Originally posted by Aractus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Who Buried Jesus - Derail
Collapse
X
-
No one dug him up, he was placed in a grave (or a tomb) reserved for criminals by the Jewish authorities, and it was never seen again. They would have buried him somewhere outside the walls of Jerusalem and I don't think the disciples (or the family) ever found out where the grave/tomb was.
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThen who dug him up?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo one - He was resurrected.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo one - He was resurrected.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSo you believe. But we don’t know if Jesus’ tomb was empty three days later. We don’t know if he was physically seen by his followers afterwards. Because all we have are gospel narratives written decades later by non-eyewitnesses who were passing on stories and anecdotes in circulation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAgreed!
There’s no question that the seven authentic letters were written by Paul.
But they give no indication as to whether Jesus’ tomb was empty three days later.
Nor do they indicate whether Jesus was physically seen by his followers afterwards or whether it was in the form of a vision.But we’ve been through all this tabibito.Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2017, 03:44 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
I'm going to address some of your points tabibito. Firstly, dating the NT writings...
The ONLY books in the NT that can be somewhat reliably dated are the undisputed letters of Paul. And that is only possible because of Acts. If the timeframe of Acts is wrong then the letters are written at some other time. Acts could be written quite late, so it is not outside of possibilities that the Pauline epistles were written before, or after, their supposed timeframe in the 60's AD.
Now on the resurrection, as I've mentioned many times before I can name lots of people who believe with absolute conviction that their dead relatives are alive in heaven, and none of them required any sort of physical proof. Likewise, the disciples believed that Jesus had risen, without any proof.
And finally, on the question of the gospels. I don't think that they represent only late material, and I doubt that many people would take that view - especially Bible Scholars. For that reason I think that it's somewhat misleading to say that Mark was written in the 70's at the earliest. While that may be true for version that survived history, I think there was an earlier version, a proto-Mark, that contained the passion narrative and dates to the 60's or earlier. Or to put it more bluntly: The Gospel of Mark was modified.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aractus View PostI'm going to address some of your points tabibito. Firstly, dating the NT writings...
The ONLY books in the NT that can be somewhat reliably dated are the undisputed letters of Paul. And that is only possible because of Acts. If the timeframe of Acts is wrong then the letters are written at some other time. Acts could be written quite late, so it is not outside of possibilities that the Pauline epistles were written before, or after, their supposed timeframe in the 60's AD.
Now on the resurrection, as I've mentioned many times before I can name lots of people who believe with absolute conviction that their dead relatives are alive in heaven, and none of them required any sort of physical proof. Likewise, the disciples believed that Jesus had risen, without any proof.
And finally, on the question of the gospels. I don't think that they represent only late material, and I doubt that many people would take that view - especially Bible Scholars. For that reason I think that it's somewhat misleading to say that Mark was written in the 70's at the earliest. While that may be true for version that survived history, I think there was an earlier version, a proto-Mark, that contained the passion narrative and dates to the 60's or earlier. Or to put it more bluntly: The Gospel of Mark was modified.
Why for example would Hebrews be given a late date, when the epistle itself states that the temple rites are an ongoing practice at the time of writing?
Why are Luke's claims to have been a companion traveller with Paul rejected in the face of Paul's avowal that Luke was with him in Rome?
Why are the gospels given a late date when not one of them mentions the temple to have been sacked, that is: why was the fulfilment of such a critical prophecy considered so unimportant that the authors made no mention of it? (I know that this one does get hand-waved away, but the hand-waving ignores the religious implications of such an omission.)1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
The author of Luke-Acts never claims to be a companion of Paul.
The gospels don't mention the destruction of the Temple because that happens 40 years after Jesus. That would be like asking why historians writing about the Holocaust never mention the 2001 terrorist attack in New York.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aractus View PostThe author of Luke-Acts never claims to be a companion of Paul.Acts 27:3 The next day we arrived at Sidon, and Julius treated Paul kindly and allowed him to visit his friends there and receive any care he needed. 4 After putting out from there, we sailed on the sheltered side of Cyprus because the winds were against us
The gospels don't mention the destruction of the Temple because that happens 40 years after Jesus. That would be like asking why historians writing about the Holocaust never mention the 2001 terrorist attack in New York.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aractus View PostThe author of Luke-Acts never claims to be a companion of Paul.The gospels don't mention the destruction of the Temple because that happens 40 years after Jesus. That would be like asking why historians writing about the Holocaust never mention the 2001 terrorist attack in New York.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostThe gospels do mention the destruction of the Temple. They include it as a prophecy made by Jesus when he visits the temple. This is often used as evidence that the gospels were written (or updated) after 70AD.
One author recently made comment that the prediction was no more than an astute assessment of the then current military and political situation ... but even he found it odd that no mention of the actual event was made.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThe gospels do mention the prophecy of the destruction, they don't refer to the destruction. And there are extremely compelling religious reasons to include mention of the event if it had occurred before the writing. This was a MAJOR specific prophecy - not a common garden variety miracle or prophecy that could be elided as being just one of many.My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostAh yes: twilight and night of the fourteenth is indeed the fifteenth. I'm not sure which universe that might happen in, but it is assuredly correct: if it is twilight on the fourteenth in this universe, twilight will be the first evening (sundown) of the day, not the second (day's end 3-6 pm) - given that the day starts at 6pm, that would make it at the start of the day, and the night of the fourteenth is stipulated. It won't be the fifteenth.
I cited Leviticus to eliminate any chance of ambiguity: Leviticus 23:5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD's Passover.
Twilight will begin just after 6pm (just after the start of the day) - the night (of the fourteenth) will follow hard on the heels of twilight.
And the "Lord's Passover" in Leviticus 23:5 is just when they did the slaughter. In verse 6 it says the 15th (nighttime) is when the Passover meal began.
"On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD's Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast."
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
192 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment