What is the perferred 'natural' theory to dispute & debunk Jesus' resurrection?

[Night Train]

Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution and they wouldn't have allowed his body to be taken down at all. If Josephus is to be believed, many Jews were executed by this method but archeologists have only found the body of one crucifixion victim. The bodies weren't preserved because they weren't entombed.

Crucifixion was designed to instil terror in a subject population. A one-day event would be relatively ineffective--better to leave the body on the cross for months as a more or less permanent reminder that this was the fate of anyone who dared to challenge the Roman occupation.

Ineffective or not, Christ's crucifixion, death and taken down from the cross all happened on the same day. 

Incidentally, Bart Erhman doesn't believe in the Resurrection. In fact, it was Ehrman who pointed out--in an NPR interview--that the Resurrection story is an anachronism.

From a debate between Mike Licona and Bart Erhman:

Licona:
? Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion
? Fact 2: Individuals and groups had visions of Jesus after his death
? Fact 3: Paul, a skeptic and an enemy, had an appearance of Jesus that converted him
? these facts are agreed to atheist scholars, liberal scholars, etc.
? virtually 100% of scholars agree with these three facts
? there is no naturalistic explanation of these three facts
? therefore, the best explanation of these three facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead

Ehrman:
? all historians would accept these three facts, except for maybe the group appearances

https://winteryknight.com/2016/10/09/mike-licona-and-bart-ehrman-debate-the-resurrection-of-jesus-3/

(bold mine)

You are correct that Scripture plainly states that Jesus' crucifixion was a one day event. My bad. However, that doesn't address the central issue: the Romans wouldn't have allowed Jesus a burial. I have given links and citations to support this view and you have responded with a verse from Deuteronomy and an ahistorical assertion that the Roman administration was bound by Mosaic law. Can you support this?

In the link you gave, Ehrman is simply acknowledging that four decades after the event in question, some people believed in a Resurrection narrative. But a narrative is simply a story. Some stories are veridical; others are not.

Here is a link to the NPR interview I referenced:
https://www.npr.org/templates/search/index.php?searchinput=bart+ehrman

From the transcript:

Before I wrote this book and did the research on it, I was convinced, as many people are, that Jesus was given a decent burial, and on the third day the women went to the tomb,

found it empty, and that started the belief in the resurrection.

Apart from the fact that I don't think Jesus was given a decent burial ? that he was probably thrown into a common grave of some kind ? apart from that, I was struck in doing my

research by the fact that the New Testament never indicates that people came to believe in the resurrection because of the empty tomb. This was a striking find because it's just

commonly said that that's what led to the resurrection belief.
(my bold)

Ehrman elaborates on this line of thought in his book How Jesus Became God :

Sometimes Christian apologists argue that Jesus had to be taken off the cross before sunset on Friday because the next day was the Sabbath and it was against Jewish law, or at least Jewish sensitivities, to allow a person to remain on the cross during the Sabbath. Unfortunately, the historical record suggests just the opposite. It was not Jews who killed Jesus, and so they had no say about when he would be taken down from the cross. Moreover, the Romans who did crucify him had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities. Quite the contrary. When it came to crucified criminals--in this case, someone charged with crimes against the state--there was regularly no mercy and no concern for anyone's sensitivities. The point of crucifixion was to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible, and to show any bystanders what happens to someone who is a troublemaker in the eyes of Rome. Part of the humiliation and degradation was the body being left on the cross after death to be subject to scavenging animals.
pages 156-157

[eyeshaveit]

The answer is pretty simple. It?s just a story written decades after the supposed events happened.

The ministry, death, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ certainly occured,
With creeds and doxologies immediately coming into being within short weeks and months.

Are there other verified historical records to confirm what's being claimed by the Bible?

Like what?

The life and death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth,
Are accepted as fact by the majority of Bible scholars.
People like Bart D. Ehrman even accept his 'resurrection'.

Other than the Bible or Bible "scholars," where else have these events and figures been confirmed?

Why would you want to go anywhere else?
The historical Jesus is not to be found in  the index of the Bluejacket's Manual, or an HVAC Control Systems Catalog, or a Book Binder's Guide, etc..

Why? Because I prefer to have more than just one source to confirm that something is indeed fact before I jump on the bandwagon.

As children, we're excused because we don't know any better but as adults, there's no excuse.

Otherwise, we'd all just assume that everything given to us was fact just because it's popular.

And in the case of this book, it's just one book that was written not so long ago - just 2000 years ago.

Humanity has been around for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions(?) of years.

So, I don't believe that that recent account is THE only basis of truth.

You go to Google
And type in "was jesus historical character"
And you will get about 47,400,000 results; both sides of the issue;
May the God, who sits on the Throne of Grace, bless your efforts and lead you to the truth:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=fFvxWqmLNaS2jwSM5qmoDg&q=was+jesus+historical+character&oq=was+jesus+historical+character&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.1643.17872.0.18818.34.29.2.3.4.0.222.4048.5j23j1.29.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.3474...0j0i131k1j0i3k1j33i22i29i30k1.0.W4ITheUDQUw

[eyeshaveit]

You are correct that Scripture plainly states that Jesus' crucifixion was a one day event. My bad. However, that doesn't address the central issue: the Romans wouldn't have allowed Jesus a burial. I have given links and citations to support this view and you have responded with a verse from Deuteronomy and an ahistorical assertion that the Roman administration was bound by Mosaic law. Can you support this?

My faith beliefs are rock-solid, you however,
Go to Google and type in, "was jesus taken off cross same day";
You will get about 86,200,000 results; these will be both sides of the issue;
May the Holy God, Lord of Heavenly Hosts, bless your efforts and lead you to the truth.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=ql7xWsOFCIz7jwSJx4Fw&q=was+jesus+taken+off+cross+same+day&oq=was+jesus+taken+off+cross+same+day&gs_l=psy-ab.3...11175.12092.0.14440.4.4.0.0.0.0.168.497.1j3.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.XnRf7c1g7JE

[8livesleft]

The answer is pretty simple. It?s just a story written decades after the supposed events happened.

The ministry, death, bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ certainly occured,
With creeds and doxologies immediately coming into being within short weeks and months.

Are there other verified historical records to confirm what's being claimed by the Bible?

Like what?

The life and death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth,
Are accepted as fact by the majority of Bible scholars.
People like Bart D. Ehrman even accept his 'resurrection'.

Other than the Bible or Bible "scholars," where else have these events and figures been confirmed?

Why would you want to go anywhere else?
The historical Jesus is not to be found in  the index of the Bluejacket's Manual, or an HVAC Control Systems Catalog, or a Book Binder's Guide, etc..

Why? Because I prefer to have more than just one source to confirm that something is indeed fact before I jump on the bandwagon.

As children, we're excused because we don't know any better but as adults, there's no excuse.

Otherwise, we'd all just assume that everything given to us was fact just because it's popular.

And in the case of this book, it's just one book that was written not so long ago - just 2000 years ago.

Humanity has been around for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions(?) of years.

So, I don't believe that that recent account is THE only basis of truth.

You go to Google
And type in "was jesus historical character"
And you will get about 47,400,000 results; both sides of the issue;
May the God, who sits on the Throne of Grace, bless your efforts and lead you to the truth:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=fFvxWqmLNaS2jwSM5qmoDg&q=was+jesus+historical+character&oq=was+jesus+historical+character&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.1643.17872.0.18818.34.29.2.3.4.0.222.4048.5j23j1.29.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.3474...0j0i131k1j0i3k1j33i22i29i30k1.0.W4ITheUDQUw

Oh yeah, he's right up there with Stormy Daniels.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Night Train]

You are correct that Scripture plainly states that Jesus' crucifixion was a one day event. My bad. However, that doesn't address the central issue: the Romans wouldn't have allowed Jesus a burial. I have given links and citations to support this view and you have responded with a verse from Deuteronomy and an ahistorical assertion that the Roman administration was bound by Mosaic law. Can you support this?

My faith beliefs are rock-solid, you however,
Go to Google and type in, "was jesus taken off cross same day";
You will get about 86,200,000 results; these will be both sides of the issue;
May the Holy God, Lord of Heavenly Hosts, bless your efforts and lead you to the truth.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=ql7xWsOFCIz7jwSJx4Fw&q=was+jesus+taken+off+cross+same+day&oq=was+jesus+taken+off+cross+same+day&gs_l=psy-ab.3...11175.12092.0.14440.4.4.0.0.0.0.168.497.1j3.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.XnRf7c1g7JE

I've done that and found that the judgment of historians is that the Biblical account of the crucifixion is problematic. Apologists disagree, but apologists aren't interested in the truth.

[Night Train]

Can you just "toss out" all of history's recorded miracles without offering a semblance of evidencial explanation for your beliefs?

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."--David Hume

[eyeshaveit]

Apologists aren't interested in the truth.

Most Christian apologists would say, that its all about the truth;
They often spend hours just answering question after question in search of the truth,
But be that as it may, preconceived notions can be a wall that's just ever so hard to ascend and surmount.

[TallRed]

Apologists aren't interested in the truth.

Most Christian apologists would say, that its all about the truth;
They often spend hours just answering question after question in search of the truth,
But be that as it may, preconceived notions can be a wall that's just ever so hard to ascend and surmount.

Yes, preconceived notions like ?Jesus existed.?

[eyeshaveit]

Can you just "toss out" all of history's recorded miracles without offering a semblance of evidencial explanation for your beliefs?

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."--David Hume

Conversion is a miracle; there are hundreds of thousands of us,
If not millions, and all of us 'walking' miracles, who joyfully are serving the Lord Jesus Christ. 

[eyeshaveit]

Apologists aren't interested in the truth.

Most Christian apologists would say, that its all about the truth;
They often spend hours just answering question after question in search of the truth,
But be that as it may, preconceived notions can be a wall that's just ever so hard to ascend and surmount.

Yes, preconceived notions like ?Jesus existed.?

That the historical Jesus existed is the least of any apologist's problems; it's a settled fact for most biblical scholars.

[TallRed]

That the historical Jesus existed is the least of any apologist's problems; it's a settled fact for most biblical scholars.

Most ?biblical scholars? are already believers.  They have a vested interest in maintaining that belief.  ?Scholars? who have decided that Jesus existed based in the non-existent evidence aren?t worthy of the title ?scholar.? Apologists confronted with the stunning lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus inevitably fall back in the old canard about it being a ?settled fact.?  Hand waving and bluster don?t replace actual evidence.

[TallRed]

Can you just "toss out" all of history's recorded miracles without offering a semblance of evidencial explanation for your beliefs?

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."--David Hume

Conversion is a miracle; there are hundreds of thousands of us,
If not millions, and all of us 'walking' miracles, who joyfully are serving the Lord Jesus Christ.

How is conversion a miracle?  It?s not miraculous to follow the crowd like a good little sheep. It would be a miracle if you decided to switch your brain on instead of off.

[eyeshaveit]

That the historical Jesus existed is the least of any apologist's problems; it's a settled fact for most biblical scholars.

Most ?biblical scholars? are already believers.  They have a vested interest in maintaining that belief.  ?Scholars? who have decided that Jesus existed based in the non-existent evidence aren?t worthy of the title ?scholar.? Apologists confronted with the stunning lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus inevitably fall back in the old canard about it being a ?settled fact.?  Hand waving and bluster don?t replace actual evidence.

Skeptic Bart Ehrman on Whether Jesus Really Existed

"....Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist...."

https://strangenotions.com/skeptic-bart-ehrman-on-whether-jesus-really-existed/

[eyeshaveit]

.

[TallRed]

That the historical Jesus existed is the least of any apologist's problems; it's a settled fact for most biblical scholars.

Most ?biblical scholars? are already believers.  They have a vested interest in maintaining that belief.  ?Scholars? who have decided that Jesus existed based in the non-existent evidence aren?t worthy of the title ?scholar.? Apologists confronted with the stunning lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus inevitably fall back in the old canard about it being a ?settled fact.?  Hand waving and bluster don?t replace actual evidence.

Skeptic Bart Ehrman on Whether Jesus Really Existed

"....Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist...."

https://strangenotions.com/skeptic-bart-ehrman-on-whether-jesus-really-existed/

I?m familiar with Ehrman. His entire thesis is built on the apostle Paul. In debates, he frequently cites himself as his only source because he self-identifies as a ?scholar.?  Needless to say, I find such arrogance off-putting and unpersuasive. Ehrman can?t find evidence for Jesus either, so he conjures him out of thin air, wishful thinking, and hubris.

For more on the very real and pertinent question of Jesus existence, see:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1909697494/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525811377&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=richard+carrier+on+the+historicity+of+jesus&dpPl=1&dpID=41LEbzwO3FL&ref=plSrch

[TallRed]

Can you just "toss out" all of history's recorded miracles without offering a semblance of evidencial explanation for your beliefs?

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."--David Hume

Conversion is a miracle; there are hundreds of thousands of us,
If not millions, and all of us 'walking' miracles, who joyfully are serving the Lord Jesus Christ.

How is conversion a miracle?

Come to know by getting acquainted with the testimonies of former non-believers, who were hunted down by the Hound of Heaven.

?The Hound of Heaven??!?! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You could try putting the shoe on the other foot and talk to believers who stopped believing. Here?s one:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1569756775/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525811536&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=dan+barker&dpPl=1&dpID=51H-98QUmcL&ref=plSrch

[eyeshaveit]

That the historical Jesus existed is the least of any apologist's problems; it's a settled fact for most biblical scholars.

Most ?biblical scholars? are already believers.  They have a vested interest in maintaining that belief.  ?Scholars? who have decided that Jesus existed based in the non-existent evidence aren?t worthy of the title ?scholar.? Apologists confronted with the stunning lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus inevitably fall back in the old canard about it being a ?settled fact.?  Hand waving and bluster don?t replace actual evidence.

Skeptic Bart Ehrman on Whether Jesus Really Existed

"....Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist...."

https://strangenotions.com/skeptic-bart-ehrman-on-whether-jesus-really-existed/

I?m familiar with Ehrman. His entire thesis is built on the apostle Paul. In debates, he frequently cites himself as his only source because he self-identifies as a ?scholar.?  Needless to say, I find such arrogance off-putting and unpersuasive. Ehrman can?t find evidence for Jesus either, so he conjures him out of thin air, wishful thinking, and hubris.

The best evidence for a historical Jesus

"....There was no a big discovery, archeological find, nor scientific analysis that precipitated the relatively recent "Jesus is a myth" movement. It came out of the blue, via a certain group who sometimes call themselves "mythicists"  It is pure theory, not based on any findings or facts.

"This theory has been picked up by a minority of new atheists, most likely as a buffer between their denial of the deity of Christ and their position that there is no deity.

"It is likely they feel that if they can theorize that Jesus never existed, they are that much closer to sowing doubt about the existence of a Creator.

"Many of these mythicists know full well that the evidence is overwhelming for an historical Christ, yet push this whacko theory to move the battle lines backward farther than honesty would otherwise allow...."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-for-a-historical-Jesus

[eyeshaveit]

.

[8livesleft]

When one writes a story with a hero, they usually start off with pre-existing notions of what a hero should be. This usually includes past heroes (real or imagined).

For instance, you could use some ideas from the Egyptians like the relationship of Osiris and Horus and make some sort of Father/Son dynamic and add in the death and rebirth concept of Osiris. You could even use the same miraculous birth of Horus.

Then, you can give him powers of wisdom/healing/water-walking/wine & food making - which existed before with earlier gods and even use a pre-existing date for his birthday celebration.

The idea is to make it familiar so it will be easier to accept.





Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[TallRed]

That the historical Jesus existed is the least of any apologist's problems; it's a settled fact for most biblical scholars.

Most ?biblical scholars? are already believers.  They have a vested interest in maintaining that belief.  ?Scholars? who have decided that Jesus existed based in the non-existent evidence aren?t worthy of the title ?scholar.? Apologists confronted with the stunning lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus inevitably fall back in the old canard about it being a ?settled fact.?  Hand waving and bluster don?t replace actual evidence.

Skeptic Bart Ehrman on Whether Jesus Really Existed

"....Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist...."

https://strangenotions.com/skeptic-bart-ehrman-on-whether-jesus-really-existed/

I?m familiar with Ehrman. His entire thesis is built on the apostle Paul. In debates, he frequently cites himself as his only source because he self-identifies as a ?scholar.?  Needless to say, I find such arrogance off-putting and unpersuasive. Ehrman can?t find evidence for Jesus either, so he conjures him out of thin air, wishful thinking, and hubris.

The best evidence for a historical Jesus

"....There was no a big discovery, archeological find, nor scientific analysis that precipitated the relatively recent "Jesus is a myth" movement. It came out of the blue, via a certain group who sometimes call themselves "mythicists"  It is pure theory, not based on any findings or facts.

"This theory has been picked up by a minority of new atheists, most likely as a buffer between their denial of the deity of Christ and their position that there is no deity.

"It is likely they feel that if they can theorize that Jesus never existed, they are that much closer to sowing doubt about the existence of a Creator.

"Many of these mythicists know full well that the evidence is overwhelming for an historical Christ, yet push this whacko theory to move the battle lines backward farther than honesty would otherwise allow...."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-evidence-for-a-historical-Jesus

Well, that?s an objective, dispassionate piece. [/snark]

It?s funny how often I read about the supposed ?overwhelming evidence? and the funny part is that no one can pony up such overwhelming evidence. The response is decidedly underwhelming.

The other thing that strikes me is that the writer is one of those believers who thinks that his Christian belief confers upon him the magical ability to read minds. But labeling the mythicist theory as ?wacko? lets them dismiss it without consideration, an intellectually lazy approach, to say the least.

To the writer?s first paragraph, I would like to address that the point is precisely that there is no discovery which has supported the existence of Jesus as a historical person. Lately we?ve been treated and even inundated by pseudoscience concerning the medieval fraud, the so-called Shroud of Turin. The theory of Jesus as myth is no recent development; it?s been around for at least a couple of hundred years. The silence of the historical record regarding the existence of Jesus speaks volumes.

[TallRed]

Save your laugh for when you meet him.

I won?t hold my breath. I?m as likely to meet Jean Valjean or Huckleberry Finn. I will feel sorry for you, though. At the end, you?ll find that you wasted your life on an illusion. Then, of course, it will be too late. It wouldn?t be that big a thing, if your religion made you a better person, but that doesn?t appear to be the case.

[TallRed]

When one writes a story with a hero, they usually start off with pre-existing notions of what a hero should be. This usually includes past heroes (real or imagined).

To that excellent point, let me point out an excellent book noting the parallels between the gospel of Mark and the Iliad:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300172613/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525821214&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=dennis+macdonald&dpPl=1&dpID=51d2%2BCjtWlL&ref=plSrch

[8livesleft]

When one writes a story with a hero, they usually start off with pre-existing notions of what a hero should be. This usually includes past heroes (real or imagined).

To that excellent point, let me point out an excellent book noting the parallels between the gospel of Mark and the Iliad:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300172613/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525821214&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=dennis+macdonald&dpPl=1&dpID=51d2%2BCjtWlL&ref=plSrch

That looks interesting! Thanks for the link!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[eyeshaveit]

.

[8livesleft]

At the end, you?ll find that you wasted your life on an illusion.

An Atheist's bag of Super Turf Builder doesn't think, feel or "find" anything, eh?

Then, of course, it will be too late.

If you have Jesus Christ as your heavenly advocate,
Then salvation is assured: 'once saved, always saved'.

I'm assuming that we're talking about rewards in the afterlife... In any case, it seems to me that the whole resurrection arc seems unnecessary to the Jesus narrative.

I mean, the idea is to "follow the rules" and disregard how (in)effective/(im)practical they are in this life so that you go to heaven right?

So, why bother coming back as a human? Why not just stay in heaven and say, "See? Death isn't so bad. Just do good and go straight to heaven. Doesn't matter if following me will get you and your loved one's hurt, starving, sick, ridiculed, prosecuted, killed because the end game is where we'll win. HEAVEN!"

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[eyeshaveit]

.

[none]

this is the non theism board, you started the thread on this board and a moderator
then you wonder why this forum is s**t

[eyeshaveit]

this is the non theism board

Caught up in the fray and forgot,
Will modified my last three posts,
And remain away from this thread.

[none]

pfft, you created this thread it's not like somebody else is responsible
you get your ass handed to you and well.... start another thread on the same s**t
if you have an objection to the content directed at you here surely you can defend it without pandering to your own biases

[eyeshaveit]

pfft, you created this thread it's not like somebody else is responsible
you get your ass handed to you and well

I'm human and made a mistake and you caught it.
If that's really handing my ass to me, then you must be hard up for coup, eh?