Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

The authorities are in a real bind because supernatural resurrection has somehow been proved by an absent body.

That's a strawman.

[mwc]

The authorities are in a real bind because supernatural resurrection has somehow been proved by an absent body.

That's a strawman.

Post 195:

The supernatural hypothesis (God raised Jesus from the death) has greater explanatory scope and it less ad hoc than any other hypothesis I have met. It does explain things better.

How is what I said not coincide with your statement?

 

This was in response to your other statement to Hans:

Let's consider the "made up" hypothesis. It seems quite unlikely they would have succeed without the empty tomb; if Jesus' body was still in, their conspiracy would have been quickly exposed by the authorities. Did they steal his body?

What I see from you is "supernatural" and essentially "resurrection" from above. Then you proceed to dealing with the empty tomb. How the empty tomb would present quite the obstacle for "authorities." You are the one that posits a body would be the end to any "conspiracy." I simply put forth a very simple theory of how to obtain a new body to counter a supernaturally resurrected one. Aside from that it would counter even a stolen body.

 

This is far from a "strawman" but simply a counter-argument. I didn't create a false argument, place it into your mouth, then knock it down. You created the argument on your own (ie. supernatural resurrection, empty tomb) and I showed a possible solution that the authorities could have easily and readily taken based on all the information we have available.

 

In fact there is not one shred of evidence that anyone ever examined the empty tomb after the disciples looked into it that morning. To my knowledge not a single person was ever converted based on an examination of the empty tomb including all the disciples, in which every one of them, converted to belief upon seeing the risen "jesus."

 

mwc

[hereticzero]

I think it's fascinating that they didn't recognize him. ...

I've always wondered that myself. In his appearance to his disciples, he went unrecognized and revealed himself to them every time. If I spent so many years with one person as Jesus' disciples did with him, I think I would be able to recognize that person even if I had not seen him for more than three days. This is a serious flaw in the visual acuity skills of the disciples. Can you say, 'developmentally challenged?' Jesus collected the mongoloid 12 and then Paul had to explain Jesus' real message to them again later? This is a real limited bunch! No wonder they believed the two women about the resurrection!

[Ouroboros]

HZ,

 

Exactly. How come God/Jesus handpicked the "best" disciples for his purpose, and these "best-of-the-best" completely and utterly failed, until Paul came along?

 

Another thought I had was, how can we know that the original disciples are the same as those, by tradition, were killed for their belief? Is there a possibility that the ones who came up with the resurrection didn't die as martyrs, while the followers after did? Just like Islam and many other religious beliefs, the following generations are more assertive and dedicated to their faith than the original inventors.

[Antlerman]

Because the story is a later mythology about the origins of the Christian faith. It didn't begin like that.

It is generally agreed by the critical scholars that Jesus' resurrection was an integral part of the earliest Christian teaching and that disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

"Earliest"? Early, yes, but I don't think it means an original belief. That it may have been a part of the earliest teachings, does not mean it was there at the first. I think you're quoting what people say in a context of your own meaning. I agree it was among the earliest beliefs, but that it was not there at the first.

 

This is based, for example, on 1 Cor 15, where Paul quotes an ancient creed, as I have explained.

I missed your explanation of this. Can you point me to it, as I seem unable to locate it.

 

Bart Ehrman says, "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."

Again, you seem to be casting what others say into a context of your own design to suggest a conclusion supporting your presuppositions. What I hear in Ehrman is a response to critics who cite these extra-Biblical sources as evidence for the reality of Jesus and his ressurection. Ehrman is simply pointing out that these authors, such as Josephus, is merely citing a matter of public record of these beliefs. These citations were at a time long after the period where the myths were being forged early on. Show one external source speaking contemporaneously to say... 40 AD about Christians. Can you?

 

I could offer some which are supported by legitimate scholarship, if you are really interested.

Go ahead!

Only if I see you are sincerely interested in looking at it. Otherwise, why waste my time if you have your conclusions all in place ahead of time through faith? I'll just ask this question first. Do you accept the validity of the two-document hypothesis? That Mark is the earliest Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke copied Mark into their stories, along with citing a 2nd source document scholars call Q?

 

God wouldn't leave behind contradictions. If "God did it", one single flaw would shatter that model. And there are plenty.

It is interesting that you seems to know what God would or wouldn't do. The "it," in my hypothesis, is not the biblical texts but the resurrection itself. What flaws there are in this event?

Granted I am putting conditions on the scenario of a God miracle having to meet a standard of perfection. But that is only because it is a standard totally consistent with Christian beliefs. If "God did it" in the context of a Christian belief, it cannot be flawed without redefining the entire belief itself. Do you reject this condition? And if so, what parameters would you have? An imperfect God, like a human?

 

What flaws there are numerous. The other posters in this thread are citing examples of this, but to add a few (remember it only takes one to make the house of cards of infallibility and inerrancy collapse), the entire trial scenario is full of inconsistencies for one. A tradition of releasing a prisoner who is known enemy of Rome as gesture of tradition?? The disciples falling asleep in the midst of all the drama! No, these are much easier grasped as literary vehicles.

 

That's just a couple minor examples, but the lists of problems with the entire myth being taken as a direct communication from God to man, from Genesis to Revelation is so full of problems as to make seeing it the enterprising efforts of human societies in creating supporting mythologies, the vastly more consistent and powerful explanation over that of God doing it via Miracle. In order to see it as Miracle, then no other explanation will suffice. That's hardly the case at all.

 

This is of course unless you change the conditions of God doing it from Perfection, to a cynical test of people's faith planting evidence that looks like natural causes - like dinosaur bones testing our faith about Genesis teaching the earth is only 6000 years old.

[Ouroboros]

What flaws there are numerous. The other posters in this thread are citing examples of this, but to add a few (remember it only takes one to make the house of cards of infallibility and inerrancy collapse), the entire trial scenario is full of inconsistencies for one. A tradition of releasing a prisoner who is known enemy of Rome as gesture of tradition?? The disciples falling asleep in the midst of all the drama! No, these are much easier grasped as literary vehicles.

Or closing the tomb with a rock (supposedly Joseph, the hard-core Jew did that), which was against the Jewish tradition. (If I remember MWC's link correctly)

Or that the tomb was Joseph's in some gospels, while it was the closest and most convenient in gospel of John.

It's unclear when and how many times they prepared the body.

It's unclear if Joseph took the body alone, or had help.

Different number of people went to the tomb to discover the missing body on Sunday morning.

Different number of angels, and Jesus even showing up in one of them.

...

All point to confusion about what really happened. In all that chaos, anything can be done to a story. God, in all his wisdom and omniscience, would know what kind of problem this would cause, and should have saved more evidence... or perhaps show miracles and angels to all people so we had a fair chance of seeing these things for real too! Why only prove the miracle to a few unbelievers 2,000 years ago? Why did doubting Thomas get to see Jesus and stick his hand in the wounds? Obviously God does not have an issue with proving people wrong. So why does he now? It all unravels like the "only believers can see this miracle" scenario in those "psychic" cons.

[mwc]

Bart Ehrman says, "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."

Again, you seem to be casting what others say into a context of your own design to suggest a conclusion supporting your presuppositions. What I hear in Ehrman is a response to critics who cite these extra-Biblical sources as evidence for the reality of Jesus and his ressurection. Ehrman is simply pointing out that these authors, such as Josephus, is merely citing a matter of public record of these beliefs. These citations were at a time long after the period where the myths were being forged early on. Show one external source speaking contemporaneously to say... 40 AD about Christians. Can you?

Don't fall for it. Check my post (55?) on page 3 for this Ehrman quote. Ehrman speaks of modern historians. It's out of context and he's already been called on it.

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

All point to confusion about what really happened.

 

Actually, I think it all points to the possibility of numerous verbal stories being circulated about this messiah and his cult. As the writers of the Gospels began to compile their works, it is possible that they drew from the stories circulating and the result was the contradictions and confusion in the various accounts.

[Ouroboros]

All point to confusion about what really happened.

 

Actually, I think it all points to the possibility of numerous verbal stories being circulated about this messiah and his cult. As the writers of the Gospels began to compile their works, it is possible that they drew from the stories circulating and the result was the contradictions and confusion in the various accounts.

Yes, that too.

 

It's similar to how the Quran came about--in my understanding--that they gathered sayings and quotes by Mohammad up to 100-150 years after his death. People submitted their own "words by the prophet" which the found to be word of wisdom or insightful in their own views. But no one could say for sure if they were genuine. In the story of Jesus, there could be multiple stories which merged over time into one, unified, hero story, and then extrapolated upon. But it is possible that it started with a martyr leader, and then the followers came up with the idea of proclaiming the leader as "resurrected" in spirit to God. Just like the Muslims consider Mohammad going straight to Heaven for his good participation as a prophet. Jesus went to Heaven in spirit, and they saw him in spirit, but later followers took it more literal, and the story grew. And as we know, followers become more hard-core over time. People today are willing to go to death for their beliefs, regardless of which religion, and they are not first hand observers or eyewitnesses to the things the believe in. Can we be sure the original people really did die as martyrs for their beliefs, or can it be second hand followers? If God wants to reach humanity, he should reach each and everyone individually and prove his existence, and not allow faith to be on subjective and unreliable secondhand accounts.

[Antlerman]

All point to confusion about what really happened.

 

Actually, I think it all points to the possibility of numerous verbal stories being circulated about this messiah and his cult. As the writers of the Gospels began to compile their works, it is possible that they drew from the stories circulating and the result was the contradictions and confusion in the various accounts.

Here's one of these circulating stories manifesting itself in the Gospel of Peter fragment, which didn't make it into the canon. It certainly does inform us a quite a lot about the time however:

6 And then they pulled the nails from the hands of the Lord and laid him on the ground. And the whole earth was shaken, and there came a great fear on all. 2 Then the sun came out, and it was found to be the ninth hour. 3 Now the Jews rejoiced, and gave his body unto Joseph to bury it, because he had beheld the good things which he did. 4 And Joseph took the Lord and washed him and wrapped him in linen and brought him unto his own tomb, which is called the "Joseph's Garden."

 

7 Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, when they perceived how great evil they had done themselves, began to lament and to say, "Woe unto our sins! The judgement and the end of Jerusalem is near!" 2 But I began weeping with my friends, and out of fear we would have hid ourselves for we were sought after by them as criminals, and as thinking to set the temple on fire. 3And beside all these things we were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.

 

8 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders gathered together, for they had heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying, "If these very great signs have come to pass at his death, he must have been innocent!" 2 And the elders were afraid and came unto Pilate, begging him and saying, 3 "Give us soldiers that we may guard his tomb for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead, and do us harm." 4And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to watch the tomb. And the elders and scribes came with them unto the tomb. 5 All who were there with the soldiers rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb 6 and plastered seven seals on it. Then they pitched a tent there and kept watch.

 

9 Early in the morning, as the Sabbath dawned, there came a large crowd from Jerusalem and the surrounding areas to see the sealed tomb. 2 But during the night before the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the sky, 3 and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend shining with a great light, and they drew near to the tomb. 4 The stone which had been set on the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was opened and both of the young men went in.

 

10 Now when these soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch). 2 While they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them. 3 The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them wen beyond heaven. 4 And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, "Have you preached unto them that sleep?" 5 The answer that was heard from the cross was, "Yes!"

 

11 Those men took counsel with each other and thought to go and report these things to Pilate. 2 And while they were thinking the heavens were opened again and a man descended and entered the tomb. 3 When those who were with the centurion saw that, they hurried to go by night to Pilate and left the tomb that they were watching. They told all what they had seen and were in great despair saying, "He was certainly the son of God!" 4 Pilate answered them, saying, I do not have the blood of the son of God on my hands. This was all your doing." 5 Then all they came and begeed and pleaded with him to order the centurion and the soldiers to tell nothing of what they had seen. 6 "For," they said, "it is better for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, than to fall into the hands of the Jews and to be stoned." 7 Pilate therefore ordered the centurion and the soldiers that they should say nothing.

 

12 Early on the Lord's day, Mary of Magdala, a disciple of the Lord, was afraid of the Jews, for they were inflamed with rage, so she had not performed at the tomb of the Lord the things that are cusomary for women to do for their loved ones that have died. 2 She took with her some women friends and came unto the tomb where he had been laid. 3 And they feared lest the Jews would see them, and said, "Even if we were not able to weep and lament him on the day that he was crucified, let us do so now at his tomb. 4 But who will roll the stone away for us that is set upon the door of the tomb, so that we may enter in and sit beside him and do what needs to be done?" 5 The stone was indeed great. "We fear that someone might see us. And if we cannot roll the stone away, let us cast down at the door these things which we bring as a memorial of him, and we will weep and beat our breasts until we arrive home."

 

13 And they went and found the tomb open. They drew near to it and looked in and saw a young man sitting in the middle of the tomb; He had a fair countenance and was clad in very bright raiment. He said unto them, 2 Why are you here? Who do you seek? You're not looking for the one that was crucified? He is risen and is gone. If you don't believe it, look in and see the place where he was laid down, for he is not there. For he has risen and is gone to the place that he had come from. 3 Then the women fled in fear.

 

14 Now it was the last day of Unleavened Bread, and many were returning to their homes since the feast was ending. 2 But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, continued weeping and mourning, and each one srill grieving for what had happened, left for his own home. 3 But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our fishing nets and went to the sea. With us was Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord...

 

This is where the fragment end abruptly. You can definitely see the story making its rounds, and how it gets elaborated and changing depending on the tellers. Now of course, someone will say this is not a Holy Spirit book! But that is nonsense. The only reason the canonical Gospels are seen as inspired is by faith. They are really cut of the same sort of cloth as this.

[Antlerman]

Bart Ehrman says, "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."

Again, you seem to be casting what others say into a context of your own design to suggest a conclusion supporting your presuppositions. What I hear in Ehrman is a response to critics who cite these extra-Biblical sources as evidence for the reality of Jesus and his ressurection. Ehrman is simply pointing out that these authors, such as Josephus, is merely citing a matter of public record of these beliefs. These citations were at a time long after the period where the myths were being forged early on. Show one external source speaking contemporaneously to say... 40 AD about Christians. Can you?

Don't fall for it. Check my post (55?) on page 3 for this Ehrman quote. Ehrman speaks of modern historians. It's out of context and he's already been called on it.

 

mwc

Hah! I could tell this guy was playing cutsie with quotes! Shame on him. Can I smell it, or what?

 

 

Yes, so this is the epic. Of course they had a tradition going on about a resurrected Jesus that they had spiritual communion with! That's a feature of them being part of the Christ Cults of Asia Minor, dragging their mystery religion experiences into the Jesus movement as it settled into that area. That's part of the mythmaking process and how it became a dominent feature of Christianity. Prior to this however, there was no Cosmic Christ being in the earlier Q traditions. Those were a different, Cosmic Christ-less movement. Their focus was elsewhere, not there. Funny they should lack this feature if it was the "earliest" belief, as our fast and loose quoter tried to put out there.

 

Look! Someone wrote gullible on the ceiling! Not.

[Badger]

To my knowledge not a single person was ever converted based on an examination of the empty tomb including all the disciples, in which every one of them, converted to belief upon seeing the risen "jesus."

Indeed. And I have not argued the empty tomb by itself prove the resurrection happened. That's why I said your comment was a strawman.

[Ouroboros]

...

3 But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our fishing nets and went to the sea. With us was Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord...

 

This is where the fragment end abruptly. You can definitely see the story making its rounds, and how it gets elaborated and changing depending on the tellers. Now of course, someone will say this is not a Holy Spirit book! But that is nonsense. The only reason the canonical Gospels are seen as inspired is by faith. They are really cut of the same sort of cloth as this.

Of course this is the real Gospel, it's an eyewitness account, even signed by the author! So it must be true.

[Badger]

I missed your explanation of this. Can you point me to it, as I seem unable to locate it.

The linguistic data shows the material recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is actually early creed or tradition; this is also affirmed by Paul's claim the material is not his own, but he had received it instead. Critical scholars dates this piece of tradition to within five years of the crucifixion. For instance, Jesus Seminar dates it no later than AD 33, and Gerd Ludeman concludes the "tradition mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE." (Resurrection of Jesus, p. 38) Furthermore, there are other passages as well containing early traditions where the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus are present. "The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place." (John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p. 99) What generated this bold belief in Jesus' resurrection rather soon after his death? Here recent scholars generally agree: it was because of the disciples experiences, which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. "We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that... he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead." (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, p. 230)

 

I'll just ask this question first. Do you accept the validity of the two-document hypothesis? That Mark is the earliest Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke copied Mark into their stories, along with citing a 2nd source document scholars call Q?

That's fine for me.

 

What flaws there are numerous. The other posters in this thread are citing examples of this, but to add a few (remember it only takes one to make the house of cards of infallibility and inerrancy collapse), the entire trial scenario is full of inconsistencies for one. A tradition of releasing a prisoner who is known enemy of Rome as gesture of tradition?? The disciples falling asleep in the midst of all the drama! No, these are much easier grasped as literary vehicles.

But these are "flaws" in the Gospels, not in the event itself. What flaws there are in resurrection event?

[Badger]

It's out of context and he's already been called on it.

How it is out of context? My point is exactly what Ehrman admits, namely, "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."

[mwc]

Indeed. And I have not argued the empty tomb by itself prove the resurrection happened. That's why I said your comment was a strawman.

How is it a strawman if I am simply presenting a counterpoint to your position in post 194? You're addressing Hans' "made up" hypothesis as if it were impossible. I made the case that, perhaps not it, but something similar could be possible. It was not so different that it did not apply. It fell into the realm what was being discussed. It could even work outside that post as a way to counter an empty tomb (and I believe I pointed that out as well). I'm not seeing the strawman here. I was not arguing a different point than those presented.

 

mwc

[centauri]

I missed your explanation of this. Can you point me to it, as I seem unable to locate it.

The linguistic data shows the material recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is actually early creed or tradition; this is also affirmed by Paul's claim the material is not his own, but he had received it instead. Critical scholars dates this piece of tradition to within five years of the crucifixion. For instance, Jesus Seminar dates it no later than AD 33, and Gerd Ludeman concludes the "tradition mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE." (Resurrection of Jesus, p. 38) Furthermore, there are other passages as well containing early traditions where the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus are present. "The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place." (John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p. 99) What generated this bold belief in Jesus' resurrection rather soon after his death? Here recent scholars generally agree: it was because of the disciples experiences, which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. "We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that... he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead." (Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, p. 230)

 

Dating this tradition to 30 C.E. doesn't establish a great deal.

Like so many things put forth by this cult, the tradition is driven by the need to see scripture fulfilled.

When every sneeze and burp by the cult leader is deemed to have fulfilled something, I have serious doubts that objective historical reporting was of much importance to those who were trying to promote the dead cult leader as a long awaited "messiah".

This traditional "history" is driven by the need to match scripture, thereby validating itself as factual.

1 Cor 15:3-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

Exactly what scriptures are being referred to?

When were these scriptures written?

The tradition of expecting a messiah to rise from the dead could go back much earlier than 30 C.E..

In Acts 26, Paul was supposed to have testified to Agrippa that the tradition of a resurrected messiah went all the way back to Moses.

 

Acts 26:22-23

Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

 

According to this, the "evidence" for an expected messiah to be resurrected from the dead goes all the way back to Moses.

I don't recall Moses saying any such thing.

Paul was also a salesman that claimed to operate from expediency in order to win converts.

Why should a cult that has a fetish for fulfilling prophecy be considered accurate with regard to history?

How is it to be determined that cult stories, driven by a need to fulfill scripture, represent actual events?

[Abiyoyo]

Discovery Channel

 

I just started another thread about it and searched afterward to see if any topics had mentioned, Jesus and the tomb and all. Anyway, this current topic is still here and came up in the search, and after reading; I am dumbfounded that this hasn't been brought up.

 

Jesus remnants and grave supposedly was found, along with Mary, Mary Magdalene, Matthew, James, Joseph, and....Judah.

[Badger]

How is it a strawman if I am simply presenting a counterpoint to your position in post 194? You're addressing Hans' "made up" hypothesis as if it were impossible. I made the case that, perhaps not it, but something similar could be possible. It was not so different that it did not apply. It fell into the realm what was being discussed. It could even work outside that post as a way to counter an empty tomb (and I believe I pointed that out as well). I'm not seeing the strawman here. I was not arguing a different point than those presented.

Well, I though you're trying to say that I have argued that "supernatural resurrection has somehow been proved by an absent body."

[Badger]

Jesus remnants and grave supposedly was found, along with Mary, Mary Magdalene, Matthew, James, Joseph, and....Judah.

I'd like to know how convincing you think this interpretation about the Talpiot Tomb is?

[Badger]

Why should a cult that has a fetish for fulfilling prophecy be considered accurate with regard to history?

How is it to be determined that cult stories, driven by a need to fulfill scripture, represent actual events?

Because maybe there was no any such fetish or need. In fact, the Jewish messianic expectations and beliefs about afterlife and resurrection are considerably different from what the early Christians believed. Where their "fetish for fulfilling prophecy" came from? What prophecies or scriptures they had need to fulfill?

[Looking4Answers]

Because maybe there was no any such fetish or need. In fact, the Jewish messianic expectations and beliefs about afterlife and resurrection are considerably different from what the early Christians believed. Where their "fetish for fulfilling prophecy" came from? What prophecies or scriptures they had need to fulfill?

 

One of the mistakes you are making here is assuming (or so it seems) that all Jews from that period of time had the same beliefs or the same messianic expectations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Essene, from what we understand of them, had their own beliefs. They gathered together in their distant, separated communities and did their own thing, developed their own mythology and had their own lives. Within the Jewish population at large we had both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Both of these groups differed greatly in their beliefs and even came to a point in their own history where they were drawing the sword to kill each other over their beliefs (this was well before the time of Jesus). On top of this, we had the Hellenized Jews as well. There were many other sects going about with their own brand of religion. Some were very mystical in their beliefs. Some where based on magic. Some were based on numerology. Every little self-made rabbi had his own sect and his own followers. It was common to see these spiritual leaders walking down the road with his disciples following him like little baby ducks following their mother.

 

This was the atmosphere of ancient Israel in the days of Jesus. Jerusalem and parts of Tiberius are much the same even today. There were often dozens (if not more) messiahs running around Jerusalem back in the day. You could literally take you pick of which one you wanted to believe and follow. They were like flies on dung! It would seem to me that, in a situation like that, if you wanted your messiah to stand out from among the rest, you had better have a good story to tell. A resurrected messiah just might do the job ...

[Looking4Answers]

Here is one of the latest Jewish messiahs:

 

 

His name is Rabbi Schneerson. The sign (above) declares him to be "King Messiah." He's dead, by the way. Been dead for 15 years. Didn't stop him from becoming the messiah.

 

[hereticzero]

It's out of context and he's already been called on it.

How it is out of context? My point is exactly what Ehrman admits, namely, "It is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."

What historical fact? The only place the resurrection is found is in the babble. The only thing we know about the apostles are from church traditions which in no way resemble historical facts. The only history we have is from the Catholic church and we are supposed to take their word for the accuracy of their records when they have been noted for changing ancient texts to suit their doctrine or promote their theology? Calling anything from the church a 'historical fact' is a stretch.

[hereticzero]

Discovery Channel

 

I just started another thread about it and searched afterward to see if any topics had mentioned, Jesus and the tomb and all. Anyway, this current topic is still here and came up in the search, and after reading; I am dumbfounded that this hasn't been brought up.

 

Jesus remnants and grave supposedly was found, along with Mary, Mary Magdalene, Matthew, James, Joseph, and....Judah.

The tomb has shown to be unreliable. From what I have read and watched on television concerning this tomb is that the carvings on the Ossuaries was done at a much later date than when they were first placed in the tomb. To call this tomb, the burial plot of Jesus' family is imaginative but unprovable. Who has a sample of Jesus' DNA to test the tomb with? How is anyone going to know? Finding everyone's Ossuary in one tomb is too coincidental to be true, and I point to the fact the names were added to the ossuaries many years later, this is supported by carbon dating. The ossuary of James was not found in that tomb but another. The connection to the 'tomb of James' was not made but 'supposed', that is, the reference was made by speculation and not based on real data. The tomb of James and that ossuary was found to be a fraud for the same reasons the tomb of Jesus' family was found to be a fraud--the writings on the tomb were made many years after the ossuary was placed in the tomb. The ossuary of James is in litigation over ownership and accusations of fraud. The story on Discovery is very questionable. If there had been an accuracy in it, the Catholic church would already be trying to deal for the tomb and ossuaries. They have remained silent about it.