Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[polonius]

Clare Evans wrote:

polonius.advice wrote:

Since Matthew wasn't written until ten years AFTER the destruction of the Temple, Matthew knew what had happened before he wrote the prophecy.

>>>Why didn't the author of Matthew say that the prophecy had been fulfilled? We have that same passage in Mark 13 which is said to have been written between 50-70 AD.<<<

RESPONSE: Perhaps for the same reason the Gospel of John written after 94 AD didn’t. (Please note if a statement is only written after the fact, it isn’t really a prophecy at all).


>>I believe it is a case of wishful thinking. It was a widespread belief, and wish, that Jesus would return within their generation. We have the same thinking today. I believe the gospel writers misunderstood Jesus and possibility inserted the Luke 17:25 themselves which Jesus didn't say.

RESPONSE: Divine inspiration and inerrancy are supposed to be the essential elements of scripture. Not “Wishful thinking.�

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. …..Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture� (Providentissimus deus)


polonius.advice wrote:

RESPONSE: Scripture is supposed to be "God breahted" and therefore inspired and inerrant. But now you say that scripture contains errors and thus is not always inspired.[/b]

>>>No, it isn't inerrant. Humans are fallible.>>>

RESPONSE: God isn't fallible. That's the point. Humans are fallible., not God. If scripture can be shown to have contained error, then it cannot be claimed to be divinely inspired. Moreover, if scripture is admitted to contain error, it cannot be regarded as infallible moral guide. Each reader has to discern what is bible truth or error.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Pilate would have given them permission to have guards to inspect the tomb.

Again, you are forced to entirely make this up and then declare it to be true. Because there is absolutely no indication of this in the text. Had the plan been for Roman guards to open and inspect the tomb the Jewish priests would not have come anywhere near the tomb. In fact however, according to the text, the exact opposite occurred. The priests are specifically depicted as being at the tomb, and no mention of Roman soldiers or of opening the tomb is provided whatsoever. You are forced to rewrite the story in a very obvious attempt to serve your own unfounded conclusions.

You think I invent things when you are making inferences yourself. Nowhere in the gospels does it say that Jesus was taken away on the Friday night. You are alluding that they took Jesus' body away that night? That they planned transport for the body at a drop of a hat? Did I not mention that that a body must be left where it is on the Sabbath?

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.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

The body was heavily prepared as if it was intended to be taken on a trip. That is included in Gospel John. Why include this detail? Because it was a detail that the author of Gospel John had gleaned in some way, and, having nothing to hide it was included. It is an odd and rather memorable detail, since coating the body with 100 pounds of aloes and myrrh was a rather unusual thing to do. It served no real purpose, UNLESS the body was expected to be in close proximity to the living for an extended period. It certainly WAS NOT common practice to coat corpses so heavily in such an expensive way, since very few could have afforded such an extravagance. Gospel John was written near the beginning of the second century. It's author, being a true believer and not a part of any hoax, wrote the story according to what he believed to be true and leaving in the details as he had been made aware of them.

The tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. We in the 21st century are left with two options apparent. Either the priests took possession of an empty tomb because the body had already been relocated elsewhere, just as they feared. OR, the tomb was empty because the corpse came back to life and left the tomb on it's own power. I understand that you are completely emotionally invested in the second claim, but that does not change the fact that it is a totally unrealistic and insupportable thing to claim. Especially when we can see perfectly well that the obvious suspects, as named in Matt.27:64 ALREADY HAD POSSESSION OF THE BODY. They took possession of the body the previous day, and no one ever clearly had possession of the body again but them. I know it's not the conclusion that you so desperately want to believe, but it happens to be the conclusion that makes perfect sense. Nor does it require making up details and inserting them into the text for the purpose of maintaining that of course a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away.

The only real slight of hand in this whole tail is the question of whether the followers of Jesus would have honored Jewish laws concerning the Sabbath, or whether they would have felt compelled to ignore them when necessary.

Mark 2:
[24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

They were DISDAINFUL of Jewish Sabbath day laws, and had routinely violated them when they believed it was necessary to do so.

To purposely violate the Sabbath when not necessary is forbidden. Have you thought of what the crowd would have reacted if they saw Jesus' body being transported over the Sabbath? Do you not think there would not be attempts to forcefully snatch the body and destroy it? Many of the Jews hated Jesus and wanted His death. It is inane to believe that Jesus' friends and family would risk this.

Heavily wrapped as the body was, placed into an animal cart or wagon and covered as it would have had to have been to protect it from the sun and becoming warm, why would anyone else be aware of the nature of the cargo?

It is inane to believe that Jesus' friends and family would risk this. Why not wait until after the Sabbath to transport His body? Why the roaring hurry?

Why the roaring hurry? Because they had a perishable cargo and a journey of several days ahead of them. Making the trip with the roads clogged with tens of thousands of pilgrims returning home could have delayed them for days. Beginning the journey on the Sabbath while the roads were still clear in an attempt to stay well ahead of the returning throngs of people makes all the sense in the world. It also had the effect of keeping the body of Jesus beyond the reach of the Jewish authorities should they decide to take an interest in the final deposition of the body. Which, according to Matt.27:64, they did.

Jesus was not saying that no one should observe the Sabbath. He was just saying that no one must make it more important than Jesus. No one must be a slave to the Sabbath. So Jesus' friends and family would not have gone out of their way to violate the Sabbath. They may have placed more importance on Jesus rather than the Sabbath, but the crowd didn't.

According to Gospel Mark, Jesus himself specifically said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The disciples had a pressing need to use that Sabbath for their own purposes. Even today, all but the most pious Jews consider not plying their trade on the Sabbath as respecting the Sabbath day commandment.

We aren't going to get anyway in this argument unless you acknowledge that Kustodia was an elite Roman military group.

Kustodia simply means guard (or more specifically, a watch). The word by itself does not denote anything more specific then the word guard (or a watch) does in English. Roman kustodia is a specific term with a specific meaning, but that's not the term used in Gospel Matthew. I cannot prevent you from simply declaring to be true those things that you prefer to believe are true. But I can point out that these declarations are of things which are not contained in scripture and allow those following along to draw their own conclusions.

But you are adding on that Jesus body' was transported over the Sabbath so why have a problem when I do it? This is by far not consistent with the narrative. Why was it not included in the scriptures.

You have trouble believing that a group with a grudge and a deep abiding disdain for the existing system might choose to break the rules to advance their personal agenda, but you have no trouble at all in believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away? Right or wrong, do you not see the tremendous incongruity here?

And you forgot to consider that Jewish guards were not allowed to work on the Sabbath and that means guarding tombs. A logical conclusion to that would be to assume that they got the Romans to be guards to not to violate the Sabbath.

It was the primary duty of the Jewish Temple Police to scrupulously guard the temple from desecration and intrusions. Do you really suppose that once a week for 24 hours they simply stood idle? Soldiers follow the orders from their superiors 24/7 and 365.

[Ancient of Years]

It seems to be logical that the Gospel of Luke and Mark were written before 70 AD:

"The date of the fall of Jerusalem serves to show an early date for the Gospels better, in my opinion, that it shows a later date. This is especially true in the case of Luke. Luke is the only Gospel writer who wrote a sequel to his Gospel, which we call the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke’s Gospel he depicts Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple, but does not make that prediction come true in his sequel. Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome in AD 60-62. Just eight years later the temple would be destroyed and the prediction Jesus made in chapter 21 of his Gospel would have come true. If Luke was writing Acts after the destruction of the temple it seems rather strange that he didn’t continue the story beyond Paul’s imprisonment in Rome and conclude his story with a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy. Especially since continuing the story past Paul’s imprisonment would cause the story to also include Paul’s untimely death in AD 65. Since Luke was Paul’s traveling companion, it would seem highly appropriate for Luke to pay tribute to his fallen comrade if he were writing the book of Acts after his death. As it is, Luke spends the last five chapters of Acts anticipating Paul’s trial before Caesar and ends the book with no mention of it. Clearly, Luke finished the book before Paul had his trial before Caesar and before he was beheaded in AD 65. Since Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it had to have been written before Acts, and since Luke probably used Mark as a source, Mark had to be written before Luke. This means that both Mark and Luke were living at the same time as the eyewitnesses they interviewed for their Gospels. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses themselves and were therefore based their Gospels on their own memory."

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/gospeldates/

So it is very telling that Luke didn't mention the destruction of the Temple in Acts. That would have definitely been mentioned if he wrote Acts after 70 AD. And we know Acts is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke.

If Luke had mentioned the destruction of the Temple in Acts he would have to explain why Jesus did not show up. Luke employed the Olivet Discourse scenario as did Mark and Luke, that being part of the by then standard story. But later it was just too late to put any credibility in it. Instead Luke does an elaborate switch in Acts 1, turning the expected dramatic return of the Son of Man in the clouds into the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This redirected the story from the expectation of an imminent eschaton to the ongoing church. As the angels said when Jesus ascended in Acts 1, stop looking at the clouds.

Luke ends his story with Paul still alive to finish on an up note. “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!� (Acts 28:30-31) The whole point of Acts is that the church is alive and will continue. Having Paul get killed would ruin that. And mentioning the destruction of the Temple would definitely ruin everything, reminding people that the ‘prophecy’ was ‘fulfilled’ but still no Jesus in sight.

[JLB32168]

WHAT, exactly is an "immaterial entity" and HOW does it differ from an imaginary entity?

Immaterial – not consisting of matter. An analogy would be energy which occupies neither space nor has mass and cannot be weighed.

Notice that proposed "immaterial entities" include angels, devils, demons, seraphim, souls and other "entities" from Bible tales cannot be shown to be anything other than constructs of human mental processes (imagination).

In other words, you’re not really interested in the question as evidenced by the fact that you default to the typical argument – that of proving the existence of supernatural entities. Why bother debating Resurrection and if it might be historical fact?

Of course, asking the question in the first place was rather silly since one cannot prove the answer either way. At best one might debate whether or not early Christians thought anastasis involved the actual, physical rising of a corpse that had come back to life or if they only felt it was a spiritual resurrection. That’s a question that can actually be debated.

When telling stories about a hypothetical "omnipotent being" or other "immaterial entity" one can . . .

Translation: The existence of deities cannot be proved so any answer to any question you give is pointless.

The operating term is "allegedly" – indicating that all "knowledge" of such things is CLAIMED – and may be speculation, opinion, guesswork, imagination (ancient or modern).

No – the question assumed if only for the sake of argument that A)Christ existed and B)was a deity incarnate and then asked where Christ would have gotten half of his genes if he was the product of human parthenogenesis. The answer was that an omnipotent deity that presumably created the universe ex nihilio would be quite able to create missing genes (twenty-three pairs including a “Y�) required to make a typical H. sapiens I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to interject that this is all speculation. It strikes me as being somewhat akin to announcing to everyone that the sky is blue and only suggests that militant atheism and unoriginal thinking go hand in hand.

It is understandable that ancient storytellers were unaware of such things, but it is inexcusable that modern people . . .

Again, this is a retreat into the standard red herring atheist argument on this board – that of “Deities don’t exist so every point built on the premise that they actually do exist, is fantasy.�

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 627 by Zzyzx]

WHAT, exactly is an "immaterial entity" and HOW does it differ from an imaginary entity?

Immaterial – not consisting of matter. An analogy would be energy which occupies neither space nor has mass and cannot be weighed.

Actually, there are at least two definitions for immaterial.

1) not consisting of matter :  incorporeal; and 2) of no substantial consequence :  unimportant http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterial

Perhaps the second fits better?

Notice that proposed "immaterial entities" include angels, devils, demons, seraphim, souls and other "entities" from Bible tales cannot be shown to be anything other than constructs of human mental processes (imagination).

In other words, you’re not really interested in the question as evidenced by the fact that you default to the typical argument – that of proving the existence of supernatural entities.

Correction: Someone claimed knowledge of “immaterial entity� and I ask now the claimed entity is different from an imaginary entity. Is that too difficult a question?

Why bother debating Resurrection and if it might be historical fact?

A reason to debate the topic is that some claim to know that the claimed resurrection was a historical fact

Of course, asking the question in the first place was rather silly since one cannot prove the answer either way.

Questions that cannot be answered with proof either way CAN be debated. One can use preponderance of evidence from multiple disconnected sources to support their position. For instance, evidence from forensic biology can be cited to show what happens to bodies after death. This is “countered� by claims that long-dead bodies DID come back to life by magic (or “miracle�) based on stories told by ancient writers. Which is the more rational position? Readers will decide for themselves.

That is an illustration of points made in these debates.

At best one might debate whether or not early Christians thought anastasis involved the actual, physical rising of a corpse that had come back to life or if they only felt it was a spiritual resurrection. That’s a question that can actually be debated.

The OP certainly does NOT restrict debate to what early Christians thought (though Apologists may prefer to move discussion in that direction).

What early Christians thought is immaterial (using the second definition above). What ANYONE thought is merely opinion.
They also thought that human afflictions were caused by demons that could be “cast out� and run away as pigs – and all manner of such things that are now known to be fanciful, imaginary, in error (unless they can cite examples of pigs running away from a cured person – in the real world, not folklore and legend).

When telling stories about a hypothetical "omnipotent being" or other "immaterial entity" one can . . .

Translation: The existence of deities cannot be proved so any answer to any question you give is pointless.

Correction: The point made in debate is that Apologists MUST assume / maintain that their favorite “immaterial entities� DO exist and did perform magical feats – without proof.

Disbelief in tales told does not require proof of non-existence.

The operating term is "allegedly" – indicating that all "knowledge" of such things is CLAIMED – and may be speculation, opinion, guesswork, imagination (ancient or modern).

No – the question assumed if only for the sake of argument that A)Christ existed and B)was a deity incarnate

What question assumes that Jesus was a “deity incarnate�. JLB made a claim to that effect. Others prefer to think that Jesus was a wandering preacher.

and then asked where Christ would have gotten half of his genes if he was the product of human parthenogenesis. The answer was that an omnipotent deity that presumably created the universe ex nihilio would be quite able to create missing genes (twenty-three pairs including a “Y�) required to make a typical H. sapiens I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to interject that this is all speculation. It strikes me as being somewhat akin to announcing to everyone that the sky is blue and only suggests that militant atheism and unoriginal thinking go hand in hand.

Many seem to debate from a position of assuming that “everybody knows� that discussion of Gods is NOT hypothetical – that we are discussing something real.

If we all agree that discussions about gods are purely hypothetical, I have no objection.

It is understandable that ancient storytellers were unaware of such things, but it is inexcusable that modern people . . .

Again, this is a retreat into the standard red herring atheist argument on this board – that of “Deities don’t exist so every point built on the premise that they actually do exist, is fantasy.�

Correction: My statements / position is NOT that deities do not exist. Instead, I challenge those who claim knowledge of such entities to show that their claims of knowledge are truthful and accurate.

How are claims of knowledge about gods different from claims of knowledge about ANY supposed or proposed “immaterial entities� (including those mentioned in an earlier post)?

[polonius]

Clare wrote:

>>It seems to be logical that the Gospel of Luke and Mark were written before 70 AD: <<

RESPONSE: Please cite your evidence to support this claim.

Luke is the only Gospel writer who wrote a sequel to his Gospel, which we call the Acts of the Apostles. In Luke’s Gospel he depicts Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple, but does not make that prediction come true in his sequel. ….Since Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it had to have been written before Acts, and since Luke probably used Mark as a source, Mark had to be written before Luke. This means that both Mark and Luke were living at the same time as the eyewitnesses they interviewed for their Gospels….�
http://evidenceforchristianity.org/gospeldates/

>>So it is very telling that Luke didn't mention the destruction of the Temple in Acts. That would have definitely been mentioned if he wrote Acts after 70 AD. And we know Acts is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke. <<

RESPONSE: Not at all. Again note that John’s gospel written c. 95-100 AD does not mention the destruction of the Temple. Nor do writings of others in the Bible.

>>John doesn't mention the destruction of the temple because John was not interested in the events as he was in writing about Jesus as a person. It was mystical and that is why it is not one of the Synoptic gospels. <<

RESPONSE: So you agree that it happened but he didn’t think it was important? Could this be the case with Mark. Matthew, and Luke also?

polonius.advice wrote:

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Matthew 16:28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 10:23 And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.

Jesus repeatedly claimed that his return would occur during his generation. but, of course, it didn't. Thus he is shown to be lacking in divine knowledge. Or the writers of the New Testament just made up a story.


>>Why do we have two prophecies then? Are we to assume that Jesus was lying about one of them? It is not possible that Jesus did not say generation but the gospel writers wrote that He said that?<<

RESPONSE: Not at all if the claim of divine inspiration is to be believed.

“Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.� (Providentissimuse deus)

RESPONSE: Keep in mind that ALL scripture is supposed to be divinely inspired and inerrant.

And we certainly have more than two prophecies of Jesus’ second coming. For example:

Matthew 26:64

Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you,
From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’

Matthew10:23

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

>> Is it not possible that they wanted to believe it so they put words in Jesus' mouth? Everybody wants to believe Jesus will come back in their own life-time. <<

RESPONSE: Starting about 85 AD, the early Christians wanted to believe Jesus was divine. This claim first appeared in John's gospel c. 95 AD. Since we have no record before 30 to 60 years of what Jesus actually said, obviously "they put words in Jesus' mouth here to."

>>An example of a made up story was the story of the possessed pigs. It was an allegory for the Jewish Wars and actually did not happen.<<

RESPONSE: Fiction writers get their material wherever they can. Much in the New Testament is “made up� and did not really happen. (For exmple, note that Matthew's account of the pig story claimed a different geographic location and had two possessed men while Mark had only one.)

Please note that question asked as the topic of this thread is if the Resurrection really happened or is just a story beginning with Paul's1 Corinthians c. 55 AD.

Do you have an opinion ?

[JLB32168]

Actually, there are at least two definitions for immaterial.

Other definitions for “immaterial� are irrelevant to the present discussion that focuses on the specifics regarding unseen entities alleged to exist.

Someone claimed knowledge of “immaterial entity� and I ask now the claimed entity is different from an imaginary entity. Is that too difficult a question?

As I see it, someone answered a question on what an immaterial entity and the nature of its existence – the difference between it and imaginary. The question is actually a red herring question challenging the existence of these entities rather than actually wanting to know the theology of said entity.

A reason to debate the topic is that some claim to know that the claimed resurrection was a historical fact.

I made no such claim. Aside from that, claims have also been made that the resurrection was historical fiction. If neither party can prove their point then it would seem that the question should never have been asked. It’s a stupid question.

Questions that cannot be answered with proof either way CAN be debated.

Whether or not the resurrection is historical fact can be debated inasmuch that neither side can conclusively prove their argument is true. You’ll forgive me for saying that’s a stupid debate.

For instance, evidence from forensic biology can be cited to show what happens to bodies after death.

Yes and counterclaims that the supernatural means “above nature� is not bound by the rules of forensic biology can also be cited.

The OP certainly does NOT restrict debate to . . .

I understand that. It’s one of most threads on this board where unprovable questions are discussed ad nauseam. I’m only calling attention to that tedious pattern on this board.

The point made in debate is that Apologists MUST assume / maintain that their favorite “immaterial entities� DO exist and did perform magical feats – without proof.

In other words, this topic is just like the other 500 threads on this website – a discussion on the existence of the supernatural. eyeroll.

What question assumes that Jesus was a “deity incarnate�. JLB made a claim to that effect. Others prefer to think that Jesus was a wandering preacher.

The question asked how a deity would compensate for the missing chromosomes. It would have to presuppose for the sake of considering the question that typical Christian theology was the parameters. It makes no demands upon the skeptic that s/he actually accept that the theology is reality – only that it is in place in order to debate the question.
Like I’ve said before, we can debate Shaw’s Pygmalion from a feminist perspective and it doesn’t require that we accept that Eliza Doolittle was a real person. The method of argumentation here on this website from most skeptics would be to demand proof of the existence of Doolittle once someone said, “Shaw caved when he supported traditional Patriarchal roles by having Ashley Howard successfully woo Eliza when Pygmalion was made into a movie.� It’s almost comical.

We must spend more on education; furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.
We need to study climate change to assess the damages that will occur in coastal communities; furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.
We wish to give our regards to Her Majesty on this her diamond Jubilee as Queen of England; furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.

We get it. Carthage must be destroyed.

Many seem . . .

Then why cite my comments and respond as if I do this?

Instead, I challenge those . . .

You cited my words and I’ve made no assertions as to certainty; instead, it just strikes me as a Catonian beating of a dead horse.

[Danmark]

Whether or not the resurrection is historical fact can be debated inasmuch that neither side can conclusively prove their argument is true. You’ll forgive me for saying that’s a stupid debate.

If it is a "stupid debate" the fault lies with those who advocate a position that is not falsifiable. This was the point of Russell's famous remark about an invisible China teapot.
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

It is not the task of sceptics to disprove received dogmas, rather it is the job of dogmatists to prove them. They cannot. It is intolerably presumptuous to argue the false equivalency that something unfalsifiable, such as a god or a goblin, is of the same standing as something that is falsifiable. The "stupid" assertion is that it is.

[Claire Evans]

Yes, I'm aware that age and generation are not inter-changeable in Matthew 24: 3 and Luke 17. What I’m trying to say is that Jesus can't have two prophecies that contradict each other. In Matthew 24: 1-2
It says:

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?� he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�

We know this prophecy came true. Therefor the credibility of what Jesus said would come at the end of the age is better than in Luke 17. So which one are we to believe?

I believe it is a case of wishful thinking. It was a widespread belief, and wish, that Jesus would return within their generation. We have the same thinking today. I believe the gospel writers misunderstood Jesus and possibility inserted the Luke 17:25 themselves which Jesus didn't say.

The Matthew 24 scriptures must have been written before 70 AD because then the scriptures would have mentioned that this prophecy came to pass. Not even Acts mentions the destruction of the Temple.

All three Synoptic Gospels open the Olivet Discourse with a reference to the destruction of the Temple and continue with a very similar set of signs. The main difference in Luke is that he omits the odd ‘abomination’ reference and replaces it with the siege of Jerusalem, something better known to his Gentile readers.

The section in Luke 17 referring to the end of days also appears in Matthew. (It does not appear in Mark.)

Luke 17

26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.�

Matthew 24

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

There is no contradiction. Luke places the passage in a different place than Matthew. It is not hard to see why. Matthew has it at the end of the Olivet Discourse. As you noted this appears to contradict the immediately preceding passage where definite signs are given. Then Matthew says that it will come without warning. Luke liked the passage but moved it elsewhere to avoid the too obvious contradiction.

My take on things:

Mark wrote to revive a fading faith in a quick return of Jesus as Paul indicated would happen. He used the then recent destruction of the Temple as a sign of that, creating a prophecy that he has Jesus speak. The ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ passages were intended to connect with that, making the expected time frame for Jesus to appear any day now.

Matthew based his story on Mark and added a great deal of his own material for his purposes – justifying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Matthew retained Mark’s Olivet Discourse but threw in disclaimers to explain away the additional delay in time. This included the elaborate ‘Noah’ passage quoted above.

Luke based his story on Mark and Matthew, reversing many of Matthew’s themes to make it more palatable to and understandable by a Gentile audience. Luke also used the Olivet Discourse passage but threw in even more disclaimers here and there in his Gospel.

The reason no one references that the Temple was actually destroyed is that all their stories are set before that event. A ‘prophecy’ supposedly made in the past of something that had already happened when the story is being read lends power to the story when the reader recognizes the ‘prophesied’ event.

Luke must be referring to the Temple destruction in 70 AD because it was not destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem. Luke concentrated more on the fall of the Temple rather than the end of the age.

The significance of these differences becomes clear as one carefully compares the accounts. Luke emphasizes the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 in a way the other Gospels do not. All the Synoptics anticipate the fall of Jerusalem in the way they introduce the discourse, but Luke focuses on the short-term event in a way Matthew and Mark do not. His temporal indicators (vv. 9, 12) draw the reader back toward the present before really focusing on the end in verses 25-28. A transition begins to appear in verses 20-24, but until verse 19 the focus is still on events before the judgment of the capital in A.D. 70, which is not yet the end.


The speech makes several points. First, Luke clearly shows how the destruction of A.D. 70 is distinct from but related to the end. The two events should not be confused, but Jerusalem's destruction, when it comes, will guarantee as well as picture the end, since one event mirrors the other. Both are a part of God's plan as events move toward the end.

I think that the Jews thought that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD meant the end of the age while Luke was insinuating differently. The other gospels were thinking that the destruction of the temple meant the end of the age was near while Luke is saying that the is saying that it is not something that is going to happen in succession.

"Two features of this discourse should not be overlooked. First, in verses 8-12 Jesus works from the end backwards and then in verse 25 leaps forward again in time, beyond Jerusalem's destruction to the end. Such a rewinding backwards in time is clear in light of the statement in verse 9 that the end will not come right away and the note in verse 12 that before all this--that is, the events of verses 8-11--other things will occur. With verse 12 and following, Jesus moves forward again, toward the description of Jerusalem's fall and the persecution that will accompany it. The issues of the end and the return of the Son of Man are deferred mostly until verse 25, with the reference to the times of the Gentiles in verse 24 serving as a transition into Jesus' statements about the end times. After Jerusalem falls, the period of Gentile rule will continue until the Son of Man returns."

So it will be at the end. When these cosmic signs are displayed, Jesus' followers can rest assured the end is near. In fact, when the whole discourse is taken into account, Jerusalem's fall--predicted as it is and mirroring the end as it does--also serves as a sign guaranteeing that what Jesus says about the end and redemption will come to pass. So Jesus says to look for two things: the fall of Jerusalem and cosmic signs. With these heavenly portents (vv. 25-26), the kingdom of God is near. In this text Luke speaks of the kingdom as not yet arrived, in contrast to earlier texts where it had already approached or come (10:9, 18; 11:20; 17:20). As has been noted, Luke sees the kingdom in two phases: an initial, already-present phase and a consummating, yet-to-come phase. The consummation will wrap up the promise in total fulfillment. Anticipation will become realization. The kingdom will be present in its fullness.

This will explain why the Jews believed that Jesus would come back in their life-time because they didn't distinguish what would happen in their generation and events to come way into the future. In the other gospels, generation was seen as the current generation. It is true that the destruction of Jerusalem happened in their generation. However, they went onto assume that this meant the end of the age would be in their generation also. Luke doesn't agree with that.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... uction-End

So Jesus could have said generation but there were different interpretations on what it meant.

The reason no one references that the Temple was actually destroyed is that all their stories are set before that event. A ‘prophecy’ supposedly made in the past of something that had already happened when the story is being read lends power to the story when the reader recognizes the ‘prophesied’ event.

But you'd think that Luke would mention the fall of Jerusalem after Paul was executed? However, he is silent on that. He doesn't continue Acts. The New Testament does write about a prophetic event and then say it has been fulfilled:

Matthew 21:4-11

4 All[a] this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’�

Therefore it would be reasonable to comment that the prophecy of the destruction of the temple had been fulfilled according to the scriptures.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Pilate would have given them permission to have guards to inspect the tomb.

Again, you are forced to entirely make this up and then declare it to be true. Because there is absolutely no indication of this in the text. Had the plan been for Roman guards to open and inspect the tomb the Jewish priests would not have come anywhere near the tomb. In fact however, according to the text, the exact opposite occurred. The priests are specifically depicted as being at the tomb, and no mention of Roman soldiers or of opening the tomb is provided whatsoever. You are forced to rewrite the story in a very obvious attempt to serve your own unfounded conclusions.

You think I invent things when you are making inferences yourself. Nowhere in the gospels does it say that Jesus was taken away on the Friday night. You are alluding that they took Jesus' body away that night? That they planned transport for the body at a drop of a hat? Did I not mention that that a body must be left where it is on the Sabbath?

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.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

The body was heavily prepared as if it was intended to be taken on a trip. That is included in Gospel John. Why include this detail? Because it was a detail that the author of Gospel John had gleaned in some way, and, having nothing to hide it was included. It is an odd and rather memorable detail, since coating the body with 100 pounds of aloes and myrrh was a rather unusual thing to do. It served no real purpose, UNLESS the body was expected to be in close proximity to the living for an extended period. It certainly WAS NOT common practice to coat corpses so heavily in such an expensive way, since very few could have afforded such an extravagance. Gospel John was written near the beginning of the second century. It's author, being a true believer and not a part of any hoax, wrote the story according to what he believed to be true and leaving in the details as he had been made aware of them.

The tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. We in the 21st century are left with two options apparent. Either the priests took possession of an empty tomb because the body had already been relocated elsewhere, just as they feared. OR, the tomb was empty because the corpse came back to life and left the tomb on it's own power. I understand that you are completely emotionally invested in the second claim, but that does not change the fact that it is a totally unrealistic and insupportable thing to claim. Especially when we can see perfectly well that the obvious suspects, as named in Matt.27:64 ALREADY HAD POSSESSION OF THE BODY. They took possession of the body the previous day, and no one ever clearly had possession of the body again but them. I know it's not the conclusion that you so desperately want to believe, but it happens to be the conclusion that makes perfect sense. Nor does it require making up details and inserting them into the text for the purpose of maintaining that of course a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away.

The only real slight of hand in this whole tail is the question of whether the followers of Jesus would have honored Jewish laws concerning the Sabbath, or whether they would have felt compelled to ignore them when necessary.

Mark 2:
[24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

They were DISDAINFUL of Jewish Sabbath day laws, and had routinely violated them when they believed it was necessary to do so.

To purposely violate the Sabbath when not necessary is forbidden. Have you thought of what the crowd would have reacted if they saw Jesus' body being transported over the Sabbath? Do you not think there would not be attempts to forcefully snatch the body and destroy it? Many of the Jews hated Jesus and wanted His death. It is inane to believe that Jesus' friends and family would risk this.

Heavily wrapped as the body was, placed into an animal cart or wagon and covered as it would have had to have been to protect it from the sun and becoming warm, why would anyone else be aware of the nature of the cargo?

It is inane to believe that Jesus' friends and family would risk this. Why not wait until after the Sabbath to transport His body? Why the roaring hurry?

Why the roaring hurry? Because they had a perishable cargo and a journey of several days ahead of them. Making the trip with the roads clogged with tens of thousands of pilgrims returning home could have delayed them for days. Beginning the journey on the Sabbath while the roads were still clear in an attempt to stay well ahead of the returning throngs of people makes all the sense in the world. It also had the effect of keeping the body of Jesus beyond the reach of the Jewish authorities should they decide to take an interest in the final deposition of the body. Which, according to Matt.27:64, they did.

Jesus was not saying that no one should observe the Sabbath. He was just saying that no one must make it more important than Jesus. No one must be a slave to the Sabbath. So Jesus' friends and family would not have gone out of their way to violate the Sabbath. They may have placed more importance on Jesus rather than the Sabbath, but the crowd didn't.

According to Gospel Mark, Jesus himself specifically said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The disciples had a pressing need to use that Sabbath for their own purposes. Even today, all but the most pious Jews consider not plying their trade on the Sabbath as respecting the Sabbath day commandment.

We aren't going to get anyway in this argument unless you acknowledge that Kustodia was an elite Roman military group.

Kustodia simply means guard (or more specifically, a watch). The word by itself does not denote anything more specific then the word guard (or a watch) does in English. Roman kustodia is a specific term with a specific meaning, but that's not the term used in Gospel Matthew. I cannot prevent you from simply declaring to be true those things that you prefer to believe are true. But I can point out that these declarations are of things which are not contained in scripture and allow those following along to draw their own conclusions.

But you are adding on that Jesus body' was transported over the Sabbath so why have a problem when I do it? This is by far not consistent with the narrative. Why was it not included in the scriptures.

You have trouble believing that a group with a grudge and a deep abiding disdain for the existing system might choose to break the rules to advance their personal agenda, but you have no trouble at all in believing that a corpse came back to life and flew away? Right or wrong, do you not see the tremendous incongruity here?

And you forgot to consider that Jewish guards were not allowed to work on the Sabbath and that means guarding tombs. A logical conclusion to that would be to assume that they got the Romans to be guards to not to violate the Sabbath.

It was the primary duty of the Jewish Temple Police to scrupulously guard the temple from desecration and intrusions. Do you really suppose that once a week for 24 hours they simply stood idle? Soldiers follow the orders from their superiors 24/7 and 365.

I think you and I have to agree that we are going around and around in circles. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I will concede your last point.