Why is the Resurrection Version of Events Plausible?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

4/3/17
"AS I said before, I ant to stay n the OP and discuss God and evil. The points you raise are interesting. However, I am not going to respond to them, except to say they are important to address, but belong in another OP. Let's get back to discussing God and evil. As I said before, I would be happy continuing the discussion, so why don't you set up an OP for these issues?" - hoghead1

I have time to address this question now. According to all four Gospels the body of Jesus disappeared from Joseph's private tomb, and several weeks later the disciples of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. Just as the Jewish priests had predicted (Matt.27:63-64). Christians believe that Jesus returned to life and that the newly reanimated Jesus left the tomb of his own volition,and then subsequently flew off up into the sky and disappeared. What is it that you find about this particular tale that makes it even marginally plausible? More specifically, what is there about this claim that you feel that everyone else should should find perfectly plausible?

[rikuoamero]

I take it that you are completely unaware that the Joshua being talked about in Zech is Joshua the first high priest of the Second Temple?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_the_High_Priest

The original intent of the Septuagint verses don't matter.

The point is that Christianity is based on a "pesher" of various Septuagint verses.

Ah the infamous double-meaning teaching. Of course, the secondary meanings cannot be shown to be true. After all, even if Jesus Christ was in fact crowned king in heaven...how can we verify this to be true? Other than killing myself and (hopefully) going to heaven afterward...how can I verify that the secondary meaning of Zechariah 3 (it talking about both the first high priest of the second Temple, and Jesus Christ) is true?

You know I'm a Buddhist right?

I don't know why you are arguing with me as if I'm a Christian.

Okay, I know NOW...but you have to be honest mate. What you were writing makes you sound VERY much like a Christian.

[alwayson]

How does this sound Christian?

"Scholars know where every aspect of the Gospels comes from.

For example, Jesus riding on a donkey comes from Zechariah 9.

The Gospels writers often use the exact same wording from the Septuagint. They are not trying to hide it.

Mark and Matthew, in particular, were never intended as actual history."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 72 by alwayson]

Okay, I'll freely admit it...I wasn't paying attention to the last line. I did see it, I did read it...but for some reason, it went right past me, and I continued on thinking you were a Christian and arguing that Zechariah was indeed a true prophesy that somehow accurately predicted Jesus Christ.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Oh and by the way? Zechariah 3 and 6? That's not Jesus being mentioned there, just so you know. If it is Jesus in Zech 6...when and where did Jesus build a temple?

When you translate "Joshua" into Greek, you get "Jesus".

So there is a Jesus in the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

Its letter-for-letter the exact same spelling as the New Testament Jesus. Read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.

It should be pointed out that, while the historical evidence indicates that the Greek Septuagint was written about three centuries prior to the birth of Jesus, all of the copies which exist today date from AFTER the rise of Christianity, and are very obviously Christian revisions. The language of the Septuagint differs significantly from Jewish Masoretic texts as a result. It is for this reason that even Catholic and Protestant theologians do not rely on the Septuagint as being accurate.

[alwayson]

Oh and by the way? Zechariah 3 and 6? That's not Jesus being mentioned there, just so you know. If it is Jesus in Zech 6...when and where did Jesus build a temple?

When you translate "Joshua" into Greek, you get "Jesus".

So there is a Jesus in the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

Its letter-for-letter the exact same spelling as the New Testament Jesus. Read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.

It should be pointed out that, while the historical evidence indicates that the Greek Septuagint was written about three centuries prior to the birth of Jesus, all of the copies which exist today date from AFTER the rise of Christianity, and are very obviously Christian revisions. The language of the Septuagint differs significantly from Jewish Masoretic texts as a result. It is for this reason that even Catholic and Protestant theologians do not rely on the Septuagint as being accurate.

The Greek version that the New Testament quotes always differs from the original Hebrew.

That is sort of the whole point.

Noone claims the Greek was ever the same as the Hebrew.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Oh and by the way? Zechariah 3 and 6? That's not Jesus being mentioned there, just so you know. If it is Jesus in Zech 6...when and where did Jesus build a temple?

When you translate "Joshua" into Greek, you get "Jesus".

So there is a Jesus in the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

Its letter-for-letter the exact same spelling as the New Testament Jesus. Read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.

It should be pointed out that, while the historical evidence indicates that the Greek Septuagint was written about three centuries prior to the birth of Jesus, all of the copies which exist today date from AFTER the rise of Christianity, and are very obviously Christian revisions. The language of the Septuagint differs significantly from Jewish Masoretic texts as a result. It is for this reason that even Catholic and Protestant theologians do not rely on the Septuagint as being accurate.

The Greek version that the New Testament quotes always differs from the original Hebrew.

That is sort of the whole point.

Noone claims the Greek was ever the same as the Hebrew.

In an age when Greek was the most widely spoken language, much as English is today, the Septuagint was intended to be a direct translation of the Hebrew OT. The copies which survive today have significant differences from the Hebrew versions. Differences which serve to bring the Septuagint into much more stark conformity with Christian claims and beliefs. Just as God originally intended. According to Christians.

Wikipedia
Septuagint
The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, "seventy") is a Koine Greek translation of an Hebraic textual tradition that included certain texts which were later included in the canonical Hebrew Bible and other related texts which were not. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted a number of times in the New Testament,[1][2] particularly in Pauline epistles,[3] and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφ�ασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE.[4][5] Separated from the Hebrew canon of the Jewish Bible in Rabbinic Judaism, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.

The traditional story is that Ptolemy II sponsored the translation of the Torah (Pentateuch, Five Books of Moses). Subsequently, the Greek translation was in circulation among the Alexandrian Jews who were fluent in Koine Greek but not in Hebrew,[6] the former being the lingua franca of Alexandria, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean at the time.[7]

The Septuagint should not be confused with the seven or more other Greek versions of the Old Testament,[4] most of which did not survive except as fragments (some parts of these being known from Origen's Hexapla, a comparison of six translations in adjacent columns, now almost wholly lost). Of these, the most important are those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

Disputes Over Canonicity
Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained.[29] Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.[22][30] Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek—even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period.[31] As a result of this teaching, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.

Christian Use
In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example, Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin (Greek πα�θένος, bethulah in Hebrew) that shall conceive.,[42] while the word almah in the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

[Elijah John]

Huh? The point is that the "New" Testament is a Christian document. The Tanakh, or Jewish Bible, what Christians call the "Old" Testament is a Jewish document. They certainly ARE at odds with each other. Whether Christians admit it or not, Jews certainly see contradictions. To a Jew, most of the New Testament is nothing short of Blasphemy. But then Christians consider themselves greater experts on Judaism than Jews , an example of Christian hubris as well as ignorance.

Yes, I know people see contradictions and problems, but if person is honest and doesn’t add own meanings, there is no contradiction to OT scriptures.

Interestingly also Jews and atheist seem to consider themselves greater experts n NT and Christianity. Is that example of hubris and ignorance also?

Moderator Comment

Please don't insinuate that those who disagree with you are being dishonest.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

Huh? What version of Zechariah are you talking about.

For the millionth time, the Septuagint version.

When you translate "Joshua" into Greek, you get "Jesus".

So there is a Jesus in the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 confronting Satan and being crowned king in heaven.

Its letter-for-letter the exact same spelling as the New Testament Jesus. Read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus.

'Joshua' was one of the most common names of the times. As others have pointed out, the efforts much later to paint bullseyes around arrows by writing to older prophecies were not done perfectly.

[Danmark]

I take it that you are completely unaware that the Joshua being talked about in Zech is Joshua the first high priest of the Second Temple?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_the_High_Priest

The original intent of the Septuagint verses don't matter.

The point is that Christianity is based on a "pesher" of various Septuagint verses.

The original intent of the writers' certainly does matter; however, it is equally certain that Centuries later other writers wrote to those verses to give them their own interpretation. As many have said, this is like painting a bullseye around the arrow after it has struck the target.

[1213]

…So the burial cloths had to be unwrapped for Jesus to leave the tomb, but apparently he can walk thru walls.

That Sunday evening the disciples were meeting behind locked doors because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Suddenly, Jesus was standing there among them! “Peace be with you,� he said.
John 20:19
This Jesus can walk thru walls and closed doors, but he can't go thru cloth?

I don’t think Bible is saying Jesus can’t go thru cloth.

You accept that even an honest person finds contradictions in the NEW Testament?

I said also “…and doesn’t add own meanings…�. I have not seen honest contradiction, without added meanings that are not directly from the Bible. In all cases that I remember or know, the contradiction depends on what meaning is given to some scripture.