Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One must factor in Style of allegorical writing, literary devises, and socio-cultural influences of the time in order to get an understanding of the writer's intent. And the Bible is NOT history (or science) , it is Theology.
The Bible contains both history and theology. It's not one or the other. Even Bart Ehrman recognizes that there is historical information in the Gospels and that they can and must be considered historical source of information. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, the Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, p. 71
Quote:
SO to the OP Well, it is Possible. Normally, Criminals assigned to death by the Roman Authorities were executed and left out to rot as an example to others. But, Roman Magistrates were well known for accepting bribes. This included many instances of Bribes being offered for proper burial and for families to reclaim bodies of the deceased. So yes, someone could have offered a few silver coins to the authority and taken the body away.
Go back and read my post. It was Roman law that the bodies were to be given to the family on request, though the request could be refused in the case of certain crimes.
Quote:
BUT The "Someone " in question is sort of an enigma. St Joseph of Arimathea may not have been a real person. The reason I say this is because of his tie in to other mythic stories, the Holy Grail, the Glastonbury mission, etc I have doubts as to if this individual was real, or a fabrication to conveniently allow the writer to put the body of Jesus into the right setting at the right time
The later use of a person in some later fictional story does not negate the historical existence of that person.
Quote:
IF Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the council, and a secret follower of Jesus, then why was the council even meeting during Passover? This was a Holiday, members of the Council would not have convened until after the Holiday was completed. it would not have been plausible to have the members rounded up, convened and then voted on what to do with someone who the entire populace had welcomed into the town with great excitement during a Holy feast time.
Matthew 26:5 and Mark 14:2 express the concerns of the chief priests and elders of seizing Jesus during the festival out of fear of a possible riot. Nevertheless, they did arrest and try Jesus. The crucifixion of Jesus is a recognized historical fact despite certain differences in the details provided in the four Gospels.
Quote:
Then there is the issue of the trial, one which Pilate would not have wasted time giving, he did not give fair trials to Jews, he did not often give fair trials to Roman citizens either !
Your claim that Pilate would not have wasted time with a trial is simply your opinion. Philo and the historian Josephus say one thing about Pilate, and the Gospel writers say what they do about Pilate. The question then is do Philo and Josephus exaggerate their reports about the cruelty of Pilate? We can't know that Pilate wouldn't have given Jesus a trial.
Quote:
So the trial and execution during a Holy Feast time is very improbable. (not to mention the Barabbas story, which is grounded in absolutely no known fact whatsoever)
Not according to the Gospel writers. You're assuming the Gospel writers made up the entire story. While there are some differences in the details concerning the trial(s) the basic historicity of a trial need not be doubted.
Quote:
Which leads to the final point. St Joseph of Arimathea, if he were real, as a Jew, could not have collected the corpse during Passover. It was Forbidden for Jews to handle a Corpse during that celebration. Which makes me think that the narrative is more fiction than fact.
On the other hand, it was also, in accordance with Jewish law, for Jesus' body to be buried before sundown. Joseph of Arimathea need not have personally handled Jesus' body. He could have had a non-Jew do the actual handling.
Quote:
And possibly Joseph of Arimathea was a convenient character, created by the writer decades later to again, put Jesus in a certain place at a certain time.
The Gospel of Mark, written in Greek, can show that Arimathea was not a place, probably did not exist, but that Arimathea can mean "The best follower" The Best because he went out of his way to break with Jewish Law to retrieve a corpse and place it in a tomb. Unlikely that a member of the Council, if he was one, would do that.
Or,
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 707: Ἁριμαθαία
Ἁριμαθαία (WH Ἁριμαθαία, see their Introductory § 408), Ἁριμαθαίας, ἡ, Arimathaea, Hebrew רָמָה (a height), the name of several cities of Palestine; cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus 3, p. 1275. The one mentioned in Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51; John 19:38 appears to have been the same as that which was the birthplace and residence of Samuel, in Mount Ephraim: 1 Samuel 1:1, 19, etc. the Sept. Αρμαθαιμ, and without the article Ρ᾽αμαθεμ, and according to another reading Ρ᾽αμαθαιμ, 1 Macc. 11:34; Ρ᾽αμαθα in Josephus, Antiquities 13, 4, 9. Cf. Grimm on 1 Macc. 11:34; Keim, Jesus von Naz. 3:514; (B. D. American edition).
Someone could have easily bribed a Roman magistrate to retrieve the body but not likely someone who was in the process of celebrating the Passover.
As I said above, Joseph of Arimathea could have had someone else, a non-Jew to handle Jesus' body.
Quote:
So, the problem I have, is that the events just do not add up as an actual event. They do add up as theology, as allegory and as a literary reference to old testament prophecy, even paralleling old testament stories in may ways. And as I have noted here on this forum, many years before at Easter, I have pointed out discrepancies in the resurrections as a bodily event (as in, the Corpse got up, walked away, then flew away)
Discrepancies in reporting an event do not negate the historicity of an event. If they did then the Titanic never sank because the surviving eyewitnesses couldn't agree on whether the ship went down in one piece or in two pieces. And the fire that destroyed part of Rome never happened because there are some four different versions of Nero's involvement.
Long before the Gospels were written, and before Paul wrote his letters, what Paul did write in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is known to scholars as a pre-Pauline creed going back to the beginning of the church. Paul didn't invent what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. He passed on what he had received probably from Peter and James when he met with them some three years after he came to believe in Jesus. The stories of the death and burial, and the subsequent appearances of the risen Jesus were being spread from the beginning of the church before Paul's conversion, and before the written Gospels.
Quote:
It was an influence of Paul, who did not believe in a bodily resurrections but a Spiritual one, who influenced the gospels, written not my eyewitnesses but after the fact.
Paul believed in a physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, not a non-bodily 'spiritual' one. As a Jew his concept of resurrection was that of a resurrection of the body. He states in 1 Corinthians 15:44 that the body which is sown as a natural body is raised as a spiritual. It's raised as a BODY. A spiritual body in Paul's thinking is simply a transformed body from a mortal, perishable body, to a physically glorified body that is immortal and imperishable (1 Cor. 15:53-54
Quote:
SO while it is Possible it is not probable. But again, that is the way I see it, and my opinions speak for my beliefs, not historical fact.
Well, I'm glad you stated that those are your opinions rather than fact.
Quote:
BTW I like the Easter Bunnies pic too
Yeah, I deleted it though. It might have shocked someone.
The Jewish priests, it seems, who were actually present at the time, disagree with you. Disagreed strongly enough, if one is to give credibility to the version contained in Gospel Matthew, to venture into a place as inherently unclean as a graveyard on a high holy day. A charge that is scandalous (and nigh unbelievable) enough all on it's own.
They made an accusation that the body was stolen. For reasons already given, the accusation does not hold up.
Quote:
Gospel Matthew (Matt.27:5) indicates that the apostle Judas hung himself. Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:2) indicates that the apostle James, the brother of John, was killed by Herod Agrippa. Acts 12 also details that the apostle Peter was Jailed, escaped, and then deemed it prudent at that point to depart for "another place" (Acts 12:17). As do, apparently, the other remaining nine apostles. Because none of them are mentioned again. Peter subsequently returns to the account contained in Acts. But not the remaining nine other apostles.
Other than the single account of the death of James the brother of John, scripture gives no account of the deaths of ANY of the remaining apostles, whether it be dying for their claims, or otherwise. History has allowed the blanks to be filled in by successive generations of devoted Christians.
Church history and church records report that Peter and Paul were both martyred during the Neronian persecutions in the mid 60's.
And Paul stated that he had repeatedly endured beatings and hardships on account of his preaching the Gospel message. It made no sense for him to give up the life he had as a Pharisee in exchange for all the suffering he had endured for something he knew to be untrue.
Quote:
Joseph of Arimethea's personal newly finished tomb. Why?
Why not?
Quote:
Because it was late in the day of preparation, and "the sepulchre was nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus was executed. Joseph's new tomb was the perfect choice to wash and prepare the body. And prepare it well they did.
John 19:
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Combining myrrh and aloe produces a paste. So the body was wrapped in cloth and coated with a paste made of sweet smelling myrrh and aloes. One hundred pounds of the stuff. Given the state of preservation technology 2,000 years ago, which was rudimentary at best, the body of Jesus could hardly have been better prepared than if the intention was to transport it elsewhere.
Very few Christian scholars give any credence to the conspiracy theory. Of course until comparatively recent times "scholars" who attempted to propose conclusions that questioned the official Christian position could expect to meet with very unpleasant consequences.
But those days are behind us. It is now possible to consider what scripture has to tell us openly and honestly.
Based on the details of the accounts at hand, there was in fact no great feat of slight of hand involved. The Jewish priests were convinced that a plot existed among the followers of Jesus to relocate the corpse of Jesus for the purpose of spreading the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. And that is exactly what occurred.
The disciples did not have to "steal away" the body of Jesus. The body of Jesus was already in the possession of individuals who were the followers of Jesus, given to them legally by the Roman governor to bury where ever they deemed fitting.
Bibleinfo:
12 disciples list:
Peter James
John
Andrew
Bartholomew or Nathanael
James, the Lesser or Younger
Judas
Jude or Thaddeus
Matthew or Levi
Philip
Simon the Zealot
Thomas https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questio...elve-disciples
The apostles, brothers James and John, were known as "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17).
I've already explained why the conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.
Quote:
Paul did indeed come to believe that he had an encounter with the risen Jesus, some few years after the execution of Jesus. Paul's "encounter" occurred at a time when he was deathly ill and delirious from the effects of dehydration (Acts 9:9), and being cared for, and prayed over, by a Christian man. As a result Paul became a firm Christian. But this does not serve to make the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus any less unrealistic.
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before. In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand. And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination. Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
Quote:
If the story is untrue of course, than billions of genuinely devoted Christian faithful have been cruelly deceived over the course of the centuries. Which of course is unthinkable. Although not, apparently, as unthinkable as the billions of genuinely devoted Muslim followers, or Hindu followers, or Buddhist followers, who have simply been cruelly deceived over the course of the centuries.
Just about every scholar who does Jesus studies, including skeptical scholars recognizes that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus although the skeptical scholars will say that they don't know what it was the disciples actually saw. They definitely did not fabricate a story which they knew to be untrue.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-31-2021 at 02:22 PM..
The Bible contains both history and theology. It's not one or the other. Even Bart Ehrman recognizes that there is historical information in the Gospels and that they can and must be considered historical source of information. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, the Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, p. 71
I have read little of his works I will look into getting a copy of that book Sounds Interesting Thanks
Have you read this ?
John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1995), pp. 1-13.
OR Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988), p.131.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Your claim that Pilate would not have wasted time with a trial is simply your opinion. Philo and the historian Josephus say one thing about Pilate, and the Gospel writers say what they do about Pilate. The question then is do Philo and Josephus exaggerate their reports about the cruelty of Pilate? We can't know that Pilate wouldn't have given Jesus a trial.
Nor can we know that he did, either. This simply again, comes into belief, and we may have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
As I said above, Joseph of Arimathea could have had someone else, a non-Jew to handle Jesus' body.
That is Plausible, but would so much as viewing the body, or being involved in a corpse's transport, by design, still have violated the rules of the day? Again, many scholars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Well, I'm glad you stated that those are your opinions rather than fact.
As are yours, mine, everyone's I do not feel threatened by someone having a different idea, belief or insight than my own. I find it, as Spock would say "Fascinating" I find beliefs to be a fascinating aspect of humanity, so carry on please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Yeah, I deleted it though. It might have shocked someone.
They made an accusation that the body was stolen. For reasons already given, the accusation does not hold up.
Church history and church records report that Peter and Paul were both martyred during the Neronian persecutions in the mid 60's.
And Paul stated that he had repeatedly endured beatings and hardships on account of his preaching the Gospel message. It made no sense for him to give up the life he had as a Pharisee in exchange for all the suffering he had endured for something he knew to be untrue.
Why not?
I've already explained why the conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before. In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand. And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination. Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
Just about every scholar who does Jesus studies, including skeptical scholars recognizes that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus although the skeptical scholars will say that they don't know what it was the disciples actually saw. They definitely did not fabricate a story which they knew to be untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
And, so, but, therefore? Church history, church records report that Peter and Paul were both martyred during the Neronian persecutions in the mid 60's.
What church? Or perhaps more precisely, which church? According to scripture there was an early Christian church at Jerusalem. But it was swept away like everything else by the Roman legions in the events of 70 AD. By the end of the first century Christians were meeting in secret. There was no uniformly established Christian church until the 4th century. What you are referring to is Christian tradition. In other words, stories that were being passed about by early Christians. And there were various groups of Christians telling conflicting stories.
"About 187 Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius counted eighty." ("The Story of Civilization Vol. 3 - Caesar And Christ," Pg. 616, by Will Durant.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
I've already explained why the conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.
No, actually you haven't explained it at all. You have simply declared it to be so. You have decreed that a plan, a conspiracy if you will, concocted by humans for very human purposes is somehow less realistic an explanation than the claim that a corpse returned to life and subsequently flew away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Paul did indeed come to believe that he had an encounter with the risen Jesus, some few years after the execution of Jesus. Paul's "encounter" occurred at a time when he was deathly ill and delirious from the effects of dehydration (Acts 9:9), and being cared for, and prayed over, by a Christian man. As a result Paul became a firm Christian. But this does not serve to make the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus any less unrealistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before.
The chronology of events as they occurred on the road to Damascus is the version of events related later by Paul himself. Paul was blind and incapacitated at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand.
Where might I find and read their testimonies? This claim is in fact taken from the version of events related later by Paul himself. Paul was blind and incapacitated at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination.
What are the common symptoms associated with severe dehydration? Confusion, diminished eyesight and hallucinations. What did Paul believe occurred? He had visions of communing with a man that had died several years earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
Where might I find and read the testimony of Ananias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Just about every scholar who does Jesus studies, including skeptical scholars recognizes that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus although the skeptical scholars will say that they don't know what it was the disciples actually saw. They definitely did not fabricate a story which they knew to be untrue.
Where might I find and read the testimony of of the various individual disciples concerning what they individually actually believed? Because all I am familiar with are various second hand accounts written decades after the fact by others who either cannot be identified, or who clearly were not personally present to witness what they were recounting.
I will happily acknowledge that stories concerning Jesus were in circulation by late in the first century, and there were individuals that apparently accepted the stories as true. But this neither serves to make the claim of a flying reanimated corpse either probable or undeniably true.
What church? Or perhaps more precisely, which church? According to scripture there was an early Christian church at Jerusalem. But it was swept away like everything else by the Roman legions in the events of 70 AD. By the end of the first century Christians were meeting in secret. There was no uniformly established Christian church until the 4th century. What you are referring to is Christian tradition. In other words, stories that were being passed about by early Christians. And there were various groups of Christians telling conflicting stories.
"About 187 Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius counted eighty." ("The Story of Civilization Vol. 3 - Caesar And Christ," Pg. 616, by Will Durant.)
As I said, church history and church records state that both Paul and Peter were martyed. We have the statement of Clement of Rome regarding that.
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians
CHAPTER 5 -- NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
That you cannot accept as history what Clement said doesn't make it any less truthful.
Quote:
No, actually you haven't explained it at all. You have simply declared it to be so. You have decreed that a plan, a conspiracy if you will, concocted by humans for very human purposes is somehow less realistic an explanation than the claim that a corpse returned to life and subsequently flew away.
Yes I have. As I said, people, and groups of people aren't willing to die, or to endure sufferings and hardships for something that they know is not true. I further explained that the disciples themselves did not believe that Jesus would rise again because in Jewish thought the resurrection of the dead was a general resurrection at the end of human history. No one believed that a single individual would be resurrected during the middle of history. That is why the disciples did not understand Jesus' statements concerning the fact that he must be killed and then rise on the third day.
Quote:
The chronology of events as they occurred on the road to Damascus is the version of events related later by Paul himself. Paul was blind and incapacitated at the time.
I'll simply repeat my reply to you when you claimed that Paul was already ill before seeing the risen Jesus. Post #43.
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before. In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand. And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination. Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
Quote:
Where might I find and read their testimonies? This claim is in fact taken from the version of events related later by Paul himself. Paul was blind and incapacitated at the time.
What are the common symptoms associated with severe dehydration? Confusion, diminished eyesight and hallucinations. What did Paul believe occurred? He had visions of communing with a man that had died several years earlier.
And again;
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before. In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand. And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination. Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
Quote:
Where might I find and read the testimony of Ananias?
Acts 9:17 quotes Ananias whether you chose to accept that as a statement by Ananias or not.
Quote:
Where might I find and read the testimony of of the various individual disciples concerning what they individually actually believed? Because all I am familiar with are various second hand accounts written decades after the fact by others who either cannot be identified, or who clearly were not personally present to witness what they were recounting.
Historians are quite willing to accept second hand accounts. Why aren't you? The fact of the matter is that you simply will not accept the statements of the Gospel writers or of Paul.
Quote:
I will happily acknowledge that stories concerning Jesus were in circulation by late in the first century, and there were individuals that apparently accepted the stories as true. But this neither serves to make the claim of a flying reanimated corpse either probable or undeniably true.
And here is the crux of the matter. Your anti-supernatural worldview simply will not allow you to accept as evidence any biblical statement concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Not everyone has that limitation.
I have read little of his works I will look into getting a copy of that book Sounds Interesting Thanks
Have you read this ?
John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1995), pp. 1-13.
OR Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988), p.131.
No, I haven't read either of them. I did just now finish listening to a conversation between Crossan and Michael Licona where they were both asked to answer four questions, the last question being, ''Did Jesus rise from the dead?'' Crossan takes it as a metaphor. That's at 1.14.07 in the video.
DEBATE: John Dominic Crossan vs Mike Licona (Who was the Historical Jesus? 2018)
Nor can we know that he did, either. This simply again, comes into belief, and we may have to agree to disagree.
That is Plausible, but would so much as viewing the body, or being involved in a corpse's transport, by design, still have violated the rules of the day? Again, many scholars
As are yours, mine, everyone's I do not feel threatened by someone having a different idea, belief or insight than my own. I find it, as Spock would say "Fascinating" I find beliefs to be a fascinating aspect of humanity, so carry on please.
That's a Shame.
We're very obviously going to disagree since we have different and opposing worldviews on the issues of who was Jesus, could the resurrection have happened, can and do miracles happen, can the Gospels be trusted as historically accurate?, etc.
As I said, church history and church records state that both Paul and Peter were martyed. We have the statement of Clement of Rome regarding that.
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians
CHAPTER 5 -- NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.
That you cannot accept as history what Clement said doesn't make it any less truthful.
Yes I have. As I said, people, and groups of people aren't willing to die, or to endure sufferings and hardships for something that they know is not true. I further explained that the disciples themselves did not believe that Jesus would rise again because in Jewish thought the resurrection of the dead was a general resurrection at the end of human history. No one believed that a single individual would be resurrected during the middle of history. That is why the disciples did not understand Jesus' statements concerning the fact that he must be killed and then rise on the third day.
I'll simply repeat my reply to you when you claimed that Paul was already ill before seeing the risen Jesus. Post #43.
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before. In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand. And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination. Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
And again;
You keep using that excuse. But it was AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus that he went without food and water for three days. Not before. In addition, the men with Paul also experienced the light and heard a voice that they could not understand. And so, no, Paul did not have an hallucination. Your excuse also ignores that a man by the name of Ananias also had a vision in which he was told to go meet Paul and restore his sight. So if you are to take the story to be true then you must include all the details in the story. And those details do not support your claim.
Acts 9:17 quotes Ananias whether you chose to accept that as a statement by Ananias or not.
Historians are quite willing to accept second hand accounts. Why aren't you? The fact of the matter is that you simply will not accept the statements of the Gospel writers or of Paul.
And here is the crux of the matter. Your anti-supernatural worldview simply will not allow you to accept as evidence any biblical statement concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Not everyone has that limitation.
I am going to disengage from the discussion at this point, lest I provoke the mods into taking action by continuing to post on the Christian sub-forum. Thank you for responding, at least, and for remaining civil. I am going to allow you to have the final word. Allow me to point out that I fully agree with your original premise. Pilate certainly would have granted possession of the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimethea if there had been sufficient incentive for him to do so. Joseph is specifically described by the Gospels as having been a rich man, and monetary gain represents the most common of human incentives.
That is one of the most ridiculous responses you have ever made. Just because Christian churches call it an Easter service doesn't even remotely come close to making it a worship of the fertility goddess. Tell us this: Document 50 Baptist or Lutheran churches that specifically mentioned the fertility goddess and preached sermons about fertility last Easter.
Do you ever think how bad your posts make you look? Every mainstream Christian reads your post about Ishtar and laughs at you, thinking, "What? That's never happened at our church."
Doesn't matter sir, it is the traditions they practice. It is not celebrated in the Bible, therefore we will not celebrate it. Fact is they call it easter, why? Do you not realize that many churches have easter egg hunts? Why? It is a simple fact you choose to overlook. The fact is the information is out there from many sources, you personally choose whether to believe it or not. History shows me Jehovah don't care much for incorporating practices given to pagan gods into His pure worship.
You honestly did not know this? We learned it as children in school, but I am likely somewhat older than you are, so maybe it isn't taught anymore. I am 66 maam, I forget a lot, likely I knew it once, but it didn't mean anything to me. Still, with the focus on "Easter", you'd think that would be something the Watchtower would cover. Yes maam, on easter I am educated
By the way, Quakers rejected the common day names and refer to the days as First Day, Second Day, etc., with First Day being what we call Sunday, and their children's religious teachings known as First Day School.
We don't have a problem with daily names, which have nothing to do with our worship.
Do you have any evidence that there's anyone left who still worships Eostre (the goddess from whose name Easter is derived)? Serious question. I don't know that anyone does, although there could be some neo-Pagan group out there who has revived veneration of this goddess.
One thing is for certain maam, Christians do not, they fully realize that easter is not celebrated in the Bible, the guidebook for Christian living, therefore they themselves choose not to be involved with worldly holy days.
We do however meet every year on Nisan 14, to memorialize the passover sacrifice as Jesus instructed Luke 22:19. I hope you will attend this year, you are certainly invited.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
