Jesus and the Crucifixion - Continued from Another Thread.

He was upset that Paul wanted to do away with circumcision and kosher. He finally came around though. He didn't disagree fundamentally with Paul about the crucifixion. It's not said that he did. James is recorded as Jesus's brother; he 'took the reins' after Jesus's death. To reject the death on the cross is all speculation that is not supported by the New Testament, imo

So -- unless there's anything new ...?

 

He met them as the resurrected Christ @badger

It's not possible to get a revived Jesus from either Paul or from the gospels. It's not in there. It's just going to become circular from this point, imo

 

Perfect example! If you read what that young man told them, it fits exactly with what I think happened. I believe that is what happened, and that Jesus survived.

 

I think that G-Mark is the most accurate account, once any additions have been extracted.

[QUOTE}The first Christian writing is Paul's 1st epistle to the Thessalonians, which came before the Gospel of Mark
1 Thessalonians
[/QUOTE]
But Paul never wrote a line about anything that JEsus did during his campaign...... I don't think he could have been much interested in that.

So do you think that his death on the cross is an 'eye-witness account? If so, which bits of the gospels do you accept and which do you not accept? Please see you earlier comment.

Celcus lived in the same century as Tacitus and told us more detail about (for example) the disciples, than Tacitus.
Celcus believed in a Jesus, just din't believe in a Christ.

Neither John nor the author, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Cephas (if his memoirs are in G-Mark) were there. Only those women had the guts to be there and they stood off 'afar'.

 

He was upset that these new congregations were not Jewish...... Cephas thought that this was for the Jews, imo.

Cephas didn't have to agree with any of Paul's ideas........ neither of them was there, and Paul never met with Jesus after that time like Cephas did.
All Paul had was belief.

There's always something new if the info hasn't been studied in deep depth. I learned something new during this last week after decades of study.
The person who knows it all usually does not, imo.

Cephas, Andrew, John, James, Levi and all the Disciples........ were brothers to Jesus.
Who James was is still unclear to me. All the disciples were brother to Jesus.

Mark {3:32} And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. {3:33} And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? {3:34} And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! {3:35} For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 

It's OK to believe that if you do. I seem to remember that you once told me that you are a Catholic....is that right?
Was I so wrong to suggest that you believed in Christianity a couple of days ago?

It's not possible to get a single detail about anything that Jesus ever did during his mission before that last Passover week.
Paul cannot help in this matter.

Cephas might be able to help though............. let's see.... I need to review that.

 

Regardless of what I or anyone else believes -- nevertheless the gospels say what the gospels say @badger

Paul says, he spent 15 days with Peter and also met James. That's what he says

It's possible to have Jesus taken away in a flying saucer, or to be on magic mushrooms -- or almost any theory

It's a circle from now on ...

 

I don't believe a boy called Harry Potter really played quidditch at Hogwarts -- but there's no way I can manipulate and cherry-pick the Harry Potter books to confirm that he did not. They say what they say, lol

 

I thought that that was fundamentally Paul's teaching.

 

What makes you think that they talked about that all the time?
I don't believe that Peter and James believed that "the death and resurrection" was the main reason why Jesus was sent into the world.
They were Jewish, as was Paul, and they didn't think that Jesus was God incarnate, imo.

They considered him to be the Jewish Messiah, and that he would return to complete his mission.

 

Well Paul's are the earliest Christian writings, after meeting Jesus's closest followers, who accepted him as an apostle. The gospels were still taking form?

They certainly would have talked about it.

 

But you don't know that was not the main reason? It's a supposition unsupported by the Pauline writings and by the gospels. You say they were Jews. But they were also the first Christians. This goes on forever.

So ... anything new to respond to?

EDIT
No rudeness or offence intended

 

That's not really the point. We know that a lot of people believed that he had died on the cross.
It would then be obvious that he must have been "resurrected" or brought back to life one way or another.

It doesn't follow that Jesus had told people that he died on the cross because that is what the majority believed.
Nobody would blame people for thinking that .. but the rest of the beliefs of "who he is" because of it is another matter.
This all came about in the Gentile community, and not the original Jewish following, imo.

 

It's what Paul says and it's what the gospels say. Unless you have new information. There's no way the NT supports a revived Jesus. It's just not in there

 

50 And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit;
51 and lo, the vail of the sanctuary was rent in two from top unto bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks were rent,
52 and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who have fallen asleep, arose,
53 and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many.
-Matthew 27-

It seems Jesus wasn't the only one to be resurrected and seen after their death..
In any case, whatever one might believe, Jesus is a Mercy to the world .. IMO.
Let us both rejoice.

 

Yes

 

Sorry

Please allow me to quote a passage that may seem long, but which is important to make clear to anyone who believes the Bible reappearance of Jesus to his disciples after the crucifixion is evidence that he did not die. Christ made it clear he was not a disembodied spirit, but resurrected in the body. That is the meaning of resurrection:

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:31-49 read whole chapter

There is no way the gospel accounts of Jesus's reappearance can be cherry-picked to conclude he was not resurrected, but revived. However, of course the whole passage -- or preferably the whole chapter -- must be read. I am sorry to go on about it, but it's an important point: a revived Jesus who survived the cross cannot be supported by looking to the New Testament for confirmation.

Hopefully it can rest there?

 

I don't want to "whine on" at the moment.
It is the Easter hols. and Good Friday is in a few days time.
I have respect for my fellow Christians.

Perhaps another time.

 

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it can. We are discussing the historical truth that might have inspired the gospels, not trying to derive theology from scriptural interpretation.

 

How could this passage be used to support a revived rather than a resurrected Jesus? Ah ... easy -- just drop the parts that don't fit, lol

Anyway. Just putting it out there what the gospel Jesus actually does say ...

EDIT
Obviously not always what a person wants that Jesus said