The Resurrection

[Sleepy]

I'm slowly working on this topic and have summarised some key aspects of this debate which are nicely truncated by the likes of Gary Habermas (the name should be familiar to all those who know of Anthony Flew) and some other authors. Let me first set the biblical and historical scene.

The eye witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

- All the Gospels in the bible refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This miraculous event is the pivot on which all Christianity turns

- Paul a previous critic and opponent of Christians became a contemporary eye witness claiming that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him. This was corroborated by another NT author in Acts.

- Paul refers to an oral tradition in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which claims Jesus appeared to numerous others of his followers, this tradition is estimated to date back to the first two years after the crucifixion (pre-Paul). Paul made trips to Jerusalem to check out the consistency of his gospel teaching with those who knew Jesus (Gal 2:1-10). Paul confirms the consistency (1 Cor:15:11-15). Many other similar creedal messages are found in many of the sermons in Acts

- James the brother of Jesus had previously been a skeptic of his brother. Suddenly after the resurrection appearances (one of which was to him according to the creedal message), James becomes the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

- The empty tomb has not been successfully doubted, this adds some support to the claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus being that those around them could not just point to the tomb where Jesus body was. Interestingly, the bible sites women as witnesses (something remarkable to do in a culture that would not have allowed female testimony in a court of law), if it was a made up story men would have been used to add credibility. Jerusalem would be the least likely of places to claim Jesus tomb was empty unless it actually was being that people there would know where the tomb was. Jewish leaders at the time did not dispute the empty tomb.

- The disciples lives all radically transformed after the supposed the resurrection of Christ even to the point of the majority being killed for their faith, some brutally so. This is often put down to them trying to start up their own lie, compared to suicide bombers. However suicide bombers actually believe the lies fed to them by others. In the case of the disciples, these men would have had to make up the lie and make it plausible enough to start up a faith in an area where the evidence would have otherwise said to the contrary. These men who then would have known they were preaching a lie are not likely to have died by numerous methods having never recanted their faith.

- We know medically that groups of people do not experience the same hallucination, likewise the same hallucination appearing to different people at different times is even more implausible. Isolated hallucinations do not change lives. Paul and Jesus brother James would not have had any reason to have made up this hallucination. Putting this down to some sort of mass delusion would be ignorant.

All these reasons suggest that the disciples truly thought they had seen the risen Christ.
This is accepted among most scholars including many skeptical scholars, Ehrman, Koester, Ludemann etc...

Either the most likely explanation is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead or the disciples were all wrong.

To do this successfully a more plausible explanation should be found...

My Question for debate - What plausible explanation for what happened to the disciples and Jesus body is there?

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

[Goat]

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Sort of like your mythical pet "Q" manuscripts, huh? ROTFLOL!

My pet 'q' manuscripts??

When have I ever pushed that hypothesis.

On the other hand, the Q hypothesis certainly has more evidence that a pure fantasy. That is something you have not yet learned.

[Easyrider]

On the other hand, the Q hypothesis certainly has more evidence that a pure fantasy. That is something you have not yet learned.

Show me that bad boy, then. Let's see your Q manuscripts.

[achilles12604]

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Hey! You gave away the punchline!

Don't worry. Considering achilles' strong feelings against spreading bad information on the net, I'm sure he'll have a perfectly good explanation...

Actually, I didn't know all of that. I will look into it more deeply. After all when I examined the Ebonites/Nazarenes more deeply I found out they believed in the resurrection and that they were basically Christians who wished to hold onto their Jewish cultural traditions.

I also learned more about the council of Jerusalem and how most of them concurred with my assertion that Jesus forgave sins, not the law and that the law was not required but if one wished to follow it still, it was encouraged.

I learn a great deal by debating. Somethings I throw out after analysis (James' ossurary (spelling I know)). Somethings I include Council of Jerusalem 51AD


Here is a question for you. . .

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time? I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two. After all who was in charge of the US in 1990? How about 2006?

I'll look into it deeper and thanks for even more information.

[Goat]

I will also point out about the 'Vardaman' coins is that the only record we have of it is .. tada'.. a hand drawing by Vardaman. There is no phsyical coin to be looked at, nor is there even a photograph of the coin to be looked at.

Hey! You gave away the punchline!

Don't worry. Considering achilles' strong feelings against spreading bad information on the net, I'm sure he'll have a perfectly good explanation...

Actually, I didn't know all of that. I will look into it more deeply. After all when I examined the Ebonites/Nazarenes more deeply I found out they believed in the resurrection and that they were basically Christians who wished to hold onto their Jewish cultural traditions.

I also learned more about the council of Jerusalem and how most of them concurred with my assertion that Jesus forgave sins, not the law and that the law was not required but if one wished to follow it still, it was encouraged.

I learn a great deal by debating. Somethings I throw out after analysis (James' ossurary (spelling I know)). Somethings I include Council of Jerusalem 51AD


Here is a question for you. . .

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time? I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two. After all who was in charge of the US in 1990? How about 2006?

I'll look into it deeper and thanks for even more information.

You see, it doesn't matter one bit if there were two quin's who did rule that area, or if one ruled it twice.

The reason is that until Judah became directly part of the roman empire, augustus did not have the right to order a cencus for taxes. That happened in 6 C.E.

And have you seen the evidence for the second govenorship of Quin???? Basically, it is a stone that is dedicateing someone to a similar position, and the name on the stone is totally whipped out.

Not very good evidence is that?

[AB]

In Luke, Jesus was born during the Census when Cyrenius
was first govenor of Syria. This so happens to could only have occured after Juddah become part of the providence of Syria, and that happened at 6 CE.

Just to make sure I am clear. Is Cyrenius another name for Quirinius? Quirinius is who I read as governor of Syria at that time(Luke 2:2)

One is the greek writing of the name, the other the roman. Same person.

Awesome. I got to log off now. But, I am going to check this out and see the story. If there is a contradiction, I'll give it up to you.
Later.

This is very interesting. I didn't know about this Luke 2:2 dilemma before. Although it really doesn't hit on any contradiction of the gospel, it does indicate that the author Luke may have mis-appointed when Jesus was born. Or better said, who was around doing during the time when Jesus was born... still not bridging into the Gospel.

However, it does refer to the FIRST census during Quirinius. So, there was more than one census with Quirinus. Also, Quirinius was in the area taking care of the homanadensians from 10bc to 7bc. Quirinius could very well of had control of the Syria area at that time and a census performed. Plus, the Luke writings do not indicate that Herod was not prevalent at that time.. story of John the Baptist birth Luke 1:5. So, it appears in Luke's stroy Herod and Quirinius are present during that time.

On the surface, it really appears there is a contradiction. But, this contradiction appears to be within the book of Luke.. since Luke is bringing Herod and Quirinius prevalent at the same point of time. But, given Quirinius's influence in the Syria region at the time of Herod, I can see this.

No, it doesn't say 'first' census. It says 'When Quirinius was first governor of Syria'. There is not evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria before 6 C.E. (despite speculation), and there is no evidence that a census could be ordered by Augustus in an independent kingdom for the purposes of taxation.

Luke says nothing about the birth of Jesus being linked to Herod the King. He has it linked to the census in Judah that happened in 6 CE.

Matthew had the birth of Jesus during the King of Herod the King. He says nothing about a cencus, although he did have Herod going to kill all the male boys in Bethelham (a deed that is not recorded anyplace else)

That indicates to me at least that Luke did not know the nativity story in Matthew, and Matthew did not know about the nativity story in Luke. They are two, mutually exclusive stories.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria). Luke 2:1-2. And rLuke writes about the upcoming birth of John the Baptist, which is right around that time. Check out Luke 1:5-23. The birth of John the baptist and Jesus are within the time of Herod as written by both Matthew and Luke. With that, there is no contradiction. Remember, each author are different people, and therefore have certain ways of explaining the same event. Luke, was very detailed. Check out Luke's intro .. Luke 1:1-4. Just because Matthew decided to not write a certain aspect of the situation, doesn't mean that aspect of the situation didn't occur. That would be illogical. Luke, who was detailed orientated added in the Quirinius related first census while governor. At the time of Herod, Quirinius did militarily govern Syria.

So, initially when Goat presented this I thought Wow! there is some type of contradiction.. but then it was a contradiction within the author Luke(not between Luke and Matthew), and then investigating further I could see how Luke would write that. So, for me, Luke 2:1-2 is solid. No contradiction. Next...

[Lotan]

Actually, I didn't know all of that.

It was very easy to check, but that didn't stop you, or Strobel, or about a million Christian websites from repeating it.

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time?

Sentius Saturninus? I thought you were going to "look into it more deeply".

I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

There's more than enough information here.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two.

At least you're not approaching the question with an open mind. Since you already know the answer, why even look?

[achilles12604]

Actually, I didn't know all of that.

It was very easy to check, but that didn't stop you, or Strobel, or about a million Christian websites from repeating it.

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time?

Sentius Saturninus? I thought you were going to "look into it more deeply".

I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

There's more than enough information here.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two.

At least you're not approaching the question with an open mind. Since you already know the answer, why even look?

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source. Perhaps something that is not infidel.com? Show me a archeological review or something like that to suggest who was ruling. Meanwhile, I will dig. Be patient grasshopper.

[Goat]

Actually, I didn't know all of that.

It was very easy to check, but that didn't stop you, or Strobel, or about a million Christian websites from repeating it.

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time?

Sentius Saturninus? I thought you were going to "look into it more deeply".

I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

There's more than enough information here.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two.

At least you're not approaching the question with an open mind. Since you already know the answer, why even look?

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source. Perhaps something that is not infidel.com? Show me a archeological review or something like that to suggest who was ruling. Meanwhile, I will dig. Be patient grasshopper.

The question should be.. what evidence is there that Augustus could possibily have ordered a census in Judah for the purposes of Taxation before 6 C.E. that would affect the citizens of Judah.

[achilles12604]

Actually, I didn't know all of that.

It was very easy to check, but that didn't stop you, or Strobel, or about a million Christian websites from repeating it.

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time?

Sentius Saturninus? I thought you were going to "look into it more deeply".

I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

There's more than enough information here.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two.

At least you're not approaching the question with an open mind. Since you already know the answer, why even look?

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source. Perhaps something that is not infidel.com? Show me a archeological review or something like that to suggest who was ruling. Meanwhile, I will dig. Be patient grasshopper.

The question should be.. what evidence is there that Augustus could possibily have ordered a census in Judah for the purposes of Taxation before 6 C.E. that would affect the citizens of Judah.

If a leader wishes to conduct a census, then so be it. Why is his reason so important?

Didn't they conduct a cansus every 14 years by way of business? I thought that every 14 years they did just such a census. Isn't this a good reason?

[Goat]

Actually, I didn't know all of that.

It was very easy to check, but that didn't stop you, or Strobel, or about a million Christian websites from repeating it.

If there wern't two Quin's then who did rule that area at that time?

Sentius Saturninus? I thought you were going to "look into it more deeply".

I have not heard any competing theories as to this.

There's more than enough information here.

I still maintain that there very well could have been two.

At least you're not approaching the question with an open mind. Since you already know the answer, why even look?

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source. Perhaps something that is not infidel.com? Show me a archeological review or something like that to suggest who was ruling. Meanwhile, I will dig. Be patient grasshopper.

The question should be.. what evidence is there that Augustus could possibily have ordered a census in Judah for the purposes of Taxation before 6 C.E. that would affect the citizens of Judah.

If a leader wishes to conduct a census, then so be it. Why is his reason so important?

Didn't they conduct a cansus every 14 years by way of business? I thought that every 14 years they did just such a census. Isn't this a good reason?

You ARE missing the point, aren't you.

Until 6 C.E., Judah was it's own kingdom. During the reign of Herod the King, Herod did the taxing, and paid tribute to
Rome.

At 6 C.E., Judah offically becomes part of the Providence of Syria, which allows the Roman Empire to directly tax the people that lived there.

This Cencus was mentioned in Jospehus, when he talked about the Zealot Yehudah the gallilean leading a revolt against the Roman census. This is a matter of historical record. There is no historical record of any census by the roman's in Judah before that. That is because it was a kingdom in it's own right, not just part of the Roman empire.



It is sort of like Bush putting out a cencus right now in Iraq to tax the people in Iraq.