Granted

[Zzyzx]

.
Granted

1) A wandering preacher (named something other than Jesus) lived 2000 years ago, preached for a few years, ran afoul of Roman and Jewish authorities, and was executed.

2) Some claim that, contrary to common practice of the era, the executed criminal's body was placed in a tomb.

3) Some claim that a few days later the tomb was found to be empty.

4) Some conclude / assert / insist that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.

5) Some claim that people saw the deceased alive after death.

6) Some maintain that the above indicates the deceased was 'divine' or 'the son of God'.


Are the above sound observations / conclusions that can be shown to be true and accurate descriptions of actual events that occurred in the real world?

Are the above sound basis for establishing a new religion?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Clarification, are we to assume the claims are true, or that - that the fact that people are making the claims is the fact?

In other words, that someone claims the sky is purple, means someone made the claim, it doesn't mean the sky is purple.

Thanks.

[Zzyzx]

.

Clarification, are we to assume the claims are true, or that - that the fact that people are making the claims is the fact?

Let's assume that the claims are made and NOT assume they are true -- but instead examine the significance of people making such claims and using them as the basis to develop a new religion.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Thanks -
It all really rides on claim #5.

Given the technology of the time and so on, what would be a believable record of someone returning from the dead?

Actually, my opinions are biased, so I'll leave it open...
Obviously there was paper, vellum, stone and brass tablets.
Other's who've done less were recorded.

So...

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Thanks -
It all really rides on claim #5.

Not necessarily. It could be that the false rumor is the claim that the man had actually died in the first place. It's possible that he survived the ordeal and this is why his live body was never placed in the tomb in the first place. Then it would also make sense that people could have actually seen this man alive after the event.

So it only rides on claim #5 if you accept that all the other claims are rock solid.

It doesn't necessarily follow that if someone saw this man living after this event that he must then be the Son of God raised from the dead. It could simply be that he never actually died to begin with.

So you need to be very careful not to get sucked into a false conclusion simply because you might have accepted previous claims that may not have been true.

[chriss]

.
Granted

1) A wandering preacher (named something other than Jesus) lived 2000 years ago, preached for a few years, ran afoul of Roman and Jewish authorities, and was executed.

I am new to this forum. I have never come across the idea that the character known to Christians as Jesus (Jeshua or Joshua) actually had a different name. On what basis do you say this.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am new to this forum. I have never come across the idea that the character known to Christians as Jesus (Jeshua or Joshua) actually had a different name. On what basis do you say this.

Hi Chriss. Welcome to the Forum -- good start by asking an intelligent question.

Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵש�וּעַ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻ�עַ ("Yehoshua" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.[1][2]

The Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) appears in some later books of the Hebrew Bible. Once for Joshua the son of Nun, and 28 times for Joshua the High Priest and (KJV "Jeshua") and other priests called Jeshua – although these same priests are also given the spelling Joshua in 11 further instances in the books of Haggai and Zechariah. It differs from the usual Hebrew Bible spelling of Joshua (יְהוֹשֻ�עַ y'hoshuaʿ), found 218 times in the Hebrew Bible, in the absence of the consonant he ה and placement of the semivowel vav ו after, not before, the consonant shin ש. It also differs from the Hebrew spelling Yeshu (ישו) which is found in Ben Yehuda's dictionary and used in most secular contexts in Modern Hebrew to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, although the Hebrew spelling Yeshua (ישוע) is generally used in translations of the New Testament into Hebrew[3] and used by Hebrew speaking Christians in Israel. The name Yeshua is also used in Israelite Hebrew historical texts to refer to other Joshuas recorded in Greek texts such as Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus ben Sira.[4]

In English, the name Yeshua is extensively used by followers of Messianic Judaism,[5] whereas East Syrian Christian denominations use the name Isho in order to preserve the Aramaic or Syriac name of Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

Also http://www.problemswithapostlepaul.com/?page_id=19

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]

Chriss - that is the rationalization. However Joshua does not transliterate to Jesus.
Joshua is Iosua (Yashua), which if Latinized becomes Ioseous.

Just like it is done for the Book of Joshua.

The derivation of Jesus is lost to us, but if you spoke Greek or Latin, the language of the New Testament, you would see Jesus spelled Ιησο�ς, and pronounces IeZeus. Which if you speak Greek or Latin means, "Hail Zeus."

Why would the Greek New Testament use the word Hail Zeus for the name of the saviour?
For the same reason Yahweh replaced Elohim - Jove is pronounced Yahweh. See below...

Welcome to the forum. You find the above is one of my typical rants - feel free to revert back to the OP.

Respectfully

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I am not sure how to answer this when the question comes from someone holding a historical epistemology as peculiar as yours. After all, if you cannot be convinced that the Rubicon-event is verifiable (it too occurred some 2,000 years ago), of course no one can convince you of the resurrection.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
Granted

1) A wandering preacher (named something other than Jesus) lived 2000 years ago, preached for a few years, ran afoul of Roman and Jewish authorities, and was executed.

2) Some claim that, contrary to common practice of the era, the executed criminal's body was placed in a tomb.

3) Some claim that a few days later the tomb was found to be empty.

4) Some conclude / assert / insist that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.

5) Some claim that people saw the deceased alive after death.

6) Some maintain that the above indicates the deceased was 'divine' or 'the son of God'.


Are the above sound observations / conclusions that can be shown to be true and accurate descriptions of actual events that occurred in the real world?

Are the above sound basis for establishing a new religion?

Coincidentally, something very much like what you imagine was once claimed to have occurred. At least according to later stories. The story apparently wasn't believable enough at the time it was supposed to have occurred for anyone at all to have bothered to mention it. Because no one did.