Jesus and the Crucifixion - Continued from Another Thread.

[badger]

Personally, I have no need to come up with reasonable explanations for why Jesus was seen after he died since I am almost certain that he was not seen after he died. It is possible that he did not die on the cross and was mistakenly thought to be dead, however, which still seems to me to be a more logical explanation than resurrection.

All of your post was interesting but I wanted to answer this paragraph.
The explanation of why Jesus was seen after the executions could be that he lived.
I like the Cornish tradition that he was taken there by Joseph of A.
The spear thrust cleared his lung of fluids and blood so that he could breath more efficiently.
He was taken down and away and like Josephus's friend he survived.
He was taken North to the Ports of Sidon or Tyre, which had traded with Cornwall for tin for a couple of millennia before Jesus's time.
On the way he was seen by many old friends and acquaintances.
He was exiled.

 

[badger]

Well original Mark does involve a resurrection. But regardless -- are you saying even in the event of no mention of resurrection in any gospel or other part of the New Testament that you would consider Jesus's survival more likely than his death on the cross?

Yes. I think that survival is much more likley than death.
Why?
Because his friends and acquaintances met with him in Galilee which is on the way North to the great ports of Sidon and Tyre, where he could have been sent in to exile....... Kashmir? Gaul? Cornwall?

The account could support the above ideas, thus:-
Mark {15:43} Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. {15:44} And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling [unto him] the centurion, he asked him whether he had been
any while dead. {15:45} And when he knew [it] of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

Even Pilate didn't expect a convict to die so quickly, and he was right because the guards had to break the other convicts legs so that they would die before the Sabbath.

After all, the tomb was left from Friday evening until Sunday morning before Magdalene returned to it.

 

[RJM]

Yes. I think that survival is much more likley than death.

It's not more likely @badger

The centurion told Pilate he was dead.
He was pierced through the side
All the gospel writers say he was dead
All the apostles and Mary Magdalene believed he was dead
Paul and all the early followers believed he was dead
The fact it's possible to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact he survived does not make it more likely.
Anyway, we agree to differ

The point is that Jesus spoke in advance of his own death and resurrection. If he didn't know he would be rescued he was wrong, and if he did not correct himself afterwards and allowed not only the apostles but all the followers since then to let themselves be martyred in the belief of his death and resurrection, in order to save Pilate, and then whisked away to India or France or Cornwall -- he was extremely deceitful.

In the other gospels he apostles believed they had met with the resurrected Christ. He didn't tell them he had survived. Peter believed it, and even Jesus's own brother James believed it -- and went on to die for their belief:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Mark 8:31-33 Read full chapter

So -- the gospels can be cherry-picked and mangled and manipulated and to somehow rescue Jesus from death on the cross, but it's not more likely. It's possible to draw almost any theory from the gospels, by ignoring the parts that don't fit, imo

There are other passages in Mark where Jesus predicts his death.
We disagree, I have no more to add, really ...

 

[RJM]

I did not find that a resurrection occured when reading the original gospel of Mark

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

Mark 16 Original version

 

[Cino]

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

This is one of the most atmospheric passages, I've always thought. It feels very immediate.

And yet, to Jews then and now, days end (and begin) at sunset. I know this has been discussed to death, over the millennia. But it always rang false to me.

 

[RJM]

This is one of the most atmospheric passages, I've always thought. It feels very immediate.

And yet, to Jews then and now, days end (and begin) at sunset. I know this has been discussed to death, over the millennia. But it always rang false to me.

Sure

Yes. And it was not three days either. But the original ending of Mark does include the resurrection -- that's the thing? The passage can be read to mean other things, but it is incorrect to say the original gospel of Mark excludes the resurrection, imo

 

[Cino]

Sure

Yes. And it was not three days either. But the original ending of Mark does include the resurrection -- that's the thing? The passage can be read to mean other things, but it is incorrect to say the original gospel of Mark excludes the resurrection, imo

Absolutely, I agree the resurrection passage is part of the text.

It is potential inconsitencies like the one I pointed out which make the text look less like an unmodified eyewitness account and more like a compilation by a later editor. If they didn't get that detail right, what else may have become garbled in the process, one might wonder. And the results of text critical scholarship are quite fascinating, to me.

Something to keep in mind when responding to the reactions by adherents of other world views to the Gospel texts, I think.

 

[RJM]

Absolutely, I agree the resurrection passage is part of the text.

It is potential inconsitencies like the one I pointed out which make the text look less like an unmodified eyewitness account and more like a compilation by a later editor. If they didn't get that detail right, what else may have become garbled in the process, one might wonder. And the results of text critical scholarship are quite fascinating, to me.

Something to keep in mind when responding to the reactions by adherents of other world views to the Gospel texts, I think.

Yes.
I wonder how many people nowadays do take the gospels to be first hand eye-witness accounts? I do not.

The first Christian writing is Paul's 1st epistle to the Thessalonians, which came before the Gospel of Mark
1 Thessalonians

My difficulty is with cherry-picking from the gospels to try to prove the opposite of what the gospels clearly do say. If I want to prove Christ did not die on the cross, I'm not going to get it from the gospels. The gospels say Jesus did die on the cross, imo

Josephus mentions it independently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Tacitus speaks of it too.
Perhaps other independent sources?

There are apocrypha saying Jesus did not die on the cross.
But the gospels say Jesus did die on the cross.

Anyway ... what more to add?

 

[wil]

This is where faith and belief come in is it not.

There are those that believe in the gospels.

And then those that question the veracity of partisan texts that were written for the purpose of getting followers which were splintered all on the same page 30 years after the fact and labeled with pseudonyms designed to appear to be written by eyewitnesses...

I think disagreement is to be expected (and the reason we have dozens of religions and thousands of denominations.)

 

[badger]

It's not more likely @badger

The centurion told Pilate he was dead.
He was pierced through the side
All the gospel writers say he was dead
All the apostles and Mary Magdalene believed he was dead
Paul and all the early followers believed he was dead
The fact it's possible to construct a conspiracy theory around the fact he survived does not make it more likely.
Anyway, we agree to differ

The point is that Jesus spoke in advance of his own death and resurrection. If he didn't know he would be rescued he was wrong, and if he did not correct himself afterwards and allowed not only the apostles but all the followers since then to let themselves be martyred in the belief of his death and resurrection, in order to save Pilate, and then whisked away to India or France or Cornwall -- he was extremely deceitful.

In the other gospels he apostles believed they had met with the resurrected Christ. He didn't tell them he had survived. Peter believed it, and even Jesus's own brother James believed it -- and went on to die for their belief:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Mark 8:31-33 Read full chapter

So -- the gospels can be cherry-picked and mangled and manipulated and to somehow rescue Jesus from death on the cross, but it's not more likely. It's possible to draw almost any theory from the gospels, by ignoring the parts that don't fit, imo

There are other passages in Mark where Jesus predicts his death.
We disagree, I have no more to add, really ...

I accept that you think it is less likely, but I do think it less likely that he died.
I'd love to know how we know, how the gospel waters knew, about what the Roman leader said to Pilate.
Magdalene watched from afar, so she didn't know.
The author of John, nor the disciple John were there.
The author of Matthew wasn't there.
Nor Luke.
And I don't think that the author of Mark was there .
All these so called witnesses which I cannot feel certain about.
It's just how I see it.

I accept that you are a Christian and have faith that Jesus died and resurrected himself....but are either of us certain? Who knows?

 

[badger]

Yes.
I

Josephus mentions it independently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Tacitus speaks of it too.

I'm sure that Josephus did write about Jesus because that short account is placed amongst troubles of that time, but I don't think he wrote what can be seen there. That's a thread, all on its own.

And Tacitus?

 

[RJM]

This is where faith and belief come in is it not.

There are those that believe in the gospels.

And then those that question the veracity of partisan texts that were written for the purpose of getting followers which were splintered all on the same page 30 years after the fact and labeled with pseudonyms designed to appear to be written by eyewitnesses...

I think disagreement is to be expected (and the reason we have dozens of religions and thousands of denominations.)

Yes. But the point is if someone is going to use the gospels to prove Jesus was taken away on a flying saucer, they have to cherry-pick and mangle what the gospels do say. It's not about what anyone believes, but about what the gospels do say. If someone needs to prove Jesus was taken away on a flying saucer, they need to go away from the gospels and provide outside sources? Because the gospels do not say that?

I accept that you are a Christian and have faith that Jesus died and resurrected himself

Not necessarily. You do not know that. I am talking about what the gospels actually say. It doesn't matter what I believe. You are constructing a conspiracy theory around what you believe. But the gospels do not support you.

So please don't tell me what I believe?

I'm sure that Josephus did write about Jesus because that short account is placed amongst troubles of that time, but I don't think he wrote what can be seen there. That's a thread, all on its own.

So its back to not liking what Josephus wrote because it doesn't support my conspiracy theory? The passage is contested, but not the main part of it. No-one denies the main part of it.

And Tacitus?

Sigh. Do I have to go through it all again? Just google Tacitus on Christ. Regardless of the time it was written, or that it is hearsay etc, it's an independent source
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

There are infinite theories about Jesus. But none of them can honestly be derived from what the gospels actually say. Not without cherry-picking and mangling and supposition, imo

So, if we are to continue this discussion that Jesus did not die on the cross @badger can you provide outside independent sources to support your theory? The gospel of Mark do not back you up. It says the opposite of what you would like it to say ...

 

[RJM]

I'm sure that Josephus did write about Jesus because that short account is placed amongst troubles of that time, but I don't think he wrote what can be seen there. That's a thread, all on its own.

Sorry to have to use an expert, I know some people don't like what experts have to offer
Josephus Testimonium Flavium

 

[RJM]

It's just how I see it.

I accept this

In the end, the resurrection is a separate issue?
So the only reason to do away with the death is to do away with the resurrection?
Is there another reason?
Is it not possible to accept the death without accepting the resurrection?
The only reason to consider the resurrection is because it is written in the gospels?

But they are the same gospels that tell us everything else that we know about Jesus.* Including the fact that he told his followers he would die. His own brother believed it. And in the resurrection too. So how is it valid to use the gospels at all, in an attempt to disprove what the gospels themselves say?

Can anyone explain?

*Excluding Quran and apocrypha

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is a nice story created by gospel writers, Nicaean editors, satisfactory to Christian believers and good for missionaries to thump on. Why should there be doubts?

 

[RJM]

It is a nice story created by gospel writers, Nicaean editors, satisfactory to Christian believers and good for missionaries to thump on. Why should there be doubts?

Exactly. No-one has to accept the story. But it says what it says. Anyway ...

 

[badger]

Not necessarily. You do not know that. I am talking about what the gospels actually say. It doesn't matter what I believe. You are constructing a conspiracy theory around what you believe. But the gospels do not support you.

I've constructed nothing. And it's not a 'conspiracy theory'. It's simply what I find from study and investigation. Who did I conspire with?

So please don't tell me what I believe?
So its back to not liking what Josephus wrote because it doesn't support my conspiracy theory? The passage is contested, but not the main part of it. No-one denies the main part of it.

It's not back to anything.......... I've never shared much about Josephus other than his action in saving a crucified friend.
The whole of the peice looks dodgy to me, but it's position in the document clearly shows that Josephus did write about Jesus, in a section about the troubled and difficult accounts of others rather than a more impressive peace maybe following that glowing and more lengthy account of the Baptist.

And so 'No', I don't trust the writing, just the placing of the piece, and that's not a conspiracy because I investigated this on my own and stand alone quite separate from mythers, Christians or anybody else.

Sigh. Do I have to go through it all again? Just google Tacitus on Christ. Regardless of the time it was written, or that it is hearsay etc, it's an independent source
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

Regardless of the time that it was written?
I'll rest with that.

So, if we are to continue this discussion that Jesus did not die on the cross @badger can you provide outside independent sources to support your theory? The gospel of Mark do not back you up. It says the opposite of what you would like it to say ...

You think this is a discussion?
Challenging me to show independent sources to support my theory which could then show you that I am part of a 'conspiracy theory' seems more like a debate to me than a discussion.

That's the difference between discussion and debate in my opinion. I don't care about finding lots of 'independent sources' for anything because I don't hide behind lots of other voices. I wonder how many I would have to produce to make any difference?

 

[badger]

Sorry to have to use an expert, I know some people don't like what experts have to offer
Josephus Testimonium Flavium

That's a thread, all on it's own, I think.
Are you writing that you consider Josephus to be 'An expert' and if so could you tell me what his area of expertise is?

 

[RJM]

That's a thread, all on it's own, I think.
Are you writing that you consider Josephus to be 'An expert' and if so could you tell me what his area of expertise is?

It's independent evidence of the crucifixion. The expert in the video accepts the main part of the passage, but with interpolation.

@badger at some stage it's necessary to address the issue of Jesus telling his followers he was going to die, and that even his brother James believed he had really died. All the apostles went on to die for their belief, while Jesus skipped off to India or France or Cornwall -- in order to save the reputation of Pontius Pilate?

 

[badger]

I accept this

In the end, the resurrection is a separate issue?
So the only reason to do away with the death is to do away with the resurrection?
Is there another reason?

Of course there is.
The reason for doing away with the death is because his friends saw him again, very much alive.
Thousands of people claim that he lived after all this......... thousands.

As for resurrection......... no, apart from the lack of any evidence I don't believe that the God of everything sent himself in person to this tiny planet amongst trillions of them, within billions of galaxies to involve himself with a recent species of creatures after thirteen thousand millions of years without them.