DebatingChristianity.com | Christianity and Apologetics


The Resurrection

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Re: The Resurrection 
Author: MrWhy 
Posted: 09/01/2006 07:18 PM 
 








Sleepy wrote:
Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was _____.



It's clear there's no definitive explanation as to what really happened. It is also clear that there is not much evidence that a resurrection occurred. There are many possible explanations that are more plausible than a person dead for days actually came back alive. Acceptance of an ancient miracle story is a strong statement about the effect that religious belief can have on the reasoning process.

If the same story surfaced today it would take much more than the testimony of a few eye witnesses to establish it as fact. Unless the death and resurrection had both been continually observed and certified by a staff of uninvolved qualified people, it would not be accepted as a miracle. Even then there would be many skeptics unless the event could be repeated and verified. We just don't have any adequately validated supernatural miracles on record.

The Bible resurrection account is accepted by some because it is told in the context of the overall Christian story and faith idea. Outside that context it would not hold much water.


 
Author: Goat 
Posted: 09/01/2006 08:17 PM 
 








achilles12604 wrote:








goat wrote:








achilles12604 wrote:
Ok. I have now read through Carriers entire document.

Everything he said is possible, with the exception that Quirinius could not have been assisting another governer in conducting the census.

However, I have an idea which I had never heard of before. Thanks to the wonders of debate, I have now been enlightened to this possibility.



What if we are all looking at the wrong person? So far all the debate has been around Quirinius. This is because Josephus was trusted when he said Herod died after an eclipse. I have no problem with this. But my question for the entire forum is Which Eclipse?

There were several ecplises during that time. The eclipse refered to by most people was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 BC, but there were two other eclipses of the moon on July 17, 1 BC and on January 9-10, 1 AD.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEcat/LE-0099-0000.html

Since Josephus only refers to one eclipse we are not sure of which one.

ALSO ---


Josephus dating is not necessarily accurate. Roman historian Appianos calculated Herod's kingship as ending around 1 or 2 BC. But why would these two historians differ?

The answer could be that Josephus counted by a method known as consular dating or dating things against when particular people became consuls. This leaves a margin for error of one year just by his system of dating.

There is more evidence that Josephus was off by an entire year.

Josephus says that Herod took the thrown in 40 BC. Also, In his own writings he said that Herod took the captured jerusalem in 37BC and that this was 27 years after the capture of pompey. But Pompey was captured in 63 BC. This shows that even among his own writings Josephus is off by no less than a year.

Appianos on the other hand has a different year for Herod's kingship. In [[Appianos] - book "Appianos Romaika" (Appian's Roman History) published 2nd Century AD] he placed the event in 39 BC. Again we have a discrepancy of one year.

Another problem with Josephus dating is the amount of events that had to occur between the eclipse and Passover. However, if Appianos was correct, then there were a couple months for all these events to occur which fits much more easily.

Lets look again at the dating presented by these two historians.

Looking at Herods death, Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 BC), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2])

But this would mean that Harod died in 2 BC or 1 BC whereas Appianos dating would place it at 1 BC or 1 AD.


Interestingly, if Herod died somewhere around 1BCE or especially 1AD, this allows all the facts to fall into place.

Quin was appointed to be an adviser to Caius Caesar in the government of Armenia (Caius was counsul and was sent to Syria in 1 A.D. and was wounded in nearby Armenia in 3 A.D. and later died in 4 A.D.) Why else would he advisor of Syria unless he had a lot of knowledge about the area which we are sure of because he had spent the last 6-8 years there as a commanding general for Rome. Tacitus Annals- Book Two

This would explain how he could order the census and as your Mr. Carrier points out, there was no consistency in how they were carried out except in Egypt (due to taxation of 14 year old boys.) You see, I do learn from atheists! icon_joy

By simply re-assessing the date of Herod's death, EVERYTHING falls into place fairly well. Luke does say he was governer but I will allow that Luke possibly meant he was assisting the BRAND NEW governer.



Concluding, Josephus was off by at least one full year even by his own calculations. His calculations (assuming Herod was 70 years old) would put Herods Death within 2 BC (47BC-45 years) which would really mean around 1BC, not 4BC.

Roman historian Appianos's dating is much sounder if you take Josephus dating into account (ie dates of events off by 1 year with Josephus but not with Appianos), and his dating would put Herod's death once again at 1 BCish.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEcat/LE-0099-0000.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa100797.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/1997/97nd_7.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Date_of_Herods_death/id/1292322
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEcat/LE-0099-0000.html
http://www.biblehistory.net/volume2/Quirinius.htm



The date for Herod the King's death still is irrelavent, even if Josphus was off by a year or so. Quinsrisis still didn't take over the providence of Syria and control over Judah until the exile of Herod Archelaus. Herod Archelaus was Herod the Kings son, and ruled Judah for a number of years before being replaced for incompetency.

Both the Jews and the Samaratins directly asked Rome to replace HerodArchelaus.

While it might be possible for the dates in Josphus to be off (he was a careless historian in many respects), the sequence of events that took place is
1) Herod the King died.
2) HIs kingdom was split between his 3 sons, with Herod Archelaus taking over the southern kingdom (judah), given in Josphus at 4 bce.
3) Herod Archelaus was so bad as a ruler, that the Jews and Samaratians appealed to Rome, and had him replaced. This put Judah under the direct control of Rome in the providence of Syria , given in Josphus as happening in 6 C.E. It is at this point that a cencus was reported to be ordered (again Josephus is the origin of this). The zealot Judas the Galilean organized a revolt against Rome due to this cencus.

Because of those sequneces, we can't be looking at the wrong man.



You missed the last part of my writings. Let me quote myself . . .









Quote:
Luke does say he was governer but I will allow that Luke possibly meant he was assisting the BRAND NEW governer.



Actually I am even wrong to a degree. The ancient Greek litterally says,

"This registraition first occured during the governing syria Cyrenius."

This is the litteral translation from Green interliner bible with Strongs.

As you can see, it says he was governing, not the governer. While this could be (don't get ahead of me) splitting hairs, it could also be very important. An analogy :

While Bush (Gov) is in fact president of the US, it is Donald Rumsfield (quin) who makes most of the decisions about Iraq. Quite often when orders come down, they have Rumsfield's name, not the presidents. Rumsfield is acting as a deputy to the president and so he retains the President's power to command the forces on the field. But the media usually claims Bush made all the decisions which would be impossible and is also not true since Rumsfield's decisions are not always agreed with by the Pres and are therefore altered.

The troops point to Rumsfield in thier chain of command before the President (on the way up). So even though the President is in fact commander in chief, he does not necessarily make all the decisions personally. In fact he makes very few, but is given credit for most of them.

Now what if Bush was brand spanking new and had almost zero experience in Judah but Rumsfield had been there for over a decade?. Who would be put in charge of a census? He isn't the ruler, but he can do this especailly if asked to by the Pres.

So it does matter. Especially since I am not stuck on the word "governing".



I think you are trying to overanalyse the words to try to find a way to reconcile Matthew and Luke. What you are trying to do violates what is known as the 'kiss' technique. (keep it simple.. )

On the other hand, the fact that Luke was trying to use the cencus at all does strengthen the hypthosis that Richard Carrier has that Luke is dependant on Josephus.

We also have the account of Cassius Dio, who confirms that Quinarsis was sent to Syria in 6 c.e., and replace 'Herod the Palistinan' (which was Herold Archelaus' political name.) Cassius Dio was not sure why "herod the palistinan' was removed, so this makes him an independant source other than Josephus.

So we have two sources that are independant of each other that confirm that Quinarsis became govenor in Syria in 6 c.e.


 
Author: achilles12604 
Posted: 09/01/2006 10:44 PM 
 








Quote:
So we have two sources that are independant of each other that confirm that Quinarsis became govenor in Syria in 6 c.e.



This is not a point I am arguing. I am simply giving evidence which explains away Carrier's arguement.

I thought it was interesting how well everything fit if you simply move Herod's death back. All the pieces seem to fall into place including Richard Carriers objections to the 14 year cycle presented by the apologists (notice 5 years before 6 AD), his objections to the tablets that were found and others.

It all fits nicely. And my explainaiton may not be enough for you, but was my analogy incorrect? If so how? If not, then why not acknowledge that at least that makes some sense?


 
Author: Lotan 
Posted: 09/01/2006 10:56 PM 
 








achilles12604 wrote:
What if we are all looking at the wrong person?


Was 'Luke' looking at the wrong person too?








achilles12604 wrote:
But my question for the entire forum is Which Eclipse?


That's easy! It's the one that happened "...that very night..." (Antiquities XVII:7:4)








achilles12604 wrote:
I am simply giving evidence which explains away Carrier's arguement.


I hate to butt into your debate with Richard Carrier, but he does seem to have this issue covered. See Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?. Here's a preview...

"...the evidence we do have stands against such a thesis."


 
Author: Anonymous 
Posted: 09/01/2006 11:46 PM 
 
[quote="goat"][quote="AB"]








goat wrote:








AB wrote:









Quote:
I am looking at it now. It doesnt have a part: "when quintariss first became governor of Syria". Sorry.



No problem. It happens to everyone.











Quote:
Maybe you misunderstood. I was telling you that your were in error stating that I was reading Luke incorrectly. Seems like your grasping at straws here a little.




Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'









Quote:
The first CENSUS.


 
Author: Goat 
Posted: 09/02/2006 08:42 AM 
 








AB wrote:

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.



And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.


 
Author: Cathar1950 
Posted: 09/02/2006 11:28 AM 
 
Some think the revolt in Galilee by Judas in 6 CE was the beginning of the Zealots.
This may also be the root of Jesusí James and Simon in Act might be the same in Josephus. Given the zealot nature of some of Jesusí disciples and the cover up after the war you wonder what is really going on. I mean we are doing a lot of speculating here in defense of a perfect bible and perfectly transmitted traditions. Judas may have actually been used for the Judas of the Gospels. Judasí two sons might have been the two zealots killed with Jesus in story form.


 
Author: Goat 
Posted: 09/02/2006 11:49 AM 
 








Cathar1950 wrote:
Some think the revolt in Galilee by Judas in 6 CE was the beginning of the Zealots.
This may also be the root of Jesusí James and Simon in Act might be the same in Josephus. Given the zealot nature of some of Jesusí disciples and the cover up after the war you wonder what is really going on. I mean we are doing a lot of speculating here in defense of a perfect bible and perfectly transmitted traditions. Judas may have actually been used for the Judas of the Gospels. Judasí two sons might have been the two zealots killed with Jesus in story form.



The concept that Judas' two sons were the two zealots killed with Jesus is pure speculation.

However, it is interesting that there was 'Judas the Gallian" inhistory format, and then the story about Judas betraying Jesus (who had his ministry in Galliee).


 
Author: Anonymous 
Posted: 09/02/2006 12:43 PM 
 








goat wrote:








AB wrote:

Yes, it says 'when quintariss first became govenor of syria'
The first CENSUS.



And do you have any historical source that shows this was not 6 ce?

No speculation, but an actual source? JOshepus and Cassious Dio say that was 6 c.e.











Quote:
Not at this time(I'm still researching this very interesting logical thing). But, at the same time. there is no actual source that 100% shows this first census was in 6. One thing we can draw from Luke is, there is more than one Census(If you specify a first census, logic dictates there is a 2nd)... And quintariss was prominant during the time of Herod.


 
Author: Cathar1950 
Posted: 09/02/2006 01:43 PM 
 








Quote:
The concept that Judas' two sons were the two zealots killed with Jesus is pure speculation.


Of course it is speculation but interesting.
Every time you find a contridiction in the bible they do all kinds of speculation showing your view to be in "error".
I just tend to think there is a lot going on we are in the dark about.
The two zealots killed with Jesus may be just an idea taken from Josephus where 3 Jews get staked and one survived. Who knows?
I found this and I thought it was fun. I will try and find where I got it.










Quote:
'Paul' wrote the LIE "that Christ (first)appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5).
The Word of God as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John emphasise that Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah "FIRST" appeared to "THE WOMEN" (Matthew 28:9. Mark 16:9. Luke 24:10. John 20:14,15)
It is not therefore surprising that 'Paul' and his Christian ministers despise and hate women and treat them as second class citizens
'Paul' wrote the LIE "After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time" ( 1 Cor. 15:6)

The apostle Peter testifies that "the number of names ALTOGETHER were about a hundred and twenty disciples" (Acts 1:15
'Paul' wrote the LIE "and last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared to me also" (1 Cor. 15:8)

Luke together with 'Paul's' own testimony confirms that 'Paul' DID NOT SEE THE RISEN YESHUA (JESUS) but "SAW A DISEMBODIED LIGHT" (Acts 9:3. 22:9)



Full version