Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Therein lies an issue. We're looking at this from an entirely different perspective and context. 1st Century Hebrews did not believe in Jesus' resurrection because the appearance of the 'messiah' was supposed to herald a 'messianic age' of peace and prosperity called Olam Ha-ba (The World to Come) where all the 'righteous' dead are resurrected to take part in a 'perfect world'. That didn't happen, and the 'messiah' got stapled to a tree.
​

When the other explanations entail even more machinations in order to become plausible, they become more 'nonsensical' than the original story. Also, to posit 'mental illness' would not explain the empty tomb. The mass hallucinations that some theorize may be at the core of the story would only account for those that had emotional ties to the man (which rules-out Paul) and all at the same time/place. What documentation we do have shows that the 'hallucinations' occurred at different times to several different groups of people who all 'saw' him doing the same things. According to the DSM, that's not how 'mass hallucinations' work, and the stories predate the DSM by 1900 years.
​

That's the thing. They never even attempted to debunk the spread of the stories by doing something as simple as showing the body. In fact, the documents we have show that those who disbelieved the whole thing went so far as to make up another story blaming the disciples for stealing the corpse which, according to Roman Law, was punishable by death. The disciples and believers were never executed for that charge, though. Even a rumor of that sort would seriously damage their 'credibility' which was (and still is) already in-doubt.
​

The Roman Empire was never 'officially' Christian. Christianity was at first barely tolerated, then illegal. Diocletian tried to 'purge' them in 299 CE. Constantine's 'vision' at the Milvian Bridge vs. Maxentius didn't immediately bestow any favor on them. After the battle, he gave Christians some of their rights back and eased-up rules and regulations specifically targeting them in 313 CE with the Edict of Milan (which entailed toleration for ALL religions). For example, he ordered Sunday to be kept free of all legal proceedings in 321 CE. He adopted the religion after defeating Licinius in 324 CE (Western Roman Emperor), but didn't declare other religions 'illegal'. They just slowly died-out leaving Christianity and Judaism (to a lesser extent) as the only religions of substance in the Empire most likely due to lack-of-support. The Gospels pre-date all of this by almost 300 years.​

Thank you for the response.

1. True, but parts of the Talmud could have been interpreted in Jesus' favor. He was supposedly of the line of David...and the passages that state "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him", "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor;" and it is [elsewhere] written, "For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it", "He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [them] all at once, and rebandage them together, whereas he unties and rebandages each separately, [before treating the next], thinking, should I be wanted, [it being time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to bandage a number of sores]." and on his coming... "To-day, if ye will listen to his voice.are relevant." It may be a reach, but I could see how this line of thought could have been applied to Jesus' circumstances, even by a small few..and I believe may have been mentioned by Josephus. The major (one of many) problems conservatives had towards Jesus was the singularity of God..which some of early Christian works could have been interpreted as not being such. The fact that Jesus was killed was also significant, but not necessarily a deal breaker. The oncoming "peace time" may not have been seen as immediate by Jesus' supporters either. While the Talmud has been dated ambiguously by many (from starting in 70 AD to the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the way to its completion in the 5th) and have portions that assert Jesus was a blasphemer, it still may have influenced many in the opposite manner, perhaps Constantine's mother being one of them..specifically as she was privvy to political happenings and may have seen Jesus' denial as in large parts a political ploy.

2. Im not claiming "mass hallucinations" just possible delusions by some of those who were influential in some of the texts..many people can have "similar visions", does not necessarily validate each others' visions. Jews may have claimed that Jesus' supporters were disillusioned and Christians may have felt the same towards the Jews. The DSM is irrelevant as it doesnt mean that there wasn't mental illness before it's existence.

3. This goes back to neither confirming nor denying. There may have been some within the authority that were unsure of the execution of Jesus for religious purposes. Even in the Gospels, they claim that Pilate lobbied for Jesus to be spared but thought that the Jewish base was unrelenting. The subsequent excuse making indicates Pontius' expression of remorse and attempts to wash his hands of it.

4. The Roman Empire became officially Christian when it's emperor became Christian. The Gospels do pre-date this, and Constantine's tolerance of only Judaism and Christianity is easily explained by Constantine's origin as a Jewish convert, one who wouldn't completely deny Judaism religiously or politically due to significant Jewish base. He wanted to keep his rule as strong and unified as possible. The Gospels pre-dating this is significant in that it was allowed to spread in importance over time, not that it meant anything after was irrelevant to the spread and adoption of Christianity. Christianity became far more accepted through Constantine and his son..and if anything, shows that the Gospels did not hold much early traction. Many religious texts emerged in this time period and it took a while for everything to be digested (and still is).

5. Even Sha'ul was considered by some to have believed in Jesus yet still be faithful to Judaism, based on Acts 23:6. The only thing that was clear around this time is that it was unclear by a significant many.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Thank you for the response.

1. True, but parts of the Talmud could have been interpreted in Jesus' favor. He was supposedly of the line of David...and the passages that state "When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him", "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor;" and it is [elsewhere] written, "For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it", "He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [them] all at once, and rebandage them together, whereas he unties and rebandages each separately, [before treating the next], thinking, should I be wanted, [it being time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to bandage a number of sores]." and on his coming... "To-day, if ye will listen to his voice.are relevant." It may be a reach, but I could see how this line of thought could have been applied to Jesus' circumstances, even by a small few..and I believe may have been mentioned by Josephus. The major (one of many) problems conservatives had towards Jesus was the singularity of God..which some of early Christian works could have been interpreted as not being such. The fact that Jesus was killed was also significant, but not necessarily a deal breaker. The oncoming "peace time" may not have been seen as immediate by Jesus' supporters either. While the Talmud has been dated ambiguously by many (from starting in 70 AD to the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the way to its completion in the 5th) and have portions that assert Jesus was a blasphemer, it still may have influenced many in the opposite manner, perhaps Constantine's mother being one of them..specifically as she was privvy to political happenings and may have seen Jesus' denial as in large parts a political ploy.

2. Im not claiming "mass hallucinations" just possible delusions by some of those who were influential in some of the texts..many people can have "similar visions", does not necessarily validate each others' visions. Jews may have claimed that Jesus' supporters were disillusioned and Christians may have felt the same towards the Jews. The DSM is irrelevant as it doesnt mean that there wasn't mental illness before it's existence.

3. This goes back to neither confirming nor denying. There may have been some within the authority that were unsure of the execution of Jesus for religious purposes. Even in the Gospels, they claim that Pilate lobbied for Jesus to be spared but thought that the Jewish base was unrelenting. The subsequent excuse making indicates Pontius' expression of remorse and attempts to wash his hands of it.

4. The Roman Empire became officially Christian when it's emperor became Christian. The Gospels do pre-date this, and Constantine's tolerance of only Judaism and Christianity is easily explained by Constantine's origin as a Jewish convert, one who wouldn't completely deny Judaism religiously or politically due to significant Jewish base. He wanted to keep his rule as strong and unified as possible. The Gospels pre-dating this is significant in that it was allowed to spread in importance over time, not that it meant anything after was irrelevant to the spread and adoption of Christianity. Christianity became far more accepted through Constantine and his son..and if anything, shows that the Gospels did not hold much early traction. Many religious texts emerged in this time period and it took a while for everything to be digested (and still is).

5. Even Sha'ul was considered by some to have believed in Jesus yet still be faithful to Judaism, based on Acts 23:6. The only thing that was clear around this time is that it was unclear by a significant many.

1. Not only were parts of the Talmud interpreted in Jesus' favor, many things in the OT were, also, prior to the Talmud's completion. The entire 'godhead' concept is Hebrew.

2. I'm not discounting the presence of mental illness/delusions, only referring to the DSM because that gives the most up-to-date understanding of the conditions under which it may present symptoms and how they are expressed.

3. I don't think there was ever a trial, to be honest, since the Romans didn't need much of an excuse to execute anyone, particularly non-citizen Hebrew rabble-rousers claiming royalty in their Empire. Much (if not all) of the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate serves more to present different 'Christologies' in the Gospels in which the trial appears rather than an actual account of the proceedings. Roman biographical literature usually paid more attention to a subject's character rather than trying to establish a detailed accounting of their daily life. That's just one genre incorporated into the text.

4. When Constantine 'converted' is really of no consequence to the rest of the Empire since that was a personal thing for each convert. Same thing occurred with the Khazar royal family converting to Judaism. There is no record of anyone else 'converting' aside from them. Other religions continued to practice their rituals until they lost patronage and became extinct. The Gospels actually held a lot of traction in early Christianity since Jesus was worshiped as 'divine' within a couple years of his execution with the 'resurrection' being a central component since the beginning. The Gospels and the rest of the NT were more-or-less 'canonical' about a century before Constantine was born according to Justin Martyr and several other early Christian leaders writing in the 2nd Century CE who were instructed by the surviving Apostles. Also, Constantine wasn't originally a Jewish convert. He was a pagan Sun-worshiper and officially converted to Christianity when he was baptized, right before he died in 337 CE.

6. Well, Saul (Paul) was a Pharisee and there was no real difference (aside from the obvious) between those who accepted Jesus as the 'messiah' and the rest of Hebrew Orthodoxy until the 2nd Century. Christians and Hebrews were one-in-the-same. When Christianity began to gain more converts than Judaism, it was declared heretical. The split was preceded by minor persecutions, some which Paul participated in during the middle of the 1st Century.​

 

[tmonster]

I know.

​

certainly you do, just like your mind blowing conclusions:youthink:

 

[tmonster]

Person 1: This book here has historical value
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: This means that whatever is written it is true, including magical and spiritual events
Person 2: No, that's not true.
Person 1: Of course it is, someone documented eye witnesses testimony of these acts
Person 2: Wouldn't the testimony be tainted due to the story pushing a clear narrative
Person 1: No, just look at this scholar using the book to prove the book is worthy
Person 2: That doesn't make any sense. How do you account for countless other religious figures having the same documentation and eye-witness testimony
Person 1: Those other people were wrong and biased. This one is the right one. We aren't even talking about those people anyway.
Person 2: I was merely using those cases to showcase the absurdity of your argument
Person 1: The book is true because the book says it's true

Person 3: hold up fellas, wouldn't one need more than spurious circumstantial compromised/compromisable indirect evidence in order to support claims that controvert available scientific facts?
Person 2: Ha! good point person 3! what do you say to that!
Person 1: Just look at what these scholars said these scholars said about what these potentially biased individuals said years after the facts they claim actually possibly occurred and also it's clear that any evidence is evidence.
Person 3: smh...But....but I can get scholars that contradict everything you say....
Person 1: Your scholars are laughably stupid and can't be taken seriously, while mine are part of the knowledge master race
Person 3: WTF? how you figure?
Person 1: for one thing my scholars agree with me....
Person 2: SHM
Person 3: FML

Person 1:

 

[Type Username Here]

Person 3: hold up fellas, wouldn't one need more than spurious circumstantial compromised/compromisable indirect evidence in order to support claims that controvert available scientific facts?
Person 2: Ha! good point person 3! what do you say to that!
Person 1: Just look at what these scholars said these scholars said about what these potentially biased individuals said years after the facts they claim actually possibly occurred and also it's clear that any evidence is evidence.
Person 3: smh...But....but I can get scholars that contradict everything you say....
Person 1: Your scholars are laughably stupid and can't be taken seriously, while mine are part of the knowledge master race
Person 3: WTF? how you figure?
Person 1: for one thing my scholars agree with me....
Person 2: SHM
Person 3: FML

Person 1:

I didn't even feel the need to demonstrate how some scholars who look at these texts as evidence feel the opposite. It's not the important argument to make.

The best argument is the most logical: If the criteria for claim X1 proves claim X1, then the criteria for claim X2 should also prove claim X2. But what happens when X1 and X2 contradict one another? We've proven that opposite claims are true.

These documents are not credible documents. Maybe in theological history professions they are (we won't get into opposing historians), but they are not scientifically or legally credible. Thus, we can analyze them for historicity like we do other works of fiction such as written pieces by Shakespeare, Chaucer or Twain, but to make any substantial claim about the objectiveness of these documents is outright bias and should be dismissed as such.

 

[tmonster]

I didn't even feel the need to demonstrate how some scholars who look at these texts as evidence feel the opposite. It's not the important argument to make.

The best argument is the most logical: If the criteria for claim X1 proves claim X1, then the criteria for claim X2 should also prove claim X2. But what happens when X1 and X2 contradict one another? We've proven that opposite claims are true.

These documents are not credible documents. Maybe in theological history professions they are (we won't get into opposing historians), but they are not scientifically or legally credible. Thus, we can analyze them for historicity like we do other works of fiction such as written pieces by Shakespeare, Chaucer or Twain, but to make any substantial claim about the objectiveness of these documents is outright bias and should be dismissed as such.

been there done that
this is just from page 2

a disavowed document is not evidence of anything
how can I take anything in the bible seriously when it is riddled with stuff that sounds like it was written by people high on meth, everything in those books could be a complete lie and you would have no way of knowing it

​

that's the thing
seeing a reference to 9/11 in a spider-man comic book does not make it a historical document
in fact you can put every externally PROVEN historical fact in a there and it would never prove that Peter got bit by that spider. Nor would it mean that you can now say, "we know one thing for sure, based on what I read in Amazing Spider-man issue #48, terrorist took down them towers", hell based on it being the saga of spider-man, you could not even depend on it as a source for those historical facts you JUST put in there YO DAMN SELF

 

[tmonster]

Damn this thread was fiyah

 

[the cac mamba]

Not hardly. 500 years after the fact.​

do islam and christianity claim 2 different things about jesus?

 

[88m3]