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 _____.

[AB]

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.

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

[Goat]

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

THat is right. And the time that Judah was part of the "Roman World" was in 6 C.E.

It is as simple as that. Before 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire. in 6 C.E., it became part of the Roman Empire, and we have the word of Josphus about this census. See how easy?

[AB]

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

THat is right. And the time that Judah was part of the "Roman World" was in 6 C.E.

It is as simple as that. Before 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire. in 6 C.E., it became part of the Roman Empire, and we have the word of Josphus about this census. See how easy?

So, if Rome had no control or influence, why would Herod pay tribute to Rome as you mentioned above.? Yes, very easy.

[Goat]

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

THat is right. And the time that Judah was part of the "Roman World" was in 6 C.E.

It is as simple as that. Before 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire. in 6 C.E., it became part of the Roman Empire, and we have the word of Josphus about this census. See how easy?

So, if Rome had no control or influence, why would Herod pay tribute to Rome as you mentioned above.? Yes, very easy.

Because Rome help set him up, and it was a bribe to keep to be a separate kingdom.

It was, however, legally a separate kingdom.

If you truly believe it, you will be able to give evidence from the historical record that there was a census before 6 c.e. that would affect the citizens of Judah from non-biblical sources. We have a non-biblical source for the census in 6 c.e. Please, show me evidence of a census that would affect those people who lived in Bethlehem that were not Roman citizens.

[AB]

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

THat is right. And the time that Judah was part of the "Roman World" was in 6 C.E.

It is as simple as that. Before 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire. in 6 C.E., it became part of the Roman Empire, and we have the word of Josphus about this census. See how easy?

So, if Rome had no control or influence, why would Herod pay tribute to Rome as you mentioned above.? Yes, very easy.

Because Rome help set him up, and it was a bribe to keep to be a separate kingdom.

It was, however, legally a separate kingdom.

If you truly believe it, you will be able to give evidence from the historical record that there was a census before 6 c.e. that would affect the citizens of Judah from non-biblical sources. We have a non-biblical source for the census in 6 c.e. Please, show me evidence of a census that would affect those people who lived in Bethlehem that were not Roman citizens.

As we see, it isn't that easy... in regards to an accused contradiction in Luke. Maybe "legally" they were a separate kingdom. But, in effect Rome controlled that kingdom. Just because they were not "officially citizens' doesn't mean they were exempt. Rome wanted a census of "The entire Roman World".. And the Roman world is all under their influence. It's very practical to say Herod is included. Heck, he paid tribute to them... just as you have confirmed.

Luke indicates a first Census. Therefore, logic dictates there were more than one.

[Goat]

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

THat is right. And the time that Judah was part of the "Roman World" was in 6 C.E.

It is as simple as that. Before 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire. in 6 C.E., it became part of the Roman Empire, and we have the word of Josphus about this census. See how easy?

So, if Rome had no control or influence, why would Herod pay tribute to Rome as you mentioned above.? Yes, very easy.

Because Rome help set him up, and it was a bribe to keep to be a separate kingdom.

It was, however, legally a separate kingdom.

If you truly believe it, you will be able to give evidence from the historical record that there was a census before 6 c.e. that would affect the citizens of Judah from non-biblical sources. We have a non-biblical source for the census in 6 c.e. Please, show me evidence of a census that would affect those people who lived in Bethlehem that were not Roman citizens.

As we see, it isn't that easy... in regards to an accused contradiction in Luke. Maybe "legally" they were a separate kingdom. But, in effect Rome controlled that kingdom. Just because they were not "officially citizens' doesn't mean they were exempt. Rome wanted a census of "The entire Roman World".. And the Roman world is all under their influence. It's very practical to say Herod is included. Heck, he paid tribute to them... just as you have confirmed.

Luke indicates a first Census. Therefore, logic dictates there were more than one.

No, he didn't refer to a 'first census'. He refered to a census when Quintariss first became govenor of Syria.

You are misreading Luke.

[AB]

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. NIV.

The census was for the entire Roman World. I read this wherever Rome had ultimate control.

Also, I don't see where it is written taxation is associated with this FIRST census. Maybe that applies to the SECOND census.

THat is right. And the time that Judah was part of the "Roman World" was in 6 C.E.

It is as simple as that. Before 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire. in 6 C.E., it became part of the Roman Empire, and we have the word of Josphus about this census. See how easy?

So, if Rome had no control or influence, why would Herod pay tribute to Rome as you mentioned above.? Yes, very easy.

Because Rome help set him up, and it was a bribe to keep to be a separate kingdom.

It was, however, legally a separate kingdom.

If you truly believe it, you will be able to give evidence from the historical record that there was a census before 6 c.e. that would affect the citizens of Judah from non-biblical sources. We have a non-biblical source for the census in 6 c.e. Please, show me evidence of a census that would affect those people who lived in Bethlehem that were not Roman citizens.

As we see, it isn't that easy... in regards to an accused contradiction in Luke. Maybe "legally" they were a separate kingdom. But, in effect Rome controlled that kingdom. Just because they were not "officially citizens' doesn't mean they were exempt. Rome wanted a census of "The entire Roman World".. And the Roman world is all under their influence. It's very practical to say Herod is included. Heck, he paid tribute to them... just as you have confirmed.

Luke indicates a first Census. Therefore, logic dictates there were more than one.

No, he didn't refer to a 'first census'. He refered to a census when Quintariss first became govenor of Syria.

You are misreading Luke.

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

[Goat]

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.

[Lotan]

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source.

Carrier is a scholarly source (B.A. from UC Berkeley in History and Classical Civilizations, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University).

Here is his Curriculum Vitae

[achilles12604]

Ok how about giving me a scholarly source.

Carrier is a scholarly source (B.A. from UC Berkeley in History and Classical Civilizations, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University).

Here is his Curriculum Vitae

Yet do you remember that movie that was put forth by astounding,which you and I agreed on? Carrier fully endorsed and assisted with that movie. His commentary is available about it. So obviously, dispite the fact that he is known (an in my opinion as well) as a scholar, he can't be trusted impicidly can he?

All I'm asking for is someone else, someone from an archeological review, or reviews journal, who also acknowledges this man was ruling this particular area during that time.

Am I asking to much?