@adomjask As Wright argues, Christ means Messiah, and the early Christians didn't use the term Christ without referring in some way to Jesus. I completely agree with you that Christ is not Jesus' last name! :) Certainly Ephesians, Colossians, and Revelation have this amazing sense of Jesus' cosmic role, but even in places like the book of Acts when the author uses kyrios and soter, Roman imperial titles, early followers of the way applied the same terms to Jesus in a cosmic sense. Jesus=Messiah.
@adomjask When I make a comment like that, I always hope it starts a conversation. Did I misunderstand you? The New Testament does say, "Christ is the firstfruits from among the dead." But making a distinction between Christ and Jesus is not something that Paul would have done, according to Dr. Wright.
The resurrection is so AMAZING it's UNBELIEVABLE. That REALLY means something. The Ressurection is the only miracle that we have evidence for. It was meant to be like this. It is the signiture of God. Jesus Christ died for all our sins. If this was true many should be trying to fool us into """intellectually""" thinking otherwise----exactly as they are, today. Don't let this world fed you lies.
It seems to me that Wright's book demonstrates that the best explanation for the experience of the disciples and the emergence of the early church is that the resurrection really happened. I think its an inescapable conclusion on the basis of the evidence. Only those who have a worldview that precludes the possibility of resurrection (a materialist, for example) can doubt it.
Wright explains, from a psychological perspective, why subjective experiences (e.g., "renewal", or purposive, mass delusion among all the disciples) could not possibly lead to objective, behavioral, and cognitive changes in Jesus' disciples following His resurrection. All but one of the apostles died horrible deaths for their faith in a resurrected Savior. Apologists like McDowell quip, "would you die for a lie?", but Wright could add, "would you die for a feeling or concocted delusion?"
Unfortunately, Wright doesn't do much in this video to argue for the real physical resurrection of Jesus. Contrary to what ebal has written, there is plenty of reason to believe that the resurrection did happen. 1234h11 makes a good point about literary interpretation, but there are places that are straight reporting. This is one. Nothing else would have made the difference in the disciples but a real encounter with a resurrected Jesus.
Have you ever read the story of the Demon possessed man at Mark 5? Is it history? Do you think it is true? Jews who heard the story recognized the message. The demon who is many, is named LEGION. Think Roman Legion. The Legion enters pigs, unclean animals, as the Roman Gentiles are unclean, and drowns in the sea just as Pharoah's army drowned in the sea. The story is a sly insult to the Roman Legion which was oppressing the Jews. It's not history.
@ebaltrace Can there be a both/and? People like Tom Wright make the argument that for Second Temple Jews, it seems more likely that they would layer the political critique onto an event that actually happened, rather than need to make a critique and invent an "event" to prove the point. You are absolutely right, though, when you imply that early Christians were interested in a devastating political critique of Roman power.
@Kharisma1980 Thank you. But it would seem that the writer of Mark's gospel didn't understand the underlying metaphor. He treats the incident as Jesus just casting out Demons without understanding the deeper meaning of the story which he is relaying because he heard the story from an oral source.
@ebaltrace Again, I'm not sure that's true. After all, if we are able to reconstruct a (very likely) political meaning for the story, it's at least conceivable that the original audience (who were most likely Roman followers of the Way) would have understood the political critique. The problem, in my view, is not that Jesus was understood to literally cast out demons, but rather that Christians forgot the political implications of the stories. Does that make sense? Orality, yes!
@ebaltrace I don't think I'm seeing the problem. Can you help me understand it? If the author of Mark believed it was a literal exorcism and didn't catch the political meaning, is that a problem? Perhaps, as you seem to argue, Mark understood the story as a story with a political meaning, in which case it is still logical to believe that Mark's original audience likely understood it the same way. (It seems to me that this discussion revolves around some kind of authorial intention?)
@Kharisma1980 It's a problem if you believe that the writing of Mark's gospel was inspired by God himself. Surely God should have understood the meaning of the story. If Mark's Gospel is not inspired then there is no problem.
@ebaltrace I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding. I meant my question literally...what is the "problem" you are referring to? Post-modern literary theory (I am speaking of scholars who are not religious) argues that it is quite possible for communities who read a text to perceive meanings that were not "intended" by the original authors. I don't understand why you are connecting the "problem" to inspiration. Is there a definition of inspiration in the Hebrew or Christian testaments?
Honestly though, I'm not going to have a youtube debate with someone who appears so dogmatic and ignorant (in a non-insulting sense). Do some research, read some Wright perhaps, and then come and talk to me. Or just sit here and brazenly crusade your ideals (which, in no offense, I suspect you will.)
I hope these comments don't get deleted, as they're likely my last, and I've tried very hard to be nice.
Because yes, I did. Some sort of sarcastic remark like, "Yes, because the ancients were that stupid to believe in a literal mountain tall enough to see the whole world." And I went on to say how your 'argument' showed your lack of knowledge on basic literary interpretation, more than anything. But it appears my posts have gotten scrambled and/or deleted.
@1234h11 I can assure you that I have never deleted anyone's comments. But the mountain of Matthew 4:8 definitely doesn't exist. This is proof positive that the Gospels are not historical.
Four gospels tell the story of the crucifixtion and resurrection. Matthew contains details that are not in the other 3 He says tombs opened, saints resurrected, and came into Jerusalem and were seen by many. This is so important and outrageous that if it were true the other gospellers would have certainly mentioned it. It's a rule of evidence that Matthew's testimony would be thrown out as a fabrication. False in one, false in all. The guards are Matthew's fabrication as well.
@ebaltrace -- Actually, it does. That's why I hold to it.
But of course you don't know that, because you haven't even bothered to read the material you're criticizing. Which is probably why the rather shallow holes you're attempting to poke are unrelated (which ironically, is identical in nature to the argumentative fundamentalists creeping about).
But, obviously, you're not here on youtube for a scholarly discussion. I suppose it's either to jab at some Christians, or prove how right you are
Ebal: You don't understand what I'm saying. I don't care what degrees you have or how qualified you are. I could be the world's leading Biblical Scholar and visit a youtube video about a secularist writer who I've never read and rant against his secular beliefs. That doesn't excuse the fact that I have no clue what the writer is actually saying. It's dogmatic, arrogant and ignorant. I mean, this just basic principles for scholastic critique.
And we can be honest here: you haven't any Wright.
Matt 4:8 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory
This mountain doesn't exist. There is no mountain from which one can see all the Kingdoms of the world.
Ths shows the Gospels were written for religious persuasion and not as history books. Did the resurrection really happen historically or is it just religious metaphor?
@ebaltrace-There was no pun. Read the comment below.
Yes, the ancients were that stupid to believe in a literal mountain tall enough to see the whole world.
But frankly, this argument or whatever it is (which conveniently sidesteps everything) mostly shows your lack of knowledge in basic literary interpretation. I'll let it speak for itself. And your question would not be asked if you, say, read the works of Wright instead of solely reading one-sided interpretations, as you evidently have.
But again, you apparently don't care about research. Which is something you should do before you go attacking things that you evidently don't understand. Especially on a topic so debated. If you want to discuss the resurrection and early Christianity, start by reading Wright and then come talk to me. But obviously you won't, and I try to make it a rule not to uselessly reason with dogmatic fundamentalists who rant on youtube, both Atheist and Theist.
One of the key things that Christians fail to realize about the supposed resurrection of Jesus, is that the first night Jesus was in the tomb, the tomb was unguarded. The guards that Matthew fabricates were not put on the tomb until the second night. The chief priests did not speak to Pilate until the next day.[Matthew 27:62-66] While unguarded, anyone could have removed the body, and closed the tomb to conceal that they removed the body.
Ebal, And so you think that that subtlety included by the same Church that included The Gospel of St. Matthew removes the rest of testament, and Church history which includes oral testimony attesting to Sacred Scripture's validity on Christ and His Resurrection? And the Scripture doesnt read, "next night" it reads, "The next day..." which could be an hour of midnight. What is established is a Roman Guard, a Roman seal, and the emergence of an executed man who said He'd rise three days later.
@NilDesperandum777 Christians like to say that the guards were Roman. But the Bible argues for a Jewish guard. The Jews had a Temple Guard to keep order, because Gentiles were not permitted in the Temple Area.
Matthew 27:65 Pilate said to them, [The Jews] "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." When a mission is complete soldiers report back to their commander. Matthew 28:11 some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.
@Ebal, And as point of fact concerning Matthew 27:62-66, Jewish days BEGIN at sundown, NOT at sunrise, so the "next day" contextually, isn't the second day as we know it, but as Jews understood it, which would have necessarily meant, that night of the day that Christ died.
@NilDesperandum777 Jesus was buried just before sundown. That night he lay in the grave unguarded. The next day, [the word specifically refers to daylight hours] the priests approached Pilate.
It really is a moot point since the guards are a fabrication.
If the guards were "fabricated" why would the writer be so ignorant as to put the guards there after the fact? That seems a little illogical. Actually, no, VERY illogical.
Christianity is the only "religion" that claims a falsifiable truth. What I mean is, if it can be proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Bible actually says, "we of all men are most miserable." (I Cor 15:13-22) Of anybody on the whole entire earth, Christians are the biggest fools and losers of all!!
You know what - nobody has ever denied the fact that Jesus dead body has never been found... People claim the body was stolen... but nobody denies it's missing. =)
It's interesting that the first gospel, Mark's gospel, does not include any post resurrection appearances of Jesus. Matthew and Luke are really edited copies of Mark, following the same outline of Mark, even with word for word copying of Mark, but with added details. But often the details of Matthew and Luke are in conflict. John's gospel was written almost 100 years after Jesus' death.
@Ebel, You're referencing "Q". But omitting manuscripts stating the one and same creeds held since the time of Christ, dated no later than 36 AD. All 4 Gospels act as supplement to one another...Which details are in conflict for you?
@NilDesperandum777 It is almost like writing a book to point out details that are in conflict. If you are a Bible Student you should know. Compare the Baptism, Temptation,the parable of the Sower, the Crucifixtion and Resurrection accounts to start with. Look at the details side by side.
@NilDesperandum777 Wrong! That is just a Christian explanation to explain away inconsistencies in the gospels.
Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke independently copied from Mark, edited Mark, added events from Q, which no longer exists,[I wonder why God didn't preserve Q?] and hoped that nobody would ever see Mark again because their versions were new and improved. The Gospels could not be considered "supplemental and complementary" since many passages are almost word for word.
@Ebal, You're claiming Mark was written first as a fact? Are you sure you don't want to back that claim up with the qualification that it is hypothesized to "likely" be first? And in the event you are citing the two source, primary Markan source as first, you realize that in scoffing at Q you;re scoffing at you're on contention, correct?
@NilDesperandum777 Of course, it's a theory that Mark was written first, but it seems to be the theory most accepted by experts. Until Q shows up it is also a theory since there are no manuscripts. But what's the quibble?
@NilDesperandum777 Do you want to side track this discussion away from the fact that Paul was a murderer, the gospels were written anonymously more than 40 years after Jesus death, and the evidence for the resurection is an empty tomb and stories of post mortem appearances by only Jesus' followers?
Ebal, Sidetrack the discussion away from Saul being a murderer? Uhm...Huh? What?! Who cares, so was Moses, David no better,Peter just as well,etc,etc...That's NEVER a bane to the validity of Christianity. You didn't answer my questions concerning qualification of evidence. As for anonymity, the creeds, the information within a generation of Christ and all events did not change. Unknown authorship readily agreed upon doesnt remove valid history, which the Church and Gospels bear equally.
@NilDesperandum777 I am familiar with Greenleaf. I think his rules work against the claims of Christianity. When I get time I will look up Luckhoo. The Shroud has never been fully studied because the RCC denies access for a complete examination. What I have read about it is that it is a fake. But even if it were genuine, what would it prove? That some person was crucified, and wrapped in the cloth? Thousands were probably crucified. Jesus didn't autograph it did he?
you are too funny! If something is written exactly the same, you claim it's plagerized. If it's different, you claim it's contradictory. Alas, I will take some time to show you the historicity of the Bible, but I have to work tonight, so it may be a few days. =)
@4eversmiling1 The problem with Apolgists is that you believe you know it all and you never really read criticism.
I was a Christian for over 60 years. I now know the REAL truth. If you are willing to open your mind and consider what I write then I will try to explain it 500 characters at a time.
'Read any criticism' like you haven't read any Wright?
I used to be an agnostic before becoming a Theist. I hope you are true to your words of opening your mind, and actually know the reasoning you're criticizing instead of saying silly things like, "Your opinion does not comply with procedures in US courts of Law." Especially when you haven't even bothered to learn my opinion or Wright's.
Paul's creed in 1 Corinthians 15 predates Mark's gospel and lists the multiple appearances of the Resurrected Christ and witnesses to the accounts. The author Mark was a post- crucifixion follower of Peter and was recording his testimony of Jesus' LIFE. And as we can see in Peter's own Epistles, he several times points to Christ's triumph over death and often uses the awareness of the 1st century reader to verify that fact. A fact that Paul, Peter, and nearly all early apostles were killed for.
@The1SUM The BIG problem with all the post resurrection appearances is that Jesus only showed himself to his own followers. If the Scientologists claimed that their founder, L Ron Hubbard, resurrected, attended their conference, and then went to Heaven, would you believe? I doubt it.
@The1SUM Paul writes a nice list of supposed post mortem appearances of Jesus. But do we have over 500 witnesses or do we just have Paul saying that there were over 500 witnesses? Paul was a murderer. Is a murderer trust worthy? He claimed to have heard the voice of Jesus whom he never met in the flesh, on the road to Damascus. He did not have the required 2 or 3 witnesses but on this basis eliminated the Law, Circumcision, and the Sabbath, pillars of the Hebrew Scriptures.
@The1SUM When Paul makes his list of post mortem appearances, last of all he includes himself. Paul only heard a voice, he was blinded, yet he never met Jesus, and would not have been able to recognize Jesus' voice since Jesus was a stranger.
Paul explains his experience at 2Corinth 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. Is this reality or an hallucination?
love it
johnbraithwaite81 7 months ago
Comment removed
jenniferhogan96 9 months ago
@adomjask As Wright argues, Christ means Messiah, and the early Christians didn't use the term Christ without referring in some way to Jesus. I completely agree with you that Christ is not Jesus' last name! :) Certainly Ephesians, Colossians, and Revelation have this amazing sense of Jesus' cosmic role, but even in places like the book of Acts when the author uses kyrios and soter, Roman imperial titles, early followers of the way applied the same terms to Jesus in a cosmic sense. Jesus=Messiah.
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
@adomjask When I make a comment like that, I always hope it starts a conversation. Did I misunderstand you? The New Testament does say, "Christ is the firstfruits from among the dead." But making a distinction between Christ and Jesus is not something that Paul would have done, according to Dr. Wright.
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
@adomjask With deep respect, that is precisely *not* what Dr. Wright is arguing here.
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
The resurrection is so AMAZING it's UNBELIEVABLE. That REALLY means something. The Ressurection is the only miracle that we have evidence for. It was meant to be like this. It is the signiture of God. Jesus Christ died for all our sins. If this was true many should be trying to fool us into """intellectually""" thinking otherwise----exactly as they are, today. Don't let this world fed you lies.
SuperSam424 11 months ago
It seems to me that Wright's book demonstrates that the best explanation for the experience of the disciples and the emergence of the early church is that the resurrection really happened. I think its an inescapable conclusion on the basis of the evidence. Only those who have a worldview that precludes the possibility of resurrection (a materialist, for example) can doubt it.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
Wright explains, from a psychological perspective, why subjective experiences (e.g., "renewal", or purposive, mass delusion among all the disciples) could not possibly lead to objective, behavioral, and cognitive changes in Jesus' disciples following His resurrection. All but one of the apostles died horrible deaths for their faith in a resurrected Savior. Apologists like McDowell quip, "would you die for a lie?", but Wright could add, "would you die for a feeling or concocted delusion?"
gschong 1 year ago 9
@gschong LOL
GohModley 1 year ago
@gschong that was my logic always..man
MrUrosSrb 7 months ago
google Doe's Account.
elantriv 1 year ago
N.T. Wright is absolutely right, brilliantly presented arguments.
alexanderwotl 1 year ago
Unfortunately, Wright doesn't do much in this video to argue for the real physical resurrection of Jesus. Contrary to what ebal has written, there is plenty of reason to believe that the resurrection did happen. 1234h11 makes a good point about literary interpretation, but there are places that are straight reporting. This is one. Nothing else would have made the difference in the disciples but a real encounter with a resurrected Jesus.
campdon 1 year ago
There's been some fruitless debate on this column. Tom Wright is a fair-minded and eye-opening Bible-centred theologian
ianat9 2 years ago
Have you ever read the story of the Demon possessed man at Mark 5? Is it history? Do you think it is true? Jews who heard the story recognized the message. The demon who is many, is named LEGION. Think Roman Legion. The Legion enters pigs, unclean animals, as the Roman Gentiles are unclean, and drowns in the sea just as Pharoah's army drowned in the sea. The story is a sly insult to the Roman Legion which was oppressing the Jews. It's not history.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@ebaltrace Can there be a both/and? People like Tom Wright make the argument that for Second Temple Jews, it seems more likely that they would layer the political critique onto an event that actually happened, rather than need to make a critique and invent an "event" to prove the point. You are absolutely right, though, when you imply that early Christians were interested in a devastating political critique of Roman power.
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
@Kharisma1980 Thank you. But it would seem that the writer of Mark's gospel didn't understand the underlying metaphor. He treats the incident as Jesus just casting out Demons without understanding the deeper meaning of the story which he is relaying because he heard the story from an oral source.
ebaltrace 9 months ago
@ebaltrace Again, I'm not sure that's true. After all, if we are able to reconstruct a (very likely) political meaning for the story, it's at least conceivable that the original audience (who were most likely Roman followers of the Way) would have understood the political critique. The problem, in my view, is not that Jesus was understood to literally cast out demons, but rather that Christians forgot the political implications of the stories. Does that make sense? Orality, yes!
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
@Kharisma1980 Sounds like you are making an Apologetic argument to cover over a serious problem with Mark's gospel.
ebaltrace 9 months ago
@ebaltrace I don't think I'm seeing the problem. Can you help me understand it? If the author of Mark believed it was a literal exorcism and didn't catch the political meaning, is that a problem? Perhaps, as you seem to argue, Mark understood the story as a story with a political meaning, in which case it is still logical to believe that Mark's original audience likely understood it the same way. (It seems to me that this discussion revolves around some kind of authorial intention?)
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
@Kharisma1980 It's a problem if you believe that the writing of Mark's gospel was inspired by God himself. Surely God should have understood the meaning of the story. If Mark's Gospel is not inspired then there is no problem.
ebaltrace 9 months ago
@ebaltrace I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding. I meant my question literally...what is the "problem" you are referring to? Post-modern literary theory (I am speaking of scholars who are not religious) argues that it is quite possible for communities who read a text to perceive meanings that were not "intended" by the original authors. I don't understand why you are connecting the "problem" to inspiration. Is there a definition of inspiration in the Hebrew or Christian testaments?
Kharisma1980 9 months ago
Honestly though, I'm not going to have a youtube debate with someone who appears so dogmatic and ignorant (in a non-insulting sense). Do some research, read some Wright perhaps, and then come and talk to me. Or just sit here and brazenly crusade your ideals (which, in no offense, I suspect you will.)
I hope these comments don't get deleted, as they're likely my last, and I've tried very hard to be nice.
1234h11 2 years ago
@1234h11 I'm a nice person. I try very hard to be kind.
I have been studying the Bible for many years and I have a degree from a Bible College.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Answer to what? The mountain comment?
Because yes, I did. Some sort of sarcastic remark like, "Yes, because the ancients were that stupid to believe in a literal mountain tall enough to see the whole world." And I went on to say how your 'argument' showed your lack of knowledge on basic literary interpretation, more than anything. But it appears my posts have gotten scrambled and/or deleted.
1234h11 2 years ago
@1234h11 I can assure you that I have never deleted anyone's comments. But the mountain of Matthew 4:8 definitely doesn't exist. This is proof positive that the Gospels are not historical.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Comment removed
1234h11 2 years ago
"read any Wright" that is.
1234h11 2 years ago
Four gospels tell the story of the crucifixtion and resurrection. Matthew contains details that are not in the other 3 He says tombs opened, saints resurrected, and came into Jerusalem and were seen by many. This is so important and outrageous that if it were true the other gospellers would have certainly mentioned it. It's a rule of evidence that Matthew's testimony would be thrown out as a fabrication. False in one, false in all. The guards are Matthew's fabrication as well.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Actually no, they wouldn't necessarily mention it.
I suggest actually reading Wright's works on the Resurrection before you whip out these cliche arguments. Because it's very obvious you haven't.
1234h11 2 years ago
@1234h11 Your opinion does not comply with procedures in US courts of Law.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@ebaltrace -- Actually, it does. That's why I hold to it.
But of course you don't know that, because you haven't even bothered to read the material you're criticizing. Which is probably why the rather shallow holes you're attempting to poke are unrelated (which ironically, is identical in nature to the argumentative fundamentalists creeping about).
But, obviously, you're not here on youtube for a scholarly discussion. I suppose it's either to jab at some Christians, or prove how right you are
1234h11 2 years ago
@1234h11 You have no idea what I have read or not read. You have no idea concerning the degees that I have earned.
I can assure you that I am qualified to write what I wrote.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Ebal: You don't understand what I'm saying. I don't care what degrees you have or how qualified you are. I could be the world's leading Biblical Scholar and visit a youtube video about a secularist writer who I've never read and rant against his secular beliefs. That doesn't excuse the fact that I have no clue what the writer is actually saying. It's dogmatic, arrogant and ignorant. I mean, this just basic principles for scholastic critique.
And we can be honest here: you haven't any Wright.
1234h11 2 years ago
@1234h11 The pun was great.
Matt 4:8 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory
This mountain doesn't exist. There is no mountain from which one can see all the Kingdoms of the world.
Ths shows the Gospels were written for religious persuasion and not as history books. Did the resurrection really happen historically or is it just religious metaphor?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@ebaltrace-There was no pun. Read the comment below.
Yes, the ancients were that stupid to believe in a literal mountain tall enough to see the whole world.
But frankly, this argument or whatever it is (which conveniently sidesteps everything) mostly shows your lack of knowledge in basic literary interpretation. I'll let it speak for itself. And your question would not be asked if you, say, read the works of Wright instead of solely reading one-sided interpretations, as you evidently have.
1234h11 2 years ago
@1234h11 You have no answer? Just writng that I don't know is not an answer.
Ebal
ebaltrace 2 years ago
But again, you apparently don't care about research. Which is something you should do before you go attacking things that you evidently don't understand. Especially on a topic so debated. If you want to discuss the resurrection and early Christianity, start by reading Wright and then come talk to me. But obviously you won't, and I try to make it a rule not to uselessly reason with dogmatic fundamentalists who rant on youtube, both Atheist and Theist.
1234h11 2 years ago
One of the key things that Christians fail to realize about the supposed resurrection of Jesus, is that the first night Jesus was in the tomb, the tomb was unguarded. The guards that Matthew fabricates were not put on the tomb until the second night. The chief priests did not speak to Pilate until the next day.[Matthew 27:62-66] While unguarded, anyone could have removed the body, and closed the tomb to conceal that they removed the body.
Ebl the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Ebal, And so you think that that subtlety included by the same Church that included The Gospel of St. Matthew removes the rest of testament, and Church history which includes oral testimony attesting to Sacred Scripture's validity on Christ and His Resurrection? And the Scripture doesnt read, "next night" it reads, "The next day..." which could be an hour of midnight. What is established is a Roman Guard, a Roman seal, and the emergence of an executed man who said He'd rise three days later.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 Christians like to say that the guards were Roman. But the Bible argues for a Jewish guard. The Jews had a Temple Guard to keep order, because Gentiles were not permitted in the Temple Area.
Matthew 27:65 Pilate said to them, [The Jews] "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." When a mission is complete soldiers report back to their commander. Matthew 28:11 some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.
Ebal
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@Ebal, And as point of fact concerning Matthew 27:62-66, Jewish days BEGIN at sundown, NOT at sunrise, so the "next day" contextually, isn't the second day as we know it, but as Jews understood it, which would have necessarily meant, that night of the day that Christ died.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 Jesus was buried just before sundown. That night he lay in the grave unguarded. The next day, [the word specifically refers to daylight hours] the priests approached Pilate.
It really is a moot point since the guards are a fabrication.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
If the guards were "fabricated" why would the writer be so ignorant as to put the guards there after the fact? That seems a little illogical. Actually, no, VERY illogical.
4eversmiling1 2 years ago
@ebaltrace
Christianity is the only "religion" that claims a falsifiable truth. What I mean is, if it can be proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Bible actually says, "we of all men are most miserable." (I Cor 15:13-22) Of anybody on the whole entire earth, Christians are the biggest fools and losers of all!!
You know what - nobody has ever denied the fact that Jesus dead body has never been found... People claim the body was stolen... but nobody denies it's missing. =)
4eversmiling1 2 years ago
@4eversmiling1 It can't be proved that Jesus rose from the dead. The gospels are not history, they are religious tracts.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
It's interesting that the first gospel, Mark's gospel, does not include any post resurrection appearances of Jesus. Matthew and Luke are really edited copies of Mark, following the same outline of Mark, even with word for word copying of Mark, but with added details. But often the details of Matthew and Luke are in conflict. John's gospel was written almost 100 years after Jesus' death.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@Ebel, You're referencing "Q". But omitting manuscripts stating the one and same creeds held since the time of Christ, dated no later than 36 AD. All 4 Gospels act as supplement to one another...Which details are in conflict for you?
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 It is almost like writing a book to point out details that are in conflict. If you are a Bible Student you should know. Compare the Baptism, Temptation,the parable of the Sower, the Crucifixtion and Resurrection accounts to start with. Look at the details side by side.
You will see if you look.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@Ebal, You do realize that the Gospels are not meant to be replications of one another but are supplemental and complementary, right?
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 Wrong! That is just a Christian explanation to explain away inconsistencies in the gospels.
Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke independently copied from Mark, edited Mark, added events from Q, which no longer exists,[I wonder why God didn't preserve Q?] and hoped that nobody would ever see Mark again because their versions were new and improved. The Gospels could not be considered "supplemental and complementary" since many passages are almost word for word.
Ebal
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@Ebal, You're claiming Mark was written first as a fact? Are you sure you don't want to back that claim up with the qualification that it is hypothesized to "likely" be first? And in the event you are citing the two source, primary Markan source as first, you realize that in scoffing at Q you;re scoffing at you're on contention, correct?
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 Of course, it's a theory that Mark was written first, but it seems to be the theory most accepted by experts. Until Q shows up it is also a theory since there are no manuscripts. But what's the quibble?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@Ebal, You're characterizing the importance between established fact and possibility as something minor?
Would the same approach to "inconsistencies" be applied here?
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 Do you want to side track this discussion away from the fact that Paul was a murderer, the gospels were written anonymously more than 40 years after Jesus death, and the evidence for the resurection is an empty tomb and stories of post mortem appearances by only Jesus' followers?
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.
If a corpse is missing you don't assume a resurrection you try to find out who moved the corpse. Mary Magdalene had 7 demons; mental illness.
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Ebal, Sidetrack the discussion away from Saul being a murderer? Uhm...Huh? What?! Who cares, so was Moses, David no better,Peter just as well,etc,etc...That's NEVER a bane to the validity of Christianity. You didn't answer my questions concerning qualification of evidence. As for anonymity, the creeds, the information within a generation of Christ and all events did not change. Unknown authorship readily agreed upon doesnt remove valid history, which the Church and Gospels bear equally.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@Ebal, A couple of names who understand the requirements of evidence:
Simon Greenleaf and Sir Lionel Luckhoo.
I encourage you to read their assessment of facts, evidence, the Gospels and the conclusion of who they think Christ is.
As for extraordinary evidence, The Shroud Of Turin is that.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
@NilDesperandum777 I am familiar with Greenleaf. I think his rules work against the claims of Christianity. When I get time I will look up Luckhoo. The Shroud has never been fully studied because the RCC denies access for a complete examination. What I have read about it is that it is a fake. But even if it were genuine, what would it prove? That some person was crucified, and wrapped in the cloth? Thousands were probably crucified. Jesus didn't autograph it did he?
Ebal the ATheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
you are too funny! If something is written exactly the same, you claim it's plagerized. If it's different, you claim it's contradictory. Alas, I will take some time to show you the historicity of the Bible, but I have to work tonight, so it may be a few days. =)
4eversmiling1 2 years ago
@4eversmiling1 The problem with Apolgists is that you believe you know it all and you never really read criticism.
I was a Christian for over 60 years. I now know the REAL truth. If you are willing to open your mind and consider what I write then I will try to explain it 500 characters at a time.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Read any criticism' like you haven't read any Wright?
I used to be an agnostic before becoming a Theist. I hope you are true to your words of opening your mind, and actually know the reasoning you're criticizing instead of saying silly things like, "Your opinion does not comply with procedures in US courts of Law." Especially when you haven't even bothered to learn my opinion or Wright's.
1234h11 2 years ago
@4eversmiling1 Why did you put words in my mouth? I never said what you said I said.
Where is the historicity evidence?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Paul's creed in 1 Corinthians 15 predates Mark's gospel and lists the multiple appearances of the Resurrected Christ and witnesses to the accounts. The author Mark was a post- crucifixion follower of Peter and was recording his testimony of Jesus' LIFE. And as we can see in Peter's own Epistles, he several times points to Christ's triumph over death and often uses the awareness of the 1st century reader to verify that fact. A fact that Paul, Peter, and nearly all early apostles were killed for.
The1SUM 2 years ago
@The1SUM The BIG problem with all the post resurrection appearances is that Jesus only showed himself to his own followers. If the Scientologists claimed that their founder, L Ron Hubbard, resurrected, attended their conference, and then went to Heaven, would you believe? I doubt it.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@The1SUM Paul writes a nice list of supposed post mortem appearances of Jesus. But do we have over 500 witnesses or do we just have Paul saying that there were over 500 witnesses? Paul was a murderer. Is a murderer trust worthy? He claimed to have heard the voice of Jesus whom he never met in the flesh, on the road to Damascus. He did not have the required 2 or 3 witnesses but on this basis eliminated the Law, Circumcision, and the Sabbath, pillars of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
@The1SUM When Paul makes his list of post mortem appearances, last of all he includes himself. Paul only heard a voice, he was blinded, yet he never met Jesus, and would not have been able to recognize Jesus' voice since Jesus was a stranger.
Paul explains his experience at 2Corinth 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. Is this reality or an hallucination?
ebaltrace 2 years ago
lol complete simplication
eventheos 2 years ago
@eventheos What can one do if limited to 500 characters? Simplify!
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Actually, no, you are wrong in too many places here! I haven't decided yet how much time i am going to take to respond to these erroneous claims.
4eversmiling1 2 years ago
Comment removed
Holyjerk 2 years ago
Excellent.
It's great when someone who actually knows what they're talking about confirms the age old basis for belief in Christ.
lordsong7 2 years ago 8
beautiful
Galatians4v28 2 years ago 2