Jesus wasn't resurrected

[JennyMominRI]

1.5. Can you prove that Saul didnt exist?
6. The authorities were after Jesus when they crucified Him. Jesus knew it was coming. Did he go underground then? why not?

?

Aquinus..I have to take your side on this.. While I can't find any non-biblical firsthand accounts of Jesus,I am pretty sure they exist for Paul.

 

[magicmato]

Aquinus..I have to take your side on this.. While I can't find any non-biblical firsthand accounts of Jesus,I am pretty sure they exist for Paul.

I never said Paul/Saul did not exist. I just question using his conversion as proof of anything.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The entire thesis HAS been presented. It is out there. There is nothing going to be on the show that has not already been revealed. You can even read the book now and know what the show is going to be about.

No one is making decisions for me about this. I have reviewed what they have to say, read extensively, and I plan on watching the show. Just because the show hasnt aired doesnt mean that people can not have informed opinions out there. Like I said, there is no mystery on what is going to be presented on the show like you seem to think that some bombshell is going to be dropped that hasnt already been discussed and debated already. In fact, this is nothing new, the BBC ran a special just like this 10 years ago making similar claims. The main difference is now they are producing DNA analysis.

If this special was supporting the Resurrection or the Birth of Christ using scientific evidence and Non-Christians were writing it off as lies without having even seen it, that would be just as objectionable. Most of what I've read against this show has been from Christian sources that are coming in with a bias. I also can't really support objections that are Bible based, because from what I understand this show is about science. It's possible that there will be some science reporting on the show that does not support the conclusions that have been publicized. I won't know until I watch.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

If this special was supporting the Resurrection or the Birth of Christ using scientific evidence and Non-Christians were writing it off as lies without having even seen it, that would be just as objectionable. Most of what I've read against this show has been from Christian sources that are coming in with a bias. I also can't really support objections that are Bible based, because from what I understand this show is about science. It's possible that there will be some science reporting on the show that does not support the conclusions that have been publicized. I won't know until I watch.

It's very likely the science won't support the publicized hype. The Washington Post article I posted much earlier makes this quite clear.

 

[Amity 3]

Still waiting on those scientific "experts" to show us some irrefutable proof that this is actually Jesus' tomb and bones.

All the information and "evidence" has already been revealed. You can review everything out there for yourself.

You arent being rude are you and suggesting that Christians dont think for themselves are you? I thought rudeness on this thread was just limited to the Christians. Reaching again I see.

don't you think your demand for 'proof' and 'evidence' is a bit...ironic?

 

[Saxsoon]

Look, not even the guy who found the tomb believes that this is not "the" Jesus and needs more proof.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html

sorry if this has been posted already.

from the article, a different professor.

Willliam Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.

"The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."

 

[LuvN~Travel]

Though I may be jumping here, I only went through page 35 of this thread,
the biggest problem with these 'made for tv' documentaries is that these people seem to feel the need to use some supposedly scientific measurements quite often that aren't even used elsewhere.
Here's just on link (can probably google many, many more) that certainly points out the fallacies these documentaries like to play on.

http://www.khouse.org/enews/2007-02-27/#2

Kim

 

[cardaway]

If this special was supporting the Resurrection or the Birth of Christ using scientific evidence...

If that were the case the science would suddenly be credible. Funny how that works.

 

[phillybeth]

It's very likely the science won't support the publicized hype. The Washington Post article I posted much earlier makes this quite clear.

As I said, oh, about 40 pages ago- A woman named Miriam and a man named Yusef had a son named Yeshua. Yeshua married a woman named Miriam and had a son named Judah. Those relationships can be proved with DNA.

Wow. That would be like walking into a modern cemetary and seeing a woman named Barbara and a man named George had a son named George. George married a woman named Laura and had a daughter named Barbara. Do you think you have found the President's grave?

I am not a Christian, I do not believe in any higher power at all, and even I think that anyone claiming that this is the grave of Jesus of Nazareth is misguided at best.

 

[jimmiej]

Why is this the cornerstone shouldn't his teaching be the cornerstone?

No. His teachings don't make me righteous before a Holy God. His death, burial, & resurrection does.

What 500 people??? Nice of you to contradict the bible that had all of mary seeing him.

1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The gospels also tell of Jesus appearing before the disciples.

 

[The_Horned_King]

No. His teachings don't make me righteous before a Holy God. His death, burial, & resurrection does.

So you are honestly telling me his death, burial, and reserection are more important to your religion then your messiah's teachings??? To me that is unbelieveable!

1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The gospels also tell of Jesus appearing before the disciples.

The Gospels do not talk about him appearing before 500 people. almost always first to mary then to others, usually the desciples.

A simple breakdown of what the books claims are of who saw him.

(pulled from wikipedia's resurection resources)

Matthew 28
To Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", as they were running from the empty tomb to inform the disciples. Jesus tells the women to instruct the disciples to go to Galilee to meet him.
To the eleven, on a mountain in Galilee where Jesus had told the apostles to go, see Great Commission.

[edit] Mark 16
To Mary Magdalene.
To two of Jesus's followers as they were walking in the countryside (Jesus appeared to them in "another form").
To the eleven while they were dining.
(Note that the verses of Mark 16 that describe resurrection appearances are absent in the oldest manuscripts).


[edit] Luke 24
To Cleopas and one other disciple as they walked to Emmaus. At first "their eyes were holden" so that they could not recognize him. Later while having supper at Emmaus "their eyes were opened" and they recognized him.
To "Simon". This appearance is not described directly by Luke but it is reported by the other apostles. It is not clear whether it happened before, after or contemporaneously with the appearance at Emmaus.
To the eleven, together with some others (including Cleopas and his companion), in Jerusalem.

[edit] John 20 - 21
To Mary Magdalene. At first she did not recognize him and thought that he was a gardener. When he spoke she recognized him.
To the disciples (not including Thomas) on that same day. They were indoors "for fear of the Jews".
To the disciples including Thomas. This was eight days later, again indoors.
To Peter, Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, by Lake Tiberias, see also Catch of 153 fish. The disciple whom Jesus loved was present in this group.

So to you who do I believe??? These account all are different then Pauls Letters in Corinthians and say nothing of 500 people.

Not to mention mark originally didn't even metion it!!!!!

So who's account is correct?

 

[The_Horned_King]

more questions about the resurection...again all fromt eh wiki resurection page...

Each appearance has been the focus of much literary comment during the mediaeval era, and the York Cycle of English mystery plays has a whole play about the appearance to Mary. However, the ending of Mark varies substantially between ancient manuscripts, and scholars are in near universal agreement that the final portion of the traditional ending, in which all Mark's resurrection appearances occur, is a later addition not present in the original version of Mark's gospel. Unhelpfully it is the general opinion of textual scholars that none of the known variant endings, including the traditional one, is actually the original ending.

According to the theory of Markan priority, Matthew and Luke are largely derived from Mark. If so, then there are two potential problems if indeed Mark originally contained no account of resurrection appearances. Firstly: If Matthew's and Luke's resurrection accounts are derived from some version of Mark's, and if the original version of Mark had no resurrection appearances, then some doubt might be cast on Matthew's and Luke's accounts of those appearances. Secondly: If Mark is oldest and has no resurrection appearances, there is an argument from silence suggesting that there were in fact no resurrection appearances.

What is Markan Priority?

Markan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first written of the three Synoptic Gospels, and that the two other synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Luke, used Mark's Gospel as one of their sources. The theory of Markan priority is today accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars, who also hold that Matthew and Luke used a lost source of Jesus's sayings called Q. Their conclusion is largely based upon an analysis of the language and content relationship between the various books. Some conservative scholars, however, say the Markan priority hypothesis is not consistent with internal evidence and with the testimony of the church fathers

Some info on mary's importance in the story

That three of the Gospels portray Mary Magdalene as the first to see Jesus post-death, is generally considered to be of significance. Mary Magdalene was a major figure in Gnosticism, and one of the main teachers besides Jesus, the only other of similar significance being Thomas Didymus. Supporters of Gnostic priority (that Gnosticism is the original form of Christianity) see this as clear evidence that Mark, and hence, due to Markan priority, the entire resurrection narrative, was intended to be interpreted gnostically. Though owing to intrinsic beliefs about the nature of the physical world, Gnosticism generally viewed women as equals, in Judaism of the era women were not considered valid legal witnesses. Westcott, and other supporters of John's authenticity, sometimes use this to argue that the narratives must be factual, since someone faking it would be more likely to use a prominent and respected witness, though this neglects the possibility of well planned forgery.

Why John portrays Mary as initially not recognising Jesus, even though she had known him well for a long time, is something of much debate. One theory is that, since Luke records two disciples as failing to recognise a post-death appearance of Jesus, the physical form of Jesus after resurrection must have been different, either due to the resurrection process itself, or due to the ordeal of crucifixion. More down-to-earth explanations have also been advanced, the most prominent being that Mary's tears had clouded her vision, or alternately that she is so focused on recovering Jesus' body, that she is temporarily blind to its being in front of her. However, John Calvin, and many other Christians, read this as a metaphor: that Mary's blindness despite seeing Jesus represents the blindness, according to Christians, of non-Christians who have already been informed about Jesus. Why Jesus initially encourages Mary's lack of recognition is also something of a mystery, though Dibelius, like many others, sees it as a literary conceit, since the trope of a returning hero's being unrecognised or disguised dates back at least as far as Homer's Odyssey, and Feuillet sees echoes of the Song of Solomon in this passage.

Amongst those who see John as a deliberate piece of polemical orthodox propaganda, it is seen as a deliberate attack by John against the gnostics, by portraying one of their key figures as being stupid. The frequently raised idea that John is orthodox propaganda has also been proposed to explain the reference to gardeners. A Jewish anti-Christian story from the period sought to discredit the resurrection, by claiming that a gardener named Judas moved Jesus' body to another tomb to avoid his cabbages' being trampled upon by the crowds that came to see it, causing the resurrection myth to arise when Mary and the others found the tomb empty. Hans Von Campenhausen has argued that John adds the mention of a gardener as a deliberate reference to this Jewish story, and as an attempt to discredit it, though Rudolf Schnackenberg regards the sequence of cause and effect to be the reverse - that the Jewish story originated from John's mention of a gardener. Amongst Victorian commentators, Hoskyns and Lightfoot regarded the mention of a gardener as a metaphor relating to the Garden of Eden.

Heres the link filled with interesting info...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Appearances_of_Jesus

 

[Lanshark]

So you are honestly telling me his death, burial, and reserection are more important to your religion then your messiah's teachings??? To me that is unbelieveable!

Without the resurrection there is no Christianity

 

[magicmato]

Of course, then there is the issue that just because the bible says something, or because the bible is interpreted by a church in a certain way, does NOT make it fact. The Church had to come out and admit that Mary Magdalene was NOt a prostitute, despite its best efforts to cast her in that light in the past. If the church, due to one pope's issues and bias can malign one person in the bible, to state that there is no way that anyone could have fiddled with the version of the bible we have today is silly. Of course people fiddled. That is what makes us human.

 

[jimmiej]

So you are honestly telling me his death, burial, and reserection are more important to your religion then your messiah's teachings??? To me that is unbelieveable!

Christianity 101

Christians believe that, as Messiah, Jesus was anointed as ruler and savior of humanity in general, and hold that Jesus's coming was the fulfilment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The core Christian belief is that, through his death and resurrection, Jesus reconciles mankind to God and thereby brings salvation and the promise of eternal life to those who believe in him. The need for salvation was necessitated by the Fall from Grace which was caused by Adam's original sin of disobedience to the commandment of God.

Christians believe salvation is a gift by unmerited grace of God, who sent Jesus as the savior. Christians believe that through faith in Jesus one can be saved from sin and spiritual death. The crucifixion of Jesus is explained as an atoning sacrifice, which, in the words of the Gospel of John, "takes away the sins of the world". Reception of salvation is related to justification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

The Gospels do not talk about him appearing before 500 people. almost always first to mary then to others, usually the desciples.

A simple breakdown of what the books claims are of who saw him.

(pulled from wikipedia's resurection resources)


So to you who do I believe??? These account all are different then Pauls Letters in Corinthians and say nothing of 500 people.

Not to mention mark originally didn't even metion it!!!!!

So who's account is correct?

Both. Paul spoke personally with several of the disciples.

 

[EltonJohn]

DNA evidence-I highly doubt that coming from a anti-Christian film director. When a serious and respected scholar of Early Christianity comes along then I'll listen.

 

[EltonJohn]

Without the resurrection there is no Christianity.

You should read Bart Erhman's Lost Christianites.

 

[EltonJohn]

After all, He was Jewish and followed the religion. I don't quite get how modern Christianity got so far away from Jewish beliefs.

Blame Paul of Tarsus, but if Marcion (who was Paul's biggest cheerleader in later times) got his way . . .

 

[magicmato]

DNA evidence-I highly doubt that coming from a anti-Christian film director. When a serious and respected scholar of Early Christianity comes along then I'll listen.

Anti-Christian? Where do you get that he is Anti-Christian?

 

[phillybeth]

DNA evidence-I highly doubt that coming from a anti-Christian film director. When a serious and respected scholar of Early Christianity comes along then I'll listen.

Sigh. All right, YOU fly up to heaven and get a DNA sample from God the Son, ok? And while you're up there, swing by Mary's place and get one from her- and ask her if she knows where her ex-husband is hanging out (no in marriage in heaven, remember?) so you can get a sample from Joseph. I'll even give you sterile swabs to use- just PM me. I'll run the DNA tests personally.