Gained political power

Jesus did not seek to nor did he gain political power.

with Jesus and a few Greeks. Was taken down by "the man". Became a martyr. Lots of rumors and legends arose from him to create cult.

Any historian would tell you that legendary accounts dont develope so early after the fact. We are talking early stuff here.

That is all we know. No independent sources of miracles or him actually being risen from the dead.

I will get to that later.

If he had then that would have at least made the footnotes. But instead it had to be added later by Christians down the line.

I will address that later. Dont want to jump the gun.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Reading comprehension, Monk. Remember, I was only making the case that Jesus actually existed as a real person in history. The theological claims were taken out of context of my part 1, which was just to establish the fact that, historically speaking, Jesus existed, since some of you don't even want to grant that premise.

I wasn't responding directly above to your post with that comment. I was speaking from the foreknowledge of your position that you have stated in the past.

Jesus did not seek to nor did he gain political power.

This statement stands contradictory to what you have posted above.

Any historian would tell you that legendary accounts dont develop so early after the fact. We are talking early stuff here.

This is blatantly incorrect. Greatly exaggerated legends have developed in far less time than this one.

I will get to that later.



I will address that later. Dont want to jump the gun.

Alright. You have my patience. Proceed as you will.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I wasn't responding directly above to your post with that comment. I was speaking from the foreknowledge of your position that you have stated in the past.

Bull crap. You said, "However I don't quite understand how you can take the above and translate it to Christianity being true". And by "above" you were talking about the OP, not the foreknowledge of my position in the past.

This statement stands contradictory to what you have posted above.

When did the bible or myself make any hint towards Jesus and politics?

This is blatantly incorrect. Greatly exaggerated legends have developed in far less time than this one.

The Resurrection was a belief that was held right after the death of Jesus, Monk. Legends don't develop that quick, it takes time. If I believe that my pet dog is verbally speaking to me and I tell you about it, I am not telling you a "lengendary account". But if I start off by telling you that my dog obey my commands like "sit", "roller", and "play dead", and you tell someone...and as the message gets passed on down the line and eventually the story gets turned to me and the dog verbally communicating with one another, although the original story didn't begin that way. That is how lengendary accounts work, and it is far to early for any of that to go down in the Resurrection account.

 

[Sabour]

Well I didn't read all the OP but there are some things that caught my attention

That he lived
That he was a wise teacher
He laid down a “new law”
He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
He was worshipped
A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
His followers lived according to his laws
His followers were called “Christians”

Well Jesus peace be upon him was more than a wise teacher, he was a prophet who must be followed.

Jesus peace be upon him didn't lay down a "new law". He said I didn't come to destroy the law of the prophets, I came to fulfill it.

He wasn't worship. He said why call me good, no body is good but Allah.

Jesus peace be upon him wasn't dead nor crucified, bible proves that.

His followers are the ones who follow his teachings, there isn't a label on them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Bull crap. You said, "However I don't quite understand how you can take the above and translate it to Christianity being true". And by "above" you were talking about the OP, not the foreknowledge of my position in the past.

You can read minds now? Are you trying to tell me that this isn't leading into one of your theories that Christianity can be verified historically? If not and you admit that it isn't I'll take it back. But this section of the response was against your known opinion on the matter rather than specific context. Get over it.

When did the bible or myself make any hint towards Jesus and politics?

One cannot have "followers" without political power. Religion and politics were once one in the same and are still grossly intertwined. To say otherwise is foolishness.

The Resurrection was a belief that was held right after the death of Jesus, Monk. Legends don't develop that quick, it takes time. If I believe that my pet dog is verbally speaking to me and I tell you about it, I am not telling you a "legendary account". But if I start off by telling you that my dog obey my commands like "sit", "roller", and "play dead", and you tell someone...and as the message gets passed on down the line and eventually the story gets turned to me and the dog verbally communicating with one another, although the original story didn't begin that way. That is how legendary accounts work, and it is far to early for any of that to go down in the Resurrection account.

And you are just spouting things that you have no way of basing upon truth simply to verify your position.

Legends can develop that fast. what evidence do you have the contrary? Legends can explode quickly AND there is evidence that the claims of Jesus's divinity and miracles quickly and rapidly become more and more extravagant as time passes if you look at when the books were chronologically written.


And there is no "belief" that Jesus rose from the grave in the general population. IT was only a small cult of christians at this point. I can find a larger number of people who will join a cult today and believe it just as strongly. Strongly enough in fact to drink cyanide when the comet comes close enough.

You can make the case all you want with your facts but you CANNOT state that it is impossible for the tale of Jesus to have been exaggerated after 40 years.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well I didn't read all the OP but there are some things that caught my attention



Well Jesus peace be upon him was more than a wise teacher, he was a prophet who must be followed.

Jesus peace be upon him didn't lay down a "new law". He said I didn't come to destroy the law of the prophets, I came to fulfill it.

He wasn't worship. He said why call me good, no body is good but Allah.

Jesus peace be upon him wasn't dead nor crucified, bible proves that.

His followers are the ones who follow his teachings, there isn't a label on them.

May you should have read it...because everything you mentioned is something that was claimed by non-Christian sources regarding Jesus and the belief of his followers regarding him.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can read minds now? Are you trying to tell me that this isn't leading into one of your theories that Christianity can be verified historically? If not and you admit that it isn't I'll take it back. But this section of the response was against your known opinion on the matter rather than specific context. Get over it.

Of course it is leading into one of my theories...which is why it was labeled "Part 1". Get it?

One cannot have "followers" without political power. Religion and politics were once one in the same and are still grossly intertwined. To say otherwise is foolishness.

Oh, so I guess Charles Manson was a senator then.

And you are just spouting things that you have no way of basing upon truth simply to verify your position.

Legends can develop that fast. what evidence do you have the contrary? Legends can explode quickly AND there is evidence that the claims of Jesus's divinity and miracles quickly and rapidly become more and more extravagant as time passes if you look at when the books were chronologically written.

Give me one example of a legendary account that became legendary months after the event?

And there is no "belief" that Jesus rose from the grave in the general population.

What the heck is "general population"?

IT was only a small cult of christians at this point. I can find a larger number of people who will join a cult today and believe it just as strongly. Strongly enough in fact to drink cyanide when the comet comes close enough.

Right, a small "cult" of Christians who believed that Jesus appeared to them post-mortem...right after his death. Who cares about a "general population", my point is the belief in the Resurrection was a belief that was held shortly after his death...which is historical.

You just said yourself it was a small cult of Christians..which is irrelevant because it doesn't matter how small of a group it was..the fact of the matter is, this group believed it...it wasn't something that took years to develop.

You can make the case all you want with your facts but you CANNOT state that it is impossible for the tale of Jesus to have been exaggerated after 40 years.

It wasn't 40 years, so you are wrong again...it was months to 5 years after the cross.

 

[Ingledsva]

First off, before we dive in to the argument, we have to establish whether this Jesus guy existed in the first place. This fact is a given among historians, but there are some out there in the minority that are still making a fuss about it...so let’s go ahead and establish that. Since some of you will claim "you can't use the bible to prove the bible", I will first use EXTERNAL biblical sources to make my case for the existence of Jesus.

Josephus [37-100 AD]: Josephus was a Jewish historian who reached adulthood well after Jesus' death. You can read up on him, no need get into details about his life, but he made an interesting passage about Jesus in one of his most familiar works.

The passage goes like this: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day, he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Again, as some of you may know, this passage is not without controversy, as it appears as if the passage has been interpolated, as scholars don't believe that Josephus would have made the theological claims that appears to be obviously implemented in the passage. It has been accepted that a later Christian added those parts in. The interpolated parts are underlined.

Fair enough, right? So what happens when we exclude the interpolated parts...what do we get?

The passage would read: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Looks like the historical Jesus to me...

Tacitus [56-117 AD):Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian and he also mentioned Jesus.

His passage goes like this: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at that hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…”

Tacitus’ account is a lot less controversial than Josephus’, and his mentioning of Christ is just as important.

Next we have Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger [61-113 AD]:Pliny the Younger was a magistrate of Ancient Rome, and he mentions Christ, and he is talking to Emperor Trajan about the Christians.

His passage goes like this: “I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convince that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished”

“They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves to in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oat, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery.

Now, we can put the theological stuff aside for a moment, and acknowledge the fact that we have at least 3 different sources, ALL outside the bible, and ALL non-Christian sources which testify that Jesus was a real person in history…but we have at least two more…

Lucian of Samosta [125-180 AD]: Lucian was a Greek satirist.

His passage goes like this: “The poor fools have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people.”

What is amazing about this passage is the fact that some (if not most) of non-Christians feel the same way about Christians that Lucian felt.

Mara bar 'Serapion [living around 73 AD]: Mara was a philosopher who lived in the Roman Empire. I wasn’t able to determine when he was born, but it seems as if the general consensus is that he wrote the passage below around 73 AD.

His passage goes like:“What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down.”

So what do we have here? Without even reading one page in the bible, what conclusion can we draw from these 5 non-Christian sources about Jesus?

• That he lived
• That he was a wise teacher
• He laid down a “new law”
• He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
• He was worshipped
• A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
• His followers lived according to his laws
• His followers were called “Christians”

Without reading one word or turning one page of any Gospel or New Testament book, and just by seeing what these 5 non-Christian sources had to say about Jesus, we can gather at the VERY least 8 facts about the historical Jesus.

Remember, these were non-Christian sources, and at least two of them weren’t even Christian friendly.

This is part 1 of my case for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. I was going to wait until everything was complete, but what the heck. I understand that some of you may grant that Jesus as a historical figure, and if you do, then this post isn’t geared towards you. This is geared towards…the OTHERS.

Is not that Josephus quote the one we all discussed - which is thought to have been inserted by someone else later?

Do you recall the debates which listed others called "Christos" - Christs - before and after Jesus? And most of them hunted down and killed?


If it doesn't say Jesus, there is no proof it is about him.


However, beyond that, even if he did exist and die, there is no proof of anything supernatural.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

What if it had been prophesied hundreds of years in advance including some pretty specific details?

PSALMS 22
Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

THE LAMB SLAIN
Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

ISAIAH 53
Isaiah 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

We know they cast lots, or traded, for goods of dead criminals for thousands of years.


*

Psalm 22:16 doesn't actually say that.


"k'ari b'yadai v'raglai" - "Like a lion (they) are at my hands and feet." The disputed word here is "k'ari" which is spelled kaph - aleph - resh - yud. Ari is a lion, and that "kaph" before it means "like" or "as."


And they know it is actually “lion” – look at - 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth:


*

The Hebrew text Isaiah 53:5 isn't about Jesus either, as we find out if we read the whole thing. The first verse tells us what it is about.

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Who is "HE" in these verses?

Trace it back - to -

52:13 - God's servant!

Who is God's servant?

Trace it back - to -

41:8 "but Israel is my servant"



*

 

[Ingledsva]

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Books written later - do not make such facts.


They claim 500 saw him.



*

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Oh, so I guess Charles Manson was a senator then.

I don't think you know what political means.

Give me one example of a legendary account that became legendary months after the event?

William Wallace wasn't even religiously motivated and he had pretty amazing things said about him while he was still alive. In some cases he even had to refute some of the claims.

Muhammad had a far larger cult following than Jesus did during his own life. It didn't even take him to die as a Martyr.

What the heck is "general population"?

Other than the select few in the christian cult no one believed Jesus rose from the dead. It is not a historical fact that he rose from the dead. In fact it isn't even historical fact that the disciples believed that immediately after.

Right, a small "cult" of Christians who believed that Jesus appeared to them post-mortem...right after his death. Who cares about a "general population", my point is the belief in the Resurrection was a belief that was held shortly after his death...which is historical.

read above.

You just said yourself it was a small cult of Christians..which is irrelevant because it doesn't matter how small of a group it was..the fact of the matter is, this group believed it...it wasn't something that took years to develop.

It doesn't have to take years. In fact they could "say anything" and it could easily kick start the legend if they put some fuel on it such as that. It seems far more likely that they would have lied or fooled themselves into believing god rose than Christ himself actually rising from the dead. But none of this really has any meaning till you find a way to tie in the religious aspect of your argument with the generalized historical version.

It wasn't 40 years, so you are wrong again...it was months to 5 years after the cross.

The first written account of Jesus was about 40 years after. Things written 40 years after the fact stated that people believed he rose from the dead. You can't verify anything prior to that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What if it had been prophesied hundreds of years in advance including some pretty specific details?

PSALMS 22
Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

THE LAMB SLAIN
Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

ISAIAH 53
Isaiah 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Not to rain on your parade but it sounds a lot like things were made to link after the fact. Do you know how horoscopes work?

Not to mention the drastic need to verify that much of this actually happened that was prophesized. Also the fact that the majority of Jews (who would know the story better than anyone as they have waited anxiously for the messiah) didn't make these links?

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

However there is no historical evidence of these five hundred brethren testifying that he rose from the dead or that he "physically" did anything. I mean if we can use bible verses to prove the bible then we've lost all sense of continuity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's interesting to note the title of procurator started with Cuspius Fadus around AD 44. Former titles were that of prefect. Pilate was documented as being prefect from the inscriptions upon the Pilate Stone. Why would Tacticus have procurator as Pilates rank when the Pilate stone addresses his title as prefect, not procurator?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sure, I understand. The book of Psalms prophesied Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced (before crucifixion was ever invented), and it even detailed that they parted his garments and cast lots.
So these guys come along in the first century, and they decide to talk Pilate and a bunch of Romans into crucifying Jesus, and even talked them into parting His garments and casting lots, so that later on they could write about it confirming Old Testament prophecy. Yea, like dat, like dat! And then to make it even more convincing these guys were willing to be martyred, and indeed were martyred, for sticking faithfully to the fake testimony they created. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?

If you were to pick a number between one and a million. I was to guess 10. And then later in order to make sure that I was right you chose ten then would that prove I had psychic powers to see the future?

How many years have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, geography, and bible prophecy?

Until I was 19 I studied the bible extensively as part of my education. Biblical prophecy was part of it and history, archaeology and geography as much as anyone else who passed these classes in high school. What is the point? Unless you are about to lead into an argument in which you provide specific documented archeological evidence that ties in miracles? I would much like to hear it if it exists.

 

[Shad]

Any historian would tell you that legendary accounts dont develope so early after the fact. We are talking early stuff here.

This historian is tell you this is false. An idea can be propagated to this status fast. Take for example the imperial cult. It had traditional foundation in the Republic. Caesar become a God within 2 years of his death. Add secondary literature such as the Journals of the Gallic wars which invoke gods and rituals with Caesar often as the head religious leader of his legions. You have miracles, victories against huge odds in both the Gallic and Roman civil wars. Add accounts of Augustus' life, son of God, along with his victories and stability within the Empire following his policies. A whole government system was adapted to the concept of Caesar's Godhood in a short amount of time.

 

[roger1440]

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

“3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)
​

You had conveniently left out verse 3. Paul was not with the 500 people who saw the risen Jesus. He had “received” this account from someone else. No historian or court of law on the planet would accept that testimony as fact. Paul was not there. Paul was not with “Peter and the twelve” when Jesus appeared. Paul was not there when he “appeared to James” either. In order for Paul to get his point across he is grabbing at anything he can use. Much like a person falling who grabs onto anything in sight to break his fall. Paul was desperate. He had already given up on trying converting the Jews. As a last resort he went to the Gentiles.

In Paul’s own words:

“Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46)

“But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."”(Acts 18:6)
​

 

[outhouse]

What if it had been prophesied hundreds of years in advance including some pretty specific details?

PSALMS 22
Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

THE LAMB SLAIN
Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

ISAIAH 53
Isaiah 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

This only proves the community that wrote the gospel of matthew by plagiarizing Mark, used and knew the OT.


Guess what, its no secret.

We know the OT influenced the NT

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Here are some related odds considered:
FULFILLED BIBLE PROPHECY
And another:
Daniel's Messiah in the Critics' Den

My point still stands.

"Until...19"? Not since?
In the past when I've asked antichrists that actively contend against the Gospel, if they've ever read it, more often than not they've admitted that they haven't. Having it in high school you must have attended a Christian school. They certainly didn't teach it in Detroit public schools.

So how much bible study have you done as an adult, or since your brain was fully formed and functioning (about 26 years old)?

I've come from a devoutly Christian family and I'm the first atheist that I know of. I studied the bible more than any subject at school because of what was required at home.

Though if your only interested in talking with adults who have studied it past the age of 26 then seeing as I'm 23 is there even any reason to continue?

The miracle of the restoration of Jews to rule and reign over Israel after 2500 years of being scattered among the Gentile nations, just as prophesied, yet you greet it with a yawn?
ZIONISM IN PROPHECY
Just as anticipated by great men of God centuries before that restoration ever began to take place:
ZIONISM IN CHRISTIANITY
I could show you mathematical miracles in scripture, but no matter how stunning, you would still insist on putting your faith into disbelief, wouldn't you?
MATHEMATICAL PRECISION OF PROPHECY

That should tide you over for a bit. I'm off to bed.

Actually I've heard them all. All reaching. None specific enough to call for religious action from above to explain it. In fact a few of the well known prophecies are actually self fulfilling.