# Jesus' resurrection



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

Why didn't Augustus just send men to retrieve the body of Christ and show it to everyone? Augustus knew where His body was supposed to be.

That would have proved Christ's followers wrong, and put a quick end to Christianity, but instead, most of them were murdered.

Anybody have any ideas?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

Because it is a fictional story and that alternate scenario would not fit in with what the author(s) wanted to tell. Same way why when you pay $12 to see a movie and in the first 3 minutes James Bond kicks in the door of the bad guys and you DON'T see them all just shoot him dead on the spot and the credits go up. The story HAS to bee told like it is in the Bible. For all any of us know Augustus did send people to get the body but when someone decided to write about it 40-100 years later they MIGHT...just MIGHT have embellished a few things, switched a few things, or tweaked stories a bit to suit.
Just sayin..........


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Because it is a fictional story and that alternate scenario would not fit in with what the author(s) wanted to tell. Same way why when you pay $12 to see a movie and in the first 3 minutes James Bond kicks in the door of the bad guys and you DON'T see them all just shoot him dead on the spot and the credits go up. The story HAS to bee told like it is in the Bible. For all any of us know Augustus did send people to get the body but when someone decided to write about it 40-100 years later they MIGHT...just MIGHT have embellished a few things, switched a few things, or tweaked stories a bit to suit.
> Just sayin..........



It stands to reason that if Augustus would have shown Jesus' body, the writers wouldn't have been able to write much without people knowing it was a lie, even 40 years later.

It would be equivalent to me writing, today, that WWII didn't happen.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 27, 2013)

Just because he didn't resurrect back to life from death, doesn't mean that the body was still there.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just because he didn't resurrect back to life from death, doesn't mean that the body was still there.



Are you insinuating His disciples stole His body?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you insinuating His disciples stole His body?



Yup....the temple guards let them roll away the stone because they were bought off and didn't care about the fact that they might be executed for losing a dead prisoner.




Really though String....either you're going to believe the Bible or your not.  If you don't want to believe, you'll find something that will convince you it is a made up fictional tale.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 27, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Yup....the temple guards let them roll away the stone because they were bought off and didn't care about the fact that they might be executed for losing a dead prisoner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pretty much


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Yup....the temple guards let them roll away the stone because they were bought off and didn't care about the fact that they might be executed for losing a dead prisoner.


Not to mention people don't die for something they know to be a lie. If the disciples really stole His body and knew the whole thing was a big fat lie, most of them wouldn't have died a martyr's death.




> Really though String....either you're going to believe the Bible or your not.  If you don't want to believe, you'll find something that will convince you it is a made up fictional tale.



Very true, I just like making conversation in here.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2013)

What I find interesting is that the opposition remembered that he spoke of being raised so they placed guards at the tomb, yet his followers, those most familiar with his teachings, the very one's who should have expected it, did not.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Very true, I just like making conversation in here.



Slow day?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why didn't Augustus just send men to retrieve the body of Christ and show it to everyone? Augustus knew where His body was supposed to be.
> 
> That would have proved Christ's followers wrong, and put a quick end to Christianity, but instead, most of them were murdered.
> 
> Anybody have any ideas?


The only answer I can think of is that the missing body was so. That Agustus did not know where it was. That he suspected that the disciples took the body.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 27, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> What I find interesting is that the opposition remembered that he spoke of being raised so they placed guards at the tomb, yet his followers, those most familiar with his teachings, the very one's who should have expected it, did not.



I don't think that the opposition placed the guards there because they thought he would rise from the dead...after all...if they thought that, they wouldn't have crucified him in the first place.

I believe they thought that the disciples would steal the body to make it look as if he had risen or done something miraculous.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Slow day?


Pretty much.

I'm off Thurs. and Fri. and then have the weekend and this is the week of the Piedmont hunt, so yea, I'm no really working today. 



1gr8bldr said:


> The only answer I can think of is that the missing body was so. That Agustus did not know where it was. That he suspected that the disciples took the body.


Except the disciples didn't take it....


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Yup....the temple guards let them roll away the stone because they were bought off and didn't care about the fact that they might be executed for losing a dead prisoner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So either way the body wasn't there. What happened to the guards?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So either way the body wasn't there. What happened to the guards?



Are you asking if the guards were killed or not?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are you insinuating His disciples stole His body?



I'm just saying that there many other possibilities. Whatever they may be.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Not to mention people don't die for something they know to be a lie.



Are you actually serious? Are you familiar with the Gov't????



stringmusic said:


> If the disciples really stole His body and knew the whole thing was a big fat lie, most of them wouldn't have died a martyr's death.



According to THE bible they died multiple times in multiple ways. Tell me which ONE is the real way it happened. Don't you find it odd that the DEAD authors are writing of their OWN deaths??
How do you think a movement gets started? How do you think a religion gets started? 
When people write this garbage the events HAVE to fall into place for it to take off. Some of the writing is good but overall the writings show just what an ancient culture it was and how this nonsense could be believed at that time but it just does not hold up now.
My guess is the resurrection baloney was added in the 40-100 years after the crucifixion to enhance the story. The body was and is still there somewhere and the people writing these stories added the disciples in later too. Not saying Jesus didn't have followers but not in the capacity the stories would have us believe. None of the "eye witnesses" or guards were alive 40-100 years later and most people that were 20 years old or older at the time are long dead by the time the earliest writings took place.
People were lucky to live to 50yrs back then.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

And lets go through the different authors accounts of IF, and How many guards were at the tomb. Seems to be disagreement there. Hard to imagine that when it was all written by Jesus personal disciples who were there at the time of burial and later lived long enough to write about their OWN deaths.
What a show.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm just saying that there many other possibilities. Whatever they may be.



Yeah like a lot of embellishment.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are you actually serious? Are you familiar with the Gov't????


Can you give me some examples of people knowing something was a lie and still being murdered for it? 

It's simple logic to know that many people didn't die terrible deaths all over something they _knew_ was a lie.





> According to THE bible they died multiple times in multiple ways. Tell me which ONE is the real way it happened. Don't you find it odd that the DEAD authors are writing of their OWN deaths??


I'm going to need some references on this.


> How do you think a movement gets started? How do you think a religion gets started?
> When people write this garbage the events HAVE to fall into place for it to take off. Some of the writing is good but overall the writings show just what an ancient culture it was and how this nonsense could be believed at that time but it just does not hold up now.
> My guess is the resurrection baloney was added in the 40-100 years after the crucifixion to enhance the story. The body was and is still there somewhere and the people writing these stories added the disciples in later too. Not saying Jesus didn't have followers but not in the capacity the stories would have us believe.


Then why didn't Augustus just end the craze and show everyone Jesus' body, seems like a simple fix to me? And again, the writers of the bible couldn't have gotten away with that big of a lie 40 years later, people would have known.



> None of the "eye witnesses" or guards were alive 40-100 years later and most people that were 20 years old or older at the time are long dead by the time the earliest writings took place.
> People were lucky to live to 50yrs back then.



How do you know this?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And lets go through the different authors accounts of IF, and How many guards were at the tomb. Seems to be disagreement there. Hard to imagine that when it was all written by Jesus personal disciples who were there at the time of burial and later lived long enough to write about their OWN deaths.
> What a show.



I don't want this thread to turn into a biblical account argument, that's a whole different subject.

Why didn't Augustus show Jesus' body and end Christianity right then? That's is the theme of this thread.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can you give me some examples of people knowing something was a lie and still being murdered for it?
> 
> It's simple logic to know that many people didn't die terrible deaths all over something they _knew_ was a lie.


Branch Davidians It's not a lie to YOU if you believe it.



stringmusic said:


> I'm going to need some references on this.


You are going to have to read that book that you so rely on for all of the other posts.



stringmusic said:


> Then why didn't Augustus just end the craze and show everyone Jesus' body, seems like a simple fix to me? And again, the writers of the bible couldn't have gotten away with that big of a lie 40 years later, people would have known.


It is a STORY.
It is either all true or not all true. The world did not come to a screeching halt back then because of Jesus. BECAUSE hardly anybody knew about him or cared. There were many other just like him that followers tried to turn into followings and they lasted for a bit then fizzled out. This one got it's biggest boost long after Jesus and the movement was dead.



How do you know this?[/QUOTE]


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

Burial of Jesus:

Jesus’ burial is important because without it, there can be no tomb from which Jesus can arise in three days. It’s also historically implausible: crucifixion was intended as a shameful, horrible execution which included allowing the bodies to remain nailed up until they rotted off. It’s inconceivable that Pilate would have agreed to turn the body over to anyone for any reason. This may have something to do with why the gospel authors all have different stories about it.
How Long Was Jesus in the Tomb?:

Jesus is portrayed as being dead and in the tomb for a given length time, but how long?

Mark 10:34 - Jesus says he will “rise again” after “three days.”
Matthew 12:40 - Jesus says he will be in the earth “three days and three nights...”

No resurrection narrative describes Jesus as being in a tomb for three full days, or for three days and three nights.
Guarding the Tomb:

Would the Romans have guarded Jesus’ tomb? The gospels disagree on what happened.

Matthew 27:62-66 - A guard is stationed outside the tomb the day after Jesus’ burial
Mark, Luke, John - No guard is mentioned. In Mark and Luke, the women who approach the tomb do not appear to expect to see any guards
Jesus is Anointed Before Burial:

It was tradition to anoint a person’s body after they died. Who anointed Jesus and when?

Mark 16:1-3, Luke 23:55-56 - A group of women who were at Jesus’ burial come back later to anoint his body
Matthew - Joseph wraps the body and the women come the next morning, but no mention is made of anointing Jesus
John 19:39-40 - Joseph of Arimathea anoints Jesus’ body before burial
Who Visited Jesus’ Tomb?:

The women visiting Jesus’ tomb is central to the resurrection story, but who visited?

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple
When Did the Women Visit the Tomb?:

Whoever visited and however many there were, it’s also not clear when they arrived.

Mark 16:2 - They arrive after sunrise
Matthew 28:1 - They arrive at about dawn
Luke 24:1 - It is early dawn when they arrive
John 20:1 - It is dark when they arrive
What Was the Tomb Like?:

It’s not clear what the women saw when they arrived at the tomb.

Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb had been rolled away
Matthew 28:1-2 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later
Who Greets the Women?:

The women aren’t alone for long, but it’s not clear who greets them.

Mark 16:5 - The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in there
Matthew 28:2 - An angel arrives during an earthquake, rolls away the stone, and sits on it outside. Pilate’s guards are also there
Luke 24:2-4 - The women enter the tomb and two men suddenly appear — it’s not clear if they are inside or outside
John 20:12 - The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels sitting inside
What Do the Women Do?:

Whatever happened, it must have been pretty amazing. The gospels are inconsistent in how the women react, though.

Mark 16:8 - The women keep quiet, despite being told to spread the word
Matthew 28:8 - The women go tell the disciples
Luke 24:9 - The women tell “the eleven and to all the rest.”
John 20:10-11 - Mary stays to cry while the two disciples just go home


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate â€“ which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' â€“ crucifixion upside down!

 2. James, son of Zebedee (James the Greater?)

    Acts 12.1,2 says simply:

        "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword."


Later legend adds the truly extraordinary nonsense that the Roman officer guarding James converted on the spot and elected to be beheaded beside him! Even later fabrication has James traipsing around northern Spain before he dashes back to Judaea for martyrdom.

3. John, son of Zebedee.

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to take care of Mary, lead the church in Ephesus, write the Book of Revelation and write his own gospel. He even survives being boiled in oil and is given a natural death!

Actually, John bar Zebedee disappears from the yarn in Acts at the same time his brother James is more dramatically removed from the story. The last reference to John is also verse 12.2. From Acts 12.12 onward we are dealing with another John "whose surname was Mark" â€“ a lightweight character who nonetheless is credited with authorship of the first gospel.

The impending demotion of the thunder brothers is actually prefigured in Mark's gospel (and is embellished in Matthew, where Mrs Zebedee does the talking). The boys ask for front seats in the hereafter. JC is having none of it:

        "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

        "Jesus said unto them ... to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John." â€“ Mark 10:35-41.


Thus while the earthly career of Jesus features prominently brothers James and John, "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3.7), the story of the early church features a new James, "the brother of Jesus", and a new John, a sidekick to Paul and Barnabas (see below). We know little about either, although the death of James bar - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -eus (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9) provides a basis for the colourful martyrdom of brother James beloved of Christian apologists.

4. Andrew, brother of Peter.

Pious invention gives Andrew a wonderful career covering everywhere from Scythia to Greece, from Asia Minor to Thrace. This guy, it seems, took option 'C' on the crucifixion menu: on an x-shaped cross. Apparently this allowed him to continue preaching for 2 days.

5. Philip.

Fable places this guy in Phrygia, Carthage and Asia Minor. The fairy tale has a proconsul crucifying him for converting his wife. Perhaps the love feast got a bit out of hand.

Somewhat confusingly, there are actually two Philips. The original apostle disappears from the tale after witnessing Jesus rise to Heaven from the Mount of Olives. Philip and the rest of the gang return to the upper room in Acts 1.13. But in Acts 6.5 a second Philip is chosen as one of the seven given responsibility for feeding widows

6. Bartholomew (Nathanael)

What a traveller â€“ India, Persia, Armenia, Ethiopia and southern Arabia! Miraculously he managed to get himself crucified (flayed alive and beheaded!) in both India and Armenia. Pretty impressive stuff. Even when dead his bits got about: a church in Rome claimed most of his corpse but 11th century Canterbury did a roaring trade with his arm! His emblem is the flaying knife. Cool.


7. Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus)

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to write his gospel â€“ at least 20 years after the supposed death of Christ. Credited with 15 years in Jerusalem, then missions to Persia and Ethiopia and, of course, martyrdom in both places. According to Medieval iconography he worn spectacles, the better to count his tax money.

If Matthew, aka Levi, is a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2.14) then presumably he is also the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3.18)? And yet we are told the lesser James is a son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin and wife of Cleophas (John 19.25). In which case, the evangelist Matthew is a cousin of Jesus himself! However, Acts 1.13 tells us that the lesser James has a brother called Judas (aka Jude) whereas Mark (15.40) and Matthew's "own gospel" (27.56) both say that James has a brother named Joses. So we now have a regular band of brothers: James, Joses, Judas â€“ plus Matthew/Levi ... which comes mightily close to the supposed four brothers of Jesus himself!

        "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

        â€“ Matthew 13.55.


 8. Thomas Didymus (the Twin) aka Judas Thomas or Jude Thomas

Another grand traveller, seen everywhere from Parthia to Kerala in south India. 4th century invention, appropriately enough, gives this 'twin' two martyrdoms, one in Persia and one in India. He even gets a burial in Syria to boot! Yet another resting place, Mylapore, was claimed by the Portuguese in 16th century. Most famous for his "doubt", Thomas inspired a whole raft of pious flimflam: the Acts of Thomas (he built a palace for an Indian king, would you believe), the Apocalypse of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Infant Gospel of Thomas.

Now, have you still got any doubts ...?

9. James son of Alphaeus (James the Less â€“ or is James the Just?)

The myth-makers really go to town for this guy. Thrown down over 100 feet from the pinnacle of the Temple by "scribes and Pharisees", he actually survived only to be stoned, have his brains dashed out with a fullerâ€™s club and have his body "sawn asunder" â€“ all this at the age of 90!

Of course, if we don't conflate James the Less with James the brother of Jesus (an identification made by Jerome and later Catholics) all this mayhem belongs with the righteous James and the fate of the lesser James is unknown.

Perhaps it's the being sawn in half which causes the confusion?

10. Jude/Thaddeus /Lebbaeus /Daddaeus

Either a serious clubbing or crucifixion for this mixed up guy in the city of Edessa or Persia. Apparently his fan-club suffered because his name sounded too much like Judas.

Jude the apostle is often conflated with Jude the brother of Jesus and also with Jude the writer of the epistle of Jude (pay attention, there will be a test). Yet Jude (the letter writer) identifies himself as the brother of James and as a servant of Jesus, not his brother (Jude 1.1). He also speaks of the apostles in the past tense, not as if he was one of them (verse 17), so he cannot be identified as one of "the twelve" either. 

11. Simon the Canaanite/ the Zealot.

Invention came late for this guy. When it did, it was a beauty â€“ crucifixion in Persia and also crucifixion thousands of miles away in Britain. He also managed to preach in Africa. Quite an act to follow.

12. Matthias.

Fantasy sends this guy to Syria, Cappadocia, the shores of the Caspian and the "City of Cannibals" (Acts of Andrew and Matthias). Death by burning. Also death in Jerusalem by stoning â€“ and beheading. Really just makes up the numbers, sometimes merging with Matthew and sometimes swapped out to let Paul into "the twelve."

13. Judas, son (or is that brother?) of James.

Nothing yet. Feeling inspired?

14. Levi, son of Alphæus.

Refer to his alter ego Matthew.

Mark (John Mark).

Though neither Clement of Alexandria (?153-215), nor Origen of Alexandria (182-251) seem to have noticed, Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263-339) relays the news that the apostle Mark had been "first bishop" of Alexandria and had suffered martyrdom in the "eighth year of Nero." This would have been 61 AD â€“ rendering the apostle dead before the death of Peter whose memoirs Mark supposedly wrote up as the Gospel of Mark. "Dragged to death", or maybe not. His bones â€“ well, someone's bones â€“ turned up in 9th century Venice.

Luke.

"Hanged on an olive tree." Or, "lived to the age of 84 and died unmarried." Body parts claimed by both Padua and Constantinople.

Paul.

"Beheaded by Nero." No, not really, but legend tells us he shared the same fate as Peter, even dying on the same day. Pious romances scribbled between the 2nd and 4th centuries â€“ Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Martyrdom of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thecla â€“ provide all the fabulous nonsense you could ever wish for.

Multiple deaths â€“ a biblical motif for making sure the bad guys get it REALLY bad
The 4 very different deaths for King Saul.
1 Samuel (31:4) says that Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it".
2 Samuel (1:2-10) says Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
Later in 2 Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
But then in 1 Chronicles (10:13-14) we learn that Saul was slain by God!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

String, please explain to me HOW the apostles died. Do you have some inside knowledge of what was said when they died...and who KILLED them because they believed in Jesus.
This whole "Why would they die for a lie" thing is hysterical.
Did they recant and get killed anyway?
The Bible mentions the death of 2 of them. Tell me about all of their deaths.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> I don't think that the opposition placed the guards there because they thought he would rise from the dead...after all...if they thought that, they wouldn't have crucified him in the first place.
> 
> I believe they thought that the disciples would steal the body to make it look as if he had risen or done something miraculous.


I think, if I recall the bible says it was to keep the disciples from stealing the body, something about the problem that would cause would be worse than the original problem. I will look and see if I can find what I'm thinking about


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think, if I recall the bible says it was to keep the disciples from stealing the body, something about the problem that would cause would be worse than the original problem. I will look and see if I can find what I'm thinking about


It may be elsewhere but the first place I looked was Matt. . 27:62, the next day,.... the chief priest and the pharisees went to pilot. Sir they said, we remember that while he was still alive that the deceiver said after 3 days I will rise again........the last deception will be worse than the first


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2013)

Hey Bullet, I have always said that the resurection account was a mess, a total train wreck. If these writers had any idea that their writing would be side by side of another, they would have made sure that it matched. For me, I believe the basic context, that Jesus was raised from the dead,  but that the NT was writen much later, by someone other than those named, after much time has passed, after oral traditions had changed things, taking a tole on the accuracy.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Branch Davidians It's not a lie to YOU if you believe it.


But if the disciples stole Christ's body, they wouldn't have _really_ believed it.



> It is a STORY.
> It is either all true or not all true. The world did not come to a screeching halt back then because of Jesus. BECAUSE hardly anybody knew about him or cared. There were many other just like him that followers tried to turn into followings and they lasted for a bit then fizzled out. This one got it's biggest boost long after Jesus and the movement was dead.


ok.....


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> String, please explain to me HOW the apostles died. Do you have some inside knowledge of what was said when they died...and who KILLED them because they believed in Jesus.
> This whole "Why would they die for a lie" thing is hysterical.
> Did they recant and get killed anyway?
> The Bible mentions the death of 2 of them. Tell me about all of their deaths.



http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Did-the-Twelve-Apostles-Die?&id=2331071


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Did-the-Twelve-Apostles-Die?&id=2331071



That is wonderful.



> Simon, surname Peter, died 33-34 years after the death of Christ. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary there is satisfactory evidence that he and Paul were the founders of the church at Rome, and died in that city. The time and manner of the apostle's martyrdom are less certain. According to the early writers, he died at or about the same time with Paul, and in the Neronian persecution, A.D. 67,68. All agree that he was crucified. Origen says that Peter felt himself to be unworthy to be put to death in the same manner as his Master, and was therefore, at his own request, crucified with his head downward.
> 
> James the son of Zebedee: He was put to death by Herod Agrippa I shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44 or about 11 years after the death of Christ. From Acts 12: 1-2.
> 
> ...



According to that article there are 6 that have no record of death and some that say "martyred" but can't even get the place right let alone any specifics of how they died(like did they recant , were they tortured and refused to recant, were they even killed for being a Christian or were they just killed) and another of suicide.
Where do get that they all "would not have died for a lie"? I have news for you, we all die. When you pass will you have been martyred because you believe?
Nothing in the whole article is a clear fact.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But if the disciples stole Christ's body, they wouldn't have _really_ believed it.
> 
> 
> ok.....



But if Christ died and no one took his body and it really didn't ascend anywhere, 40 years later when the story is told ANYTHING could have happened to it especially whatever the writers wanted to happen to it.
No average person went there to roll the stone away just to take a peek at the time. 40-100 years later IF anyone was alive that lived during the time of the supposed crucifixion...they probably were not eyewitnesses and figured somebody else saw the event(just like my brother's girlfriend's cousin's Aunt saw Bigfoot so it's gotta be true...but nobody actually saw Bigfoot) so while they might remember the "talk of the time" none of them knew or cared enough back then to give it a second thought.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But if the disciples stole Christ's body, they wouldn't have _really_ believed it.
> 
> 
> ok.....



What you are totally overlooking is that within the stories of the Gospels themselves, each one varies on who saw what, how many did this, who said that and on and on. I don't think that Jesus had the near the following at his time alive that he did 40-100 years after his death when the writers got done adding their 2cents to the mix. Each Gospel gives a different account so how do you pick the accurate one, let alone trust that any one of them is accurate? If ONE is the others are not. The whole lot of them are a mess chocked full of inconsistencies, errors and stories that do not corroborate with the others. Then you want to argue as if all together are factual. You are using conflicting stories filled with embellishments as facts while asking us to explain Why.........
WHY... is because it is all a Story. All of it was written by people who were not there and did not see anything. All written by people who despite being inspired by a god can't get their stories right and add their own scenes. Yet you overlook all that jazz and expect us to rationalize and explain the differences and discrepancies of fiction. Your own link does not prove they all died as martyrs. They just died because that's what people do and hokey stories like these are what helps them get through life.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

Why would Peter deny Christ before the resurrection but willing to be crusified after the resurrection, if he hadn't seen Christ risen? And Peter wasn't the only one willing to die for his belief soon after the resurrection.  Why didn't the disciples just disband?

Paul (saul)was a Christian chaser, what changed his mind?

What about in Isaiah that tells what Christ would be like and look like. If it was just something played out to look 'real' they sure had a lot of actors that didn't even believe that made the crusifixion come to pass. All the leaders of Rome woulda had to be in the hoax, eh?....Isaiah says by His stripes we are healed, and Christ just so happened to be whipped?

I know this is not going to convince anyone here to believe, but it's made me believe.  That many things could not have just fallen into place and predicted over 400 years before it happened.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What you are totally overlooking is that within the stories of the Gospels themselves, each one varies on who saw what, how many did this, who said that and on and on.



If we witnessed a bar fight or a wreck on the highway, I doubt that most of our stories would be word for word. It seems normal to me that you'd have varying stories with the same outcome. I think that's just part of human nature and how folks express themselves.

Wouldn't it be more weird for all of the gospels to be written word for word with the same outcome? Now that would make me wonder


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> But if Christ died and no one took his body and it really didn't ascend anywhere, 40 years later when the story is told ANYTHING could have happened to it especially whatever the writers wanted to happen to it.
> No average person went there to roll the stone away just to take a peek at the time. 40-100 years later IF anyone was alive that lived during the time of the supposed crucifixion...they probably were not eyewitnesses and figured somebody else saw the event(just like my brother's girlfriend's cousin's Aunt saw Bigfoot so it's gotta be true...but nobody actually saw Bigfoot) so while they might remember the "talk of the time" none of them knew or cared enough back then to give it a second thought.



This is what that post makes me think of.

Just because someone living in the deepest darkest part of Africa in a village has never seen a tv, an airplane, or a cellphone doesn't mean they don't exist. So Mr Zimbobway goes back to the village and tells them of an airplane and nobody believes they exist, doesn't mean they don't exist. How's Mr Zimbobway gonna prove it?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> If we witnessed a bar fight or a wreck on the highway, I doubt that most of our stories would be word for word. It seems normal to me that you'd have varying stories with the same outcome. I think that's just part of human nature and how folks express themselves.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more weird for all of the gospels to be written word for word with the same outcome? Now that would make me wonder



If you claimed God inspired us to write the truth about the bar fight then yes the stories better be word for word.
Don't make excuses for God. If he hand picked the wrong writers then it's his fault.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> This is what that post makes me think of.
> 
> Just because someone living in the deepest darkest part of Africa in a village has never seen a tv, an airplane, or a cellphone doesn't mean they don't exist. So Mr Zimbobway goes back to the village and tells them of an airplane and nobody believes they exist, doesn't mean they don't exist. How's Mr Zimbobway gonna prove it?



He can leave and find one where he says they do exist and bring one back as evidence. The only hard part about backing up a claim comes when the claim is false.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Why would Peter deny Christ before the resurrection but willing to be crusified after the resurrection, if he hadn't seen Christ risen? And Peter wasn't the only one willing to die for his belief soon after the resurrection.  Why didn't the disciples just disband?
> 
> Paul (saul)was a Christian chaser, what changed his mind?
> 
> ...



How hard would it be for you to read about something that was "going" to happen in a book written 400 years ago, then you write a book and in those stories you tell (in writing) that it happened? You include details, people,places, and things that go right along with the 400 year old story. I am an idiot and I could pull that off.
The problem you and I will have is that when these things are checked they better have actually happened. There lies our problem and the authors of the STORIES that together make up the Bible. it just does not jive with each other and it does not jive with historical fact. SOME people ,places and things are real but when you get into the specific details of the events....well it just does not add up.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 27, 2013)

bullet, have you considered the possibility that the Bible is not for you? You do reject it and attack it for what appears to you to be insurmountable errors. Surely it is frustrating, that what is an obvious obstacle for you, is great joy for me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 27, 2013)

Or just believe as 1GR8BLDR and me that the New Testament isn't written by God but inspired by God by men who tried to the best of their ability.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> If we witnessed a bar fight or a wreck on the highway, I doubt that most of our stories would be word for word. It seems normal to me that you'd have varying stories with the same outcome. I think that's just part of human nature and how folks express themselves.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more weird for all of the gospels to be written word for word with the same outcome? Now that would make me wonder



Yeah, I came back to the shop from a meeting with 4 co-workers. another worker who didn't attend the meeting wanted to know what was said. He got 4 different answers. I was amazed at how 4 guys got something  all different out of the same meeting that happened 15 minutes ago.


----------



## mickbear (Mar 27, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why didn't Augustus just send men to retrieve the body of Christ and show it to everyone? Augustus knew where His body was supposed to be.
> 
> That would have proved Christ's followers wrong, and put a quick end to Christianity, but instead, most of them were murdered.
> 
> Anybody have any ideas?


why didn't jesus just do it in front of everybody instead of hidden from view in a sealed cave (kinda like a magicans trick?)?THAT would have proven his case.why was the greatest event in the christian religion performed where no one could see it?seems pretty simple to me "you know dad we can prove this with out a doubt,no one can ever question what we say.right here and now,right in front of everybody"


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> bullet, have you considered the possibility that the Bible is not for you?


Ya think?



gemcgrew said:


> You do reject it and attack it for what appears to you to be insurmountable errors.


 I feel that if something is claimed to be inerrant then it should not have errors.



gemcgrew said:


> Surely it is frustrating, that what is an obvious obstacle for you, is great joy for me.


Nahh, it would take something serious to get me frustrated.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 27, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Or just believe as 1GR8BLDR and me that the New Testament isn't written by God but inspired by God by men who tried to the best of their ability.


You represent my position well friend


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If you claimed God inspired us to write the truth about the bar fight then yes the stories better be word for word.
> Don't make excuses for God. If he hand picked the wrong writers then it's his fault.



In my opinion all four books say the same thing, just different words. They all say that Jesus is the Christ and He was crucified and resurrected, which is the core of the story. I'm not making excuses for God, I'm making excuses for common man.  Why would we need more than one book repeated exactly the same as the first? They are all witnesses, that is 4 witnesses with 4 accounts of what happened, the outcome is the same.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How hard would it be for you to read about something that was "going" to happen in a book written 400 years ago, then you write a book and in those stories you tell (in writing) that it happened? You include details, people,places, and things that go right along with the 400 year old story. I am an idiot and I could pull that off.
> The problem you and I will have is that when these things are checked they better have actually happened. There lies our problem and the authors of the STORIES that together make up the Bible. it just does not jive with each other and it does not jive with historical fact. SOME people ,places and things are real but when you get into the specific details of the events....well it just does not add up.



Maybe it doesn't add up to you, but it adds up to me. 

If you could pull that off, why haven't you? You'd make a mint in writing a best seller. Instead of wasting your time here. Why don't you write a book proving the Bible is incorrect? Your words make as much sense to me as mine does to you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> bullet, have you considered the possibility that the Bible is not for you? You do reject it and attack it for what appears to you to be insurmountable errors. Surely it is frustrating, that what is an obvious obstacle for you, is great joy for me.



It's great joy for me, too.

Perhaps an 'idiot' should write a book disproving the Bible...ain't seen one yet.  Folks have discounted the Bible for at least 2000 years and no one seems to be able to accomplish it. We can fly and speak to others around the world, and heal many diseases, but cease to have the ability to discredit the bible worth a hoot...eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

mickbear said:


> why didn't jesus just do it in front of everybody instead of hidden from view in a sealed cave (kinda like a magicans trick?)?THAT would have proven his case.why was the greatest event in the christian religion performed where no one could see it?seems pretty simple to me "you know dad we can prove this with out a doubt,no one can ever question what we say.right here and now,right in front of everybody"



Huh?

When Christ was crusified, everyone lost their faith, there was none there to see anything happen. Something changed that....let's see, wonder what it could be?
I know...Christ appeared to them and then they believed and were willing to die right along with Him but only after the resurrection.

He is going to return right in front of everybody next time, including the nonbelievers.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Maybe it doesn't add up to you, but it adds up to me.
> 
> If you could pull that off, why haven't you? You'd make a mint in writing a best seller. Instead of wasting your time here. Why don't you write a book proving the Bible is incorrect? Your words make as much sense to me as mine does to you.



Someone beat me to it, it's called the New Testament


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Huh?
> 
> When Christ was crusified, everyone lost their faith, there was none there to see anything happen. Something changed that....let's see, wonder what it could be?
> I know...Christ appeared to them and then they believed and were willing to die right along with Him but only after the resurrection.
> ...



And the fact that Jesus lived on earth for forty days according to Acts 1:1-9 after His resurrection from the dead. More than 500 people saw Him and witnessed the events. He ate with some of these witnesses.
I just read Luke 24:50-51 which some believe he ascended the same day he resurrected.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Someone beat me to it, it's called the New Testament



I thought that's what you were trying to discredit. The NT only fullfills the Old Testament. 

How many people would it take to pull off a scam like that?...more that just a few. Even the Romans would have to be involved....reckon they were? Let's whip Him and prove Isaiah, eh? Alrighty then.

Not that this statement means anything to you, but I was where you are for 20 years or more. Nothing anyone could say could really prove anything to me about the truth of the Bible.  I believed in something, but that wasn't it, couldn't be, just couldn't be, made no sense. But that searching and seeking for something 'else' is what brought me back to the truth with understanding.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> And the fact that Jesus lived on earth for forty days according to Acts 1:1-9 after His resurrection from the dead. More than 500 people saw Him and witnessed the events. He ate with some of these witnesses.
> I just read Luke 24:50-51 which some believe he ascended the same day he resurrected.



Some of those witnesses were also resurrected and recognized by their families. The power of the resurrection split rocks and rocked the foundation of the earth.

No one can prove it I suppose, but no one has been able to disprove it either...and many have tried.  It has changed nothing, hasn't killed us off, hasn't caused us to disbelieve in the long run, I know this is corny but this many people cannot be wrong.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> And the fact that Jesus lived on earth for forty days according to Acts 1:1-9 after His resurrection from the dead. More than 500 people saw Him and witnessed the events. He ate with some of these witnesses.
> I just read Luke 24:50-51 which some believe he ascended the same day he resurrected.



Yes it was 40 days before He descended into heaven. He went to hades and returned with the key to life and death and set the prisoners free there, that were in a type of limbo, maybe something like purgatory, waiting for judgement.


----------



## Asath (Mar 28, 2013)

“Why didn't Augustus just send men to retrieve the body of Christ and show it to everyone? Augustus knew where His body was supposed to be.

That would have proved Christ's followers wrong, and put a quick end to Christianity, but instead, most of them were murdered.

Anybody have any ideas?”

Yes, I have an idea.

My idea is that this thought, though perhaps worthy of discussion among Christians, has no place in this forum.

The OP presupposes Belief, and needs to be moved to an appropriate place for such a discussion.

If this is to be made into yet another proselytizing forum then the very creation of it was self-defeating.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ya think?


Yes 


bullethead said:


> I feel that if something is claimed to be inerrant then it should not have errors.


And I feel that if you see errors then that is the purpose of the Bible.  


bullethead said:


> Nahh, it would take something serious to get me frustrated.


Maybe you always spend this much of your time in matters that are not serious. It appeared to me that you had spent a considerable amount of time and energy in researching the Bible. Knowing now, that it is not serious to you, I have a better understanding of what it provided you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 28, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bullet, I have always said that the resurection account was a mess, a total train wreck. If these writers had any idea that their writing would be side by side of another, they would have made sure that it matched. For me, I believe the basic context, that Jesus was raised from the dead,  but that the NT was writen much later, by someone other than those named, after much time has passed, after oral traditions had changed things, taking a tole on the accuracy.



They would have made sure it matched? They would have made sure to agree on how the fairy tale went? If it happened, it went out how it went, there's no need to agree on a matching story. Or, if it happened, everyone got a different story for whatever reason - perspective, embellishments, Alzheimers..... If that's the case, then how can you trust any of it at all, not to mention trust it enough to put the faith to live your life by it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I thought that's what you were trying to discredit. The NT only fullfills the Old Testament.



Right there, that statement is exactly what I was referring to.
The Old Testament was around and chock full of prophesies. Then there was a break. People had 400 years of NO God involvement. Then the New Testament was written.

MY POINT, (which you later switch around to me writing a book to prove the Bible incorrect....like ONLY you can do on here) IS that the writers of the NT had a 400 year span(think about that, it is a longer span of time than we are as a Country) TO come up with a "hero" that fulfilled those prophesies. In reality during those 400 years there were many "heroes"  brought forth by the people that claimed to fulfill the prophesies up to and including Jesus but ALL of them never did. It is not hard to write stories when 400 years before the plot and ending was already given. All one has to do is dream up the Leading Man and write the role around him. 2000 years ago it seemed bulletproof. Today it doesn't hold up.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes
> 
> And I feel that if you see errors then that is the purpose of the Bible.
> 
> Maybe you always spend this much of your time in matters that are not serious. It appeared to me that you had spent a considerable amount of time and energy in researching the Bible. Knowing now, that it is not serious to you, I have a better understanding of what it provided you.



Maybe if you have something to offer in regards to the OP you should post it. Maybe you always spend this much time in matters directed at me. It appeared to me that you spend a considerable amount of time and energy trying to figure me out but always miss the mark. Knowing now, that you come on here to take threads in other directions, I have a better understanding of what your purpose on here is.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Why would Peter deny Christ before the resurrection but willing to be crusified after the resurrection, if he hadn't seen Christ risen? And Peter wasn't the only one willing to die for his belief soon after the resurrection.  Why didn't the disciples just disband?
> 
> Paul (saul)was a Christian chaser, what changed his mind?
> 
> ...



Followers of cult leaders in more modern times have died for their cause.. That must mean they were following a true god.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> If we witnessed a bar fight or a wreck on the highway, I doubt that most of our stories would be word for word. It seems normal to me that you'd have varying stories with the same outcome. I think that's just part of human nature and how folks express themselves.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more weird for all of the gospels to be written word for word with the same outcome? Now that would make me wonder



Or it's part of human nature to provide the story that best fits your agenda. 

That man killed children with an assault rifle!! OH NO!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Yes it was 40 days before He descended into heaven. He went to hades and returned with the key to life and death and set the prisoners free there, that were in a type of limbo, maybe something like purgatory, waiting for judgement.



descended? I thought heaven was UP... the physical direction UP. I know I'm being picky... maybe another topic, but why is heaven up? Why do you have to ascend to get there?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> They would have made sure it matched? They would have made sure to agree on how the fairy tale went? If it happened, it went out how it went, there's no need to agree on a matching story. Or, if it happened, everyone got a different story for whatever reason - perspective, embellishments, Alzheimers..... If that's the case, then how can you trust any of it at all, not to mention trust it enough to put the faith to live your life by it.


I live by the context contained within the story. By the time someone wrote the NT, oral traditions were probably beginning to change in small ways as it was passed along. Nothing corrupt about that. Just what happens as a story gets told.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Mar 28, 2013)

MAYBE nothing maliciously corrupted... but hey, I used to do the little whisper game in church... so you can see how the statement changes once you whisper it around a circle. It happens. It can be completely different. Funny thing that my youth leader proved something to me....


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Maybe if you have something to offer in regards to the OP you should post it.


You may be right. I did not consider that String might be interested like minded ideas.



bullethead said:


> Maybe you always spend this much time in matters directed at me. It appeared to me that you spend a considerable amount of time and energy trying to figure me out but always miss the mark. Knowing now, that you come on here to take threads in other directions, I have a better understanding of what your purpose on here is.


Not my intent at all but if you can show it from our limited conversations, I would definitely have to consider it. Shoot me a PM.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> You may be right. I did not consider that String might be interested like minded ideas.
> 
> 
> Not my intent at all but if you can show it from our limited conversations, I would definitely have to consider it. Shoot me a PM.



Nothing to PM about Gem. I think we each know what the other is about.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nothing to PM about Gem.


Understood


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> descended? I thought heaven was UP... the physical direction UP. I know I'm being picky... maybe another topic, but why is heaven up? Why do you have to ascend to get there?



I don't think it's up, I think it's over on the other side of natural into the supernatural.  Don't worry about being picky, some don't have anything better to point out, otherwise I'd be pointing out the misspelling of your...which for you are, is you're...that happens all the time on this forum and it irks me, but I never mention it, it's minute to me. Pick on, I'm used to it...


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How hard would it be for you to read about something that was "going" to happen in a book written 400 years ago, then you write a book and in those stories you tell (in writing) that it happened? You include details, people,places, and things that go right along with the 400 year old story. I am an idiot and I could pull that off.



Excuse me Mr Bullet, you're the one that talked about writing a book, not me...
'as only I can do', eh? Don't bring it up if you don't expect someone to post about you being an idiot but could pull those writings off.

Hello OUT there....lol


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Or it's part of human nature to provide the story that best fits your agenda.
> 
> That man killed children with an assault rifle!! OH NO!!



But all the stories say the same thing. None of them discount the other.

Just like the example I used about seeing a car wreck. If 4 of us witnessed a car wreck, would all our words be rehearsed before we told the cops? No but the outcome of the story would be the same, wouldn't it? And please don't get technical, you know what I'm getting at. Different words, same story. The Gospel is about Jesus being the Christ, dying for our sins and resurrecting. All of the gospels say that.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Or it's part of human nature to provide the story that best fits your agenda.
> 
> That man killed children with an assault rifle!! OH NO!!



Perfect example, thanks.
So what did the other 3 witnesses say, that he used a shotgun? or a 38? or a 22? I doubt that all the witnesses said exactly the same words, but the point was he killed a child with an assault rifle.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Mar 28, 2013)

There are sufficient accounts in the Bible to prove that the disciples didn't steal the body simply by the form that Jesus appeared to some in, and their failure to recognize Him. Regardless of what happened to his physical body, that is not what He was using to those he appeared before after the resurrection and prior to his ascension.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 28, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> There are sufficient accounts in the Bible to prove that the disciples didn't steal the body simply by the form that Jesus appeared to some in, and their failure to recognize Him. Regardless of what happened to his physical body, that is not what He was using to those he appeared before after the resurrection and prior to his ascension.



I believe it was the same physical body he walked the Earth in prior to his death. 
Luke 24:16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
If Jesus did appear to them in a different body, why did their eyes have to be restrained from recognizing Him? If that were the case, they wouldn't have known it was Him anyway. If you go to verse 31, it says, "At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him". You see, when God unveiled their eyes, they knew Him immediately.
Jesus said that He would "give" His flesh for the life of the world, not "give up" His flesh forever.
 Jesus Christ rose from the dead, bodily and visibly, the same way He is coming again. Anyone can claim a spiritual resurrection. Any religion can say that their leader rose as an invisible spirit. But a spirit resurrection is no resurrection at all. Jesus' resurrection is unique because His body was never found. His body was never found because it rose. 

http://www.towertotruth.net/Dialoguept4.htm


----------



## bullethead (Mar 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Excuse me Mr Bullet, you're the one that talked about writing a book, not me...
> 'as only I can do', eh? Don't bring it up if you don't expect someone to post about you being an idiot but could pull those writings off.
> 
> Hello OUT there....lol



YES, I did talk about writing a book.
YOU, like always, did not understand what I posted and took it in your own direction and now are still in a fog about what was said.
I wrote:


> *How hard would it be for you to read about something that was "going" to happen in a book written 400 years ago, then you write a book and in those stories you tell (in writing) that it happened? You include details, people,places, and things that go right along with the 400 year old story. I am an idiot and I could pull that off.*


EVERYTHING i said in that statement goes along with someone knowing the prophesies foretold in the OT and writing stories that try fulfill those prophesies in the NT.

YOU then reply with:


> If you could pull that off, why haven't you? You'd make a mint in writing a best seller. Instead of wasting your time here. Why don't you write a book proving the Bible is incorrect? Your words make as much sense to me as mine does to you.


1. I don't need to pull it off...the New Testament already DID THAT!!!! It is easy to write a story when you already know the details, all you have to do is CREATE a character to fit the details!
2. Then you ramble off on some tangent about me writing a book proving that the Bible is incorrect. I never said that....never implied it...that was your warped comprehension of what you THINK I said.
3. Then you come back with a DOOZIE reply above that only reinforces my initial post that obviously you did not understand.

Please stop responding to my posts. You talking in circles because you cannot comprehend what I post does not help your cause. I say and ask  that with all sincerity not anger.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> YES, I did talk about writing a book.
> YOU, like always, did not understand what I posted and took it in your own direction and now are still in a fog about what was said.
> I wrote:
> 
> ...




Say what you wanna, eh? about anything. But no one else can. Ok, I'll quit responding to your posts if you'll quit responding to mine....deal?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 31, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Because it is a fictional story and that alternate scenario would not fit in with what the author(s) wanted to tell. Same way why when you pay $12 to see a movie and in the first 3 minutes James Bond kicks in the door of the bad guys and you DON'T see them all just shoot him dead on the spot and the credits go up. The story HAS to bee told like it is in the Bible. For all any of us know Augustus did send people to get the body but when someone decided to write about it 40-100 years later they MIGHT...just MIGHT have embellished a few things, switched a few things, or tweaked stories a bit to suit.
> Just sayin..........



Kind of like Science?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

Asath said:


> “Why didn't Augustus just send men to retrieve the body of Christ and show it to everyone? Augustus knew where His body was supposed to be.
> 
> That would have proved Christ's followers wrong, and put a quick end to Christianity, but instead, most of them were murdered.
> 
> ...



Let me guess, you don't believe Augustus really existed.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

Let's try this again.....



Why didn't Augustus just remove the stone and show Jesus' body to everyone and end Christianity before it really started?


----------



## Four (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's try this again.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Augustus just remove the stone and show Jesus' body to everyone and end Christianity before it really started?



Likely because it was only a blip on the radar.. Some random guy crucified. The Romans did that a lot, no need to uncover every guy they buried.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 1, 2013)

What a hilarious thread. Reading this thread is like reading a blog created by Waffle House waitresses on how to re-sleeve a diesel engine.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> What a hilarious thread. Reading this thread is like reading a blog created by Waffle House waitresses on how to re-sleeve a diesel engine.



And yet you sit in her booth, reading it on your smart phone and contribute.


----------



## Four (Apr 1, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> What a hilarious thread. Reading this thread is like reading a blog created by Waffle House waitresses on how to re-sleeve a diesel engine.



That's actually a pretty good simile.

We don't have any religious experts, fluent speakrs of latin / greek/ hebre,  or PHD physicists / biologists / philosophers.

Sure, some know more about one thing or another, but we're all just kinda giving our take on things and arguing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's try this again.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Augustus just remove the stone and show Jesus' body to everyone and end Christianity before it really started?



It is obvious No one back then cared that much. They put many blasphemers to death. Every one of them claimed to be something special. There was no Christianity to stop "before it started". Jesus did not preach Christianity. He preached the Torah. It was just another guy to slap on a cross for going against Roman law. They did not kill him because they believed him. If they believed him... why kill him and fulfill his destiny??? They did not care about him. The writers(followers) HAD to somehow include the death of "their" god into the stories as a way of explaining how some mortals could kill a god and still leave some credibility to the god.....oh....wait....I got it.....it was always the PLAN for Jesus to die....yeah thats the ticket....yeah yeah yeah....he was sent here to fulfill his own plan, yeah good scapegoat, err I mean explanation as to why their savior was killed. Once dead he HAD to be killed. The Romans should have let him live and die at the OLD AGE of 55 and see what the writings said then. But since he was put to death, and no one knew the story of Jesus until long after he was dead( I mean how many people that saw him knew the story of the manger and birth and angels visiting his parents etc etc etc), the writers(again who were FOLLOWERS of Jesus) got to tell their stories and fit what NEEDED to be fit to make him more than what he really was according to OT prophesy. According to the rules of free will and or  predestination, Did the Romans have a choice not to fulfill the "PLAN"? I mean God sent him to have happen exactly what happened to Jesus. So did God manipulate the Romans and all humans to have his plan work out to the "T" ?? Did he break his OWN rule of Free Will?? The writers have the ability to manipulate the stories as needed.
You have to realize that in the culture back then there was someone constantly preaching something different yet they still tied it in with the OT prophesies. There were literally hundreds of "Jesus" type characters that made outlandish claims and said fulfilled prophesy. They didn't come through and neither did Jesus. That culture NEEDED some leader other than Roman rule. It always was some religious guy making waves because that is what oppressed people thrive on. They NEED a better afterlife because the "real" life stinks.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's try this again.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Augustus just remove the stone and show Jesus' body to everyone and end Christianity before it really started?



You have the distinct disadvantage of only having the Bible as your guide. You use it as if those were the only things written during the times and all of it was jotted down and recorded as it happened and as if all the people of the time knew the history of Jesus as he was born up and through he was crucified. There was ancient writings written that told of all kinds of "other" saviors, messiahs, and god-men in that area of the world (not to mention all over the planet) before and after Jesus. They ALL had the same type of followers and followings. They all had people that died for the lies. They all had their run ins with the law. Throw enough poop at the wall and some of it is gonna stick.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

Four said:


> Likely because it was only a blip on the radar.. Some random guy crucified. The Romans did that a lot, no need to uncover every guy they buried.



Do you think it was normal to have guards stand by a "random guy's" grave?

I think history tells a different story of how Jesus was viewed 2,000 years ago.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is obvious No one back then cared that much. They put many blasphemers to death. Every one of them claimed to be something special. There was no Christianity to stop "before it started".



I'm not going to responded to your entire post, some of it is off topic, and I would like to try to keep the discussion on somewhat of a track.

As far as this part of your post, could you give me some examples of nobody carring? Can you give me some examples of people claiming the same things Jesus did?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think it was normal to have guards stand by a "random guy's" grave?
> 
> I think history tells a different story of how Jesus was viewed 2,000 years ago.



I am extremely interested in this history.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have the distinct disadvantage of only having the Bible as your guide.


My guide to what exactly?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think it was normal to have guards stand by a "random guy's" grave?
> 
> I think history tells a different story of how Jesus was viewed 2,000 years ago.



I would think that having guards stationed outside of a troublemakers grave would not be out of the ordinary, especially if there was an element of unrest by his gang or followers.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> My guide to what exactly?



Where did you get your info about a resurrection, guards, Augustus?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I would think that having guards stationed outside of a troublemakers grave would not be out of the ordinary, especially if there was an element of unrest by his gang or followers.


Well, is He a "random guy" or is He a trouble maker who the Roman authorities thought was a problem in which guards needed to stand at His grave?



bullethead said:


> Where did you get your info about a resurrection, guards, Augustus?



The same place you got your info.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am extremely interested in this history.



You want info on whether Jesus was a random guy in history or not?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have the distinct disadvantage of only having the Bible as your guide. You use it as if those were the only things written during the times and all of it was jotted down and recorded as it happened and as if all the people of the time knew the history of Jesus as he was born up and through he was crucified. There was ancient writings written that told of all kinds of "other" saviors, messiahs, and god-men in that area of the world (not to mention all over the planet) before and after Jesus. They ALL had the same type of followers and followings. They all had people that died for the lies. They all had their run ins with the law. Throw enough poop at the wall and some of it is gonna stick.


Where are "They" all now?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not going to responded to your entire post, some of it is off topic, and I would like to try to keep the discussion on somewhat of a track.
> 
> As far as this part of your post, could you give me some examples of nobody carring? Can you give me some examples of people claiming the same things Jesus did?



You don't want to respond to anything that goes against what you are trying to get across. And the bottom line is that Jesus, along with thousands of others, was put to death by the Romans for many different things....including blasphemy. He was not alone for doing what he did.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/mashiach.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Historical problems
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm

Here is what the Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about Jesus
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You want info on whether Jesus was a random guy in history or not?





> I think history tells a different story of how Jesus was viewed 2,000 years ago.



I'd like to see what History has to say about how Jesus was viewed 2000 years ago.

I'll repost this
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Well, is He a "random guy" or is He a trouble maker who the Roman authorities thought was a problem in which guards needed to stand at His grave?


Yet another random troublemaker dealt with like the others. Authorities took as much caution with him as any of the others of the time.
2 whole guards for the son of a god. WOW it is a wonder the Empire did not crumble that day due to the amount of troops dedicated to watch a cave.





stringmusic said:


> The same place you got your info.


I hoped you had something actually historic.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Where are "They" all now?



Dead. That is what happens to people. But the religions live on based off of their stories.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You don't want to respond to anything that goes against what you are trying to get across. And the bottom line is that Jesus, along with thousands of others, was put to death by the Romans for many different things....including blasphemy. He was not alone for doing what he did.
> 
> http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/mashiach.htm
> 
> ...



Your giving me info on what Jewish history has to say about Jesus, that's rich Bullet.

Why don't you go to Sam Harris' or Richard Dawkin's website next and link their thoughts on Jesus while your at it.



bullethead said:


> Yet another random troublemaker dealt with like the others. Authorities took as much caution with him as any of the others of the time.
> 2 whole guards for the son of a god. WOW it is a wonder the Empire did not crumble that day due to the amount of troops dedicated to watch a cave.


So you're saying it was common practice to have the tombs of the crucified guarded?



> I hoped you had something actually historic.



What exactly do you want? Do you want the documentation of that time period with the most manuscripts?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I'd like to see what History has to say about how Jesus was viewed 2000 years ago.
> 
> I'll repost this
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth



Again, you're giving me the thoughts of the people that gave Jesus over to the Roman authorities to be crucified.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, you're giving me the thoughts of the people that gave Jesus over to the Roman authorities to be crucified.



You are not going to get any closer view of what the HUGE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people thought of Jesus back then. They ARE the closest source outside of the Bible that makes him a real person. And it also happens to be the source outside of the bible that gives a truthful account of who and what Jesus really was, how he was thought of and what happened to him.
Of course it does not fit your book. NOTHING does anywhere outside of your New Testament.
Spoiler Alert:
That IS the problem.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

Or if available. I can try to show you what the next best source thought of him (the Romans) and see if they back up what you NEED to be told or if they say "trouble maker, law breaker, death......NEXT!"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Kind of like Science?



No, not at all.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your giving me info on what Jewish history has to say about Jesus, that's rich Bullet.


I looked for info about Jesus in the tribes of the Amazon, Vikings, Apache Indians, Somali bushman and a few others. Oddly I just could not find anything about him.
So I thought(crazy I know) that I would see what the people that lived among him had to say, you know because Jesus WAS Jewish and all, and see why the "choir" didn't beleive what he was preaching.



stringmusic said:


> Why don't you go to Sam Harris' or Richard Dawkin's website next and link their thoughts on Jesus while your at it.


No need




stringmusic said:


> So you're saying it was common practice to have the tombs of the crucified guarded?


I don't think I did say that.
Would it be inconceivable to think that if there was a local troublemaker now (gangster etc) that was for 3 years constantly in trouble with the law for breaking the law and thought to have been the leader of a bunch of other troublemakers and was killed by the police under circumstances that were considered unjust by his followers (think Rodney King for a minute, he got a beating and he was no "Jesus")....do you think it MIGHT be considered a smart idea to have a few extra officers on hand at the funeral and cemetery JUST in case a couple of nit-wits wants to start something???
Now drift back into the time of Jesus, jewish burial traditions, grumblings about "trouble" etc etc etc...and the Romans throw 2 men(according to the Bible, which is most likely also untrue) at the grave to make sure no trouble(whatever that may be) arises. Probably a good spot to be to keep an eye on the followers of Jesus as they would be hanging around the burial site still grieving and still full of emotion.

Keep watch on the troublemakers.





stringmusic said:


> What exactly do you want? Do you want the documentation of that time period with the most manuscripts?





stringmusic said:


> I think history tells a different story of how Jesus was viewed 2,000 years ago.



I want the history you used in order to make that statement.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, you're giving me the thoughts of the people that gave Jesus over to the Roman authorities to be crucified.



Well, string, that may be because they didn't believe him!!! They were THERE and didn't buy the nonsense. Who ya gonna ask...the Chinese??


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 1, 2013)

So let me see if I've got this right....

The Jews didn't believe Jesus when He so called blasphemed when He proclaimed He would raise from the dead three days after being crucified.

The Jews then handed Christ over to Roman authorities who agreed with the Jews that Jesus was simply a trouble maker of the first degree, and coupled with his blasphemy, should be sentenced to death by crucifixion.

So, basically nobody believed Jesus' claim that He would raise from the dead, or that He was the Son of God, except His followers. 

So after Christ's crucifixion, when His followers started preaching about how He did raise from the dead, instead of just presenting the body to the Roman empire for all to see, Roman authorities just continued to let His followers preach a "lie" to everyone because Christ was just "some random guy"

Is that yall's answer to the question? Other than Asath, he doesn't even believe that Augustus existed.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

(From another site, changes to words that would be censored and making bold type is mine)
The Gospel of Matthew:     According to The Gospel of Matthew, a group of Roman  Soldiers, via a request by Jewish priests , had been assigned by the Roman  governor to guard the tomb of the recently deceased criminal Jesus. One night, while on guard duty, the zombie Jesus popped out, the soldiers got scared, deserted their post, ran back into the city, and reported to the Jewish  priests & rabbis. Matthew then claims that these priests & rabbis made up an excuse for the soldiers to use, bribing the soldiers to claim that while they were asleep, with their eyes closed, they saw  the Christians come in and steal the body. Or so The Gospel of Matthew claims. (Matthew 28: 4, 11-15)



Matthewâ€™s claims just seem to lack the ring of truth. Letâ€™s educate ourselves a bit about the REAL Roman guard. From famed Christian author Josh McDowellâ€™s book Evidence That Demands A Verdict1 we learn the following from McDowellâ€™s many and varied sources...



The guard numbered from ten to thirty men......they were not the kind of men to jeopardize their Roman necks by sleeping  on their post...they were Roman soldiers, not mere Jewish temple guards...The soldiers had very strict discipline...the punishment for deserting oneâ€™s post was death...the fear of punishments produced faultless attention to duty, especially in the night watches...refusing to protect an officer was punishable by death...one soldier who had fallen asleep on duty was executed by being hurled from the cliff of the Capitolium...  (pp 218 â€“ 224)



Based upon these facts, letâ€™s go back now and analyze Matthewâ€™s obvious fiction.  Letâ€™s tear apart, examine, read between the lines, THINK, and redo Matthewâ€™s â€œaccount.â€� There would have been â€œten to thirty men,â€� so weâ€™ll split it down the middle and go with twenty. Since the penalty for falling asleep while on guard duty was DEATH, the last thing these twenty guards would have admitted to anybody is that they had fallen ASLEEP. Rather than being protected by such an excuse, such an excuse would have killed them, and not with a painless death. Therefore, Roman soldiers would have NEVER used falling asleep on duty as an excuse, and thus weâ€™ve uncovered Matthewâ€™s first mistake.



These were professionally trained, full-time ROMAN soldiers, not some rag-tag rent-a-cop Jewish temple police. If they were going to go anywhere when the doo-doo hit the fan at the tomb, they, as ROMAN soldiers, would have gone on their ROMAN training,  by going to their ROMAN commanders, to seek ROMAN help to achieve a ROMAN solution to the problem. Roman soldiers would not have gone running to  Jewish rabbis for help, as Matthew claims! This is Matthewâ€™s second mistake.



In fact, they would not have gone â€œrunningâ€� AT ALL, to a Jewish rabbi or a Roman commander, as according to McDowell, â€œthe punishment for deserting oneâ€™s post was DEATHâ€�. These were soldiers, Roman soldiers, and if they had â€œrun awayâ€� to ANYONE, they would have been put to death. Thus, Matthewâ€™s third mistake.



It is interesting that, out of all the claimed resurrection accounts contained in the New Testament, the ONLY time spectators are said to have run away in fear is right here. I think this fiction of Matthewâ€™s was a cowardly attempt to put down Roman soldiers. I think maybe Matthew felt inadequate and weak when compared to Roman soldiers (???sword envy???), and thus took this chance for a cheap, inaccurate put-down. But contrast these men of Rome, conquerors of the world, with the cowardly wimps of Jesus who couldnâ€™t even conquer their own fears. All of them ran away like frightened women in a horror movie, deserting Jesus to his fate in the Garden of Gethsemane. Matthew had hung around for so long with this trash, that I guess Matthew thought all men to be as cowardly and dishonest as himself and his Christian cohorts. This slander of the soldiersâ€™ bravery makes Matthewâ€™s fourth mistake.



And the excuse that the soldiers were given by the Jews to use, in addition getting them executed by their commanders, also makes no sense in and of itself. â€œYou are to say, â€˜His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.â€™â€� (Mt 28:13)  Come, let us reason together, let us THINK !!!!!!!...



¨   IF they had been asleep, they would never have admitted it, for to admit it would be certain death.

¨   IF they were executed (from admitting they were sleeping), then their bribe would have been moot to them.

¨   IF they were asleep, then they had their eyes closed. And IF they had their eyes closed, then they could not see. And IF they could not see, then they could not see the body being carried out. And IF they could not see the body being carried out, then they also could not see WHO was doing the carrying.

¨   IF they really DID see people stealing the body out of the tomb, then they had their eyes open. And IF their eyes were really open, they must have only been pretending to be asleep. And IF they were pretending to be asleep while watching all this going on, and did not stop it, then they were totally negligent in their guard duty, and would have been executed by their commanders.



And thus we see Matthewâ€™s fifth mistake, sixth mistake, seventh mistakeâ€¦ heck, I give up- just count them for yourself from here on out.



I hope you get the point by now. The excuse these Roman soldiers were given to use is totally implausible. Unbelievable. An excuse that is unbelievable is unusable. They may just as well have claimed flying cows carried off the body! They would have had no use for such a useless excuse. The only solution that makes sense is that the whole bribery story was a poor attempt by Matthew & others to try and smear the eyewitness account by the 20 Roman Soldiers.



But wild conspiracy theories can not refute cold hard eyewitness testimony. Notice that the Christians never denied what the Roman soldiers said; rather, they concocted a conspiracy theory to try and neutralize it, claiming to know the "inside scoop", claiming to know word-for-word secret private conversations held behind closed doors between the soldiers and the priests, as if they had a camcorder or an electronic bug hidden in the room. (For those Fundies that DO believe Matthew's claim here, pray tell:* exactly HOW did the Christians happen to know, word for word, what was said in this supposed meeting, and WHAT is your source for knowing this knowledge???)*. Unfounded conspiracy theories have to be rejected, leaving us to go by what the soldiers testified to, ignoring the Christian smear tactics (in which they are experts)  trying to "explain away" what was back then public knowledge. In short..



WHAT they said is on record: Christians stole the body.

WHY they said it, is not.



A German theologian in the early 1800â€™s also noticed Matthewâ€™s â€œaccountâ€� lacks the ring of truth.  Dr. David Friedrich Strauss spent years writing a detailed analysis of Jesus entitled, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined.2   His reward for being honest with the data? The Christians got him fired from his job, blacklisted him from all future jobs, and persecuted him till the day he died.  Remember- Christianity cares not for discovering the truth, only for â€œcircling the wagonsâ€� to defend the same old worn-out doctrines. In other words, donâ€™t confuse them with the truth- they already have their minds made up. Thatâ€™s why R&D departments donâ€™t exist in schools of theology- thereâ€™s nothing new allowed to be discovered, only old dogmas to defend. Anyway, listen to what Strauss had to say about the problems in Matthewâ€™s story of the Roman Soldiers:





Regarding  Matthewâ€™s claim that the Jewish council knew about Jesusâ€™ threat to resurrect

...it is not to be conceived how the Sanhedrists could obtain the information that Jesus was to return to life three days after his death; since there is no trace of such an idea having existed even among his disciples...(the disciples) had not, either before or after the death of Jesus, the slightest anticipation of his resurrection, (therefore) they could not have excited such an anticipation in others. (pp 705,706)






Regarding the strange behavior of the guards

But within the narrative also, every feature is full of difficulties, for, according to the expression of Paulus, no one of the persons who appear in it, acts in accordance with his character...It is more astonishing that the guards should have been so easily induced to tell a falsehood which the severity of Roman discipline made so dangerous, as that they had failed in their duty by sleeping on their post. (pp 706, 707)







Regarding the Jewish councilâ€™s reaction at the news of Jesusâ€™ supposed resurrection

How could the council, many of whose members were Sadducees,*  receive this as credible ?...real Sanhedrists, on hearing such an assertion from the soldiers, would have replied with exasperation: â€˜You lie! You have slept and allowed him to be stolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes to be investigated by the procurator.â€™ (p. 707)

*(NOTE: Sadducees did not believe resurrections were

even possible-- see Matthew 22:23)







It is obvious to a thinking individual that much of Matthewâ€™s â€œinspired accountâ€� is not even plausible. Too many characters acting out of character. In short, as far as fiction goes, this is bad fiction. So letâ€™s try to at least resurrect something from Matthew that is plausible, from the bits of data we have and from reading between the lines...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So let me see if I've got this right....
> 
> The Jews didn't believe Jesus when He so called blasphemed when He proclaimed He would raise from the dead three days after being crucified.
> 
> ...



Short answer: Yes

Longer version can be found here:
http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php

A Short excerpt from the article


> by Dan Barker
> 
> During the 19 years I preached the Gospel, the resurrection of Jesus was the keystone of my ministry.[1] Every Easter I affirmed the Apostle Paul's admonition: "If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain."[2] I wrote a popular Easter musical called "His Fleece Was White As Snow" with the joyous finale proclaiming: "Sing Hosanna! Christ is Risen! The Son has risen to shine on me!"[3]
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So let me see if I've got this right....
> 
> The Jews didn't believe Jesus when He so called blasphemed when He proclaimed He would raise from the dead three days after being crucified.
> 
> ...



Would you have me believe that the Jews and Romans KNEW he was the Son of God, EVERYTHING he said was true and they killed him to fulfill his claims???


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

I have one more for you after you get done with what I have posted above already:
Who is to say that Pilate did not let Joseph take the body like scripture would have us believe. Often times the bodies were "left to the crows to feed upon". In the case of Jesus and his claims of resurrection Pilot could have left him on the cross for days and weeks after his death OR could have had his body removed and placed in unmarked/unknown burial place so that the site would not be a shrine to Jesus followers. Not being able to find his place of burial at the time, let alone 40-100 years later, it would be necessary to make the stories up to fit the agenda. And being that the writers have so much wrong with the Roman way of doing things, the scenario seems very likely.

A small excerpt that seems to fit what I am talking about:


> There is one final reason to think that Pilate would have ensured that Jesus did not receive an honorable tomb burial. Raymond Brown notes, "There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets."[67] Craig agrees, stating, "During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."[68] If Pilate considered the historical Jesus to be an enemy of the state, how much more would Pilate have to fear not only making him a martyr but also establishing a shrine to Jesus right in Jerusalem? It is in Pilate's best interest to make certain that Jesus would have been buried without honor and in obscurity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

Roman Crucifixion and Jewish Burial

This belongs to the improbability section properly, but I have set it apart. Unless the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea can be shown to be an accurate account (and arguments to that effect will be considered), then to be able to reconstruct the most likely history of what happened to the body of Jesus after the crucifixion will require some general background on the methods and purpose of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial in the ancient world.

Gerard Sloyan indicates the brutality that crucifixion entails:



    Seneca (d. 65 C.E.) refers to a variety of postures and different kinds of tortures on crosses: some victims are thrust head downward, others have a stake impale their genitals (obscena), still others have their arms outstretched on a crossbeam. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing of the Jewish War of the late 60s, is explicit about Jews captured by the Romans who were first flogged, tortured before they died, and then crucified before the city wall. The pity he reports that Titus, father of Josephus's imperial patron Vespasian, felt for them did not keep Titus from letting his troops dispatch as many as five hundred in a day: "The soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses for the sport of it, and their number was so great that there was not enough room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies." Josephus calls it "the most wretched of deaths." He tells of the surrender of the fortress Machaerus on the east shore of the Dead Sea when the Romans threatened a Jewish prisoner with crucifixion.

    An especially grim description of this punishment, meted out to murderers, highwaymen, and other gross offenders, is the following from a didactic poem: "Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fasted, nailed to it with sharpest spikes, an ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs."

    Much later in Latin speech "Crux!" became a curse, to indicate the way the speaker thought the one accursed should end. Other epithets among the lower classes found in Plautus, Terence, and Petronius are "Crossbar Charlie" (Patibulatus) and "Food for Crows" (Corvorum Cibaria).[53]

Sloyan indicates who merited this most ignominious form of execution:



    What types of persons were subjected to this cruel ending in the ancient world, and to whom was it seldom or never administered? The short answer to the first is: the slaves and lower classes; soldiers, even in command positions (but not generals); the violently rebellious and the treasonous. As to the second, citizens of the Greek city-states and of the Roman state were usually done away with more briskly, seldom by crucifixion. . . It was considered too cruel and, not least, too demeaning for the upper classes. Administered to any but slaves and those who threatened the existing social order, it would be an admission that the minority citizen class could be capable of such bestial conduct [so as to deserve crucifixion].[54] 

Raymond Brown comments on Roman attitudes to the bodies of the crucified:



    In investigating Roman customs or laws dealing with the burial of crucified criminals, we find some guidance in DJ 48.24, which gives the clement views of Ulpian and of Julius Paulus from the period CA. AD 200. The bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be refused to their relatives (Ulpian) nor to any who seek them for burial (Paulus). Ulpian traces this attitude back to Augustus in Book 10 of Vita Sua, but he recognizes that the generous granting of bodies may have to be refused if the condemnation has been for treason (maiestas). The exception was verified a few years before Ulpian in the treatment of the martyrs of Lyons reported in Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62): The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain."

    If we move back from the 2d cent., what was the Roman attitude at the time of Jesus towards the bodies of crucified criminals? Despite what Ulpian tells us about Augustus, he was not always so clement. Suetonius (Augustus 13.1-2) reports, with the obvious disapproval of 2d-cent. hindsight, that Augustus refused to allow decent burial for the bodies of those who fought for Brutus: "That matter must be settled with the carrion-birds." Since Augustus would have looked on Brutus as a traitor, the parallel to the question of what would happen to those convicted of treason (maiestas) is significant. In the reign of terror that followed the fall of Sejanus (AD 31), Tacitus reports the actions of Tiberius: "People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial" (Annals 6.29). Beyond such imperial vengeance, severity is assumed to be normal by Petronius (Satyricon 111-12), as in Nero's time he writes the story of a soldier at Ephesus who neglected his duty of preventing the bodies of dead criminals from being removed from the cross. While he was absent in the night making love to a widow, the parents came stealthily, took the body down, and buried it, causing the soldier to fear the severest punishment. Evidently it was almost proverbial that those who hung on the cross fed the crows with their bodies (Horace, Epistle 1.16.48).

    Discerning Roman legal practice for a province like Judea is difficult. The law cited above (DJ) was juxta ordinem, i.e., customary law in Rome for dealing with Roman citizens. Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate. Before Jesus' time, in Sicily, much closer to Rome, Cicero (In Verrem 2.5.45; #119) reports that a corrupt governor made parents pay for permission to bury their children. Philo (In Flaccum 10.83-84) tells us that in Egypt, on the eve of a Roman holiday, customarily "people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites." But the prefect Flaccus (within a decade of Jesus' death) "gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross," even on the eve of a feast. Indeed, he crucified others, after maltreating them with the lash.[55]

Raymond Brown provides information on Jewish attitudes towards the crucified as well:



    As we have seen (pp. 532-33 above), there is solid evidence that in Jesus' era crucifixion came under the Jewish laws and customs governing hanging, and in particular under Deut 21:22-23: "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged." The conflict between Roman and Jewish attitudes is phrased thus by S. Lieberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing corpses on the cross for many days...horrified the Jews." In the First Jewish Revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this, Josephus states, "The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset."

    The crucial issue in Judaism, however, would have been the type of burial. The hanged person was accursed, especially since most often in Jewish legal practice this punishment would have been meted out to those already executed in another way, e.g., stoning. In the OT we see a tendency to refuse to the wicked honorable burial in an ancestral plot (1 Kings 13:21-22). Even a king like Jehoiakim, despite his rank, having been condemned by the Lord for wickedness, had these words spoken of him by Jeremiah (22:19): "The burial of an - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - shall be given him, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer 26:23 refers to a prophet condemned (unjustly) and slain by the king being thrown "into the burial place of the common people" (see also II Kings 23:6). I Enoch 98:13 excludes from prepared graves the wicked who rejoice in the death of the righteous, and Josephus (Ant. 5.1.14; #44) has Achar at nightfall given "the ignominious burial proper to the condemned" (see also 4.8.24; #264). The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb.[56]

Brown suggests that this may not have applied to Jesus if the condemnation was considered unjust in the sight of God to the Jews:



    In a political situation where the death penalty was imposed by the Gentiles, however, the opposite could be true: An innocent or noble Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. . . According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worth of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; #202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. Of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial. On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial?[57] 

From the information presented by Brown, we can begin to see the outline of the dilemma presented by the burial of Jesus, which requires any theory of honorable burial to steer carefully between the Scylla of the Roman charge of sedition and the Charbydis of the Jewish accusation of blasphemy. These are treacherous waters indeed, and it must be wondered if they can be navigated safely.

The information presented on the Roman practice of crucifixion shows that the very act of taking a body down from the cross for burial was, if practiced at all, the exception to the rule. The popular phrase "Food for Crows," the line about the crucified being an "ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs," the response of Tiberius to the request for burial, the comment from Horace, and finally the story from Petronius about the guard who allowed the body to be stolen off the cross all indicate that part of the very shame of crucifixion was the denial of burial rites as a last act of humiliation. Moderns do not quickly recognize the cruelty of this, but in ancient times to die without proper burial was considered a most horrible fate, particularly to the Jews. Yet, as Sloyan shows, crucifixion itself was an exercise in cruelty. Reserved for "slaves and those who threatened the existing social order," it cannot be assumed that any mercy would be shown to one who had been considered deserving crucifixion.

The exceptions truly are exceptional. As Brown indicates, the comments of Ulpian and Paulus in favor of permitting burial - except, as always, for treason - apply to the more clement situation in Rome. Philo of Alexandria indicates that a case of releasing the body was a somewhat unordinary gesture of goodwill that was extended on a Roman holiday yet sometimes not even then.

If one thing is clear, however, it is that no leniency is shown for those who fall under the banner of insurrection, sedition, or treason against Rome. Although Brown makes a distinction between maiestas in Roman jurisprudence that would apply strictly to those arranging military manouvers as opposed to a more informal execution of a perceived instigator or trouble-maker by the governor of a province, the principle in either case is the same. To respect a common crucified criminal with honorable burial is unusual, but to respect one who is perceived as a threat to Roman rule is, well, right out.

Some might wish to avoid this conclusion by declaring the Sanhedrin to have charged Jesus with blasphemy. Yet this is no better. Clearly, those sentenced to execution by the Sanhedrin were not to be given honorable burial.

Yet continuing with the idea that Pilate made the judgment for crucifixion, is it most likely that Pilate would have left the body hanging on the cross for several days? While it should not be ruled out entirely, there is at least one reason that judges against it. This consideration has nothing to do with the mercy or brutality of Pilate. Pilate should not be assumed to act as a sadist (or saint) but rather as a prudent politician. Pilate could only be acutely aware of the fact that the time was the Passover festival, that Jerusalem was swarming with travelers and activity, and that it would do grievous insult to the Jerusalem populace and Jews at large to continue to hang the bodies on display through the sabbath and the rest of Passover. Pilate was no fool and had no wish to incite unrest by his own actions. At the same time, however, Pilate could hardly intend to give respect to the one he crucified. Pilate would want to avoid insulting the people as well as to avoid respecting the crucified. The logical conclusion is that Pilate should order dishonorable burial in a criminal's graveyard for the body of Jesus and the two lestai with him.

I say it in this way, that Pilate should order dishonorable burial because that is indeed what Pilate should do. Pilate is perfectly capable of finishing off his own executions. If Pilate is acting on his own authority in crucifying Jesus, not merely acquiescing to the demands of a Sanhedrin unwilling to carry out their own verdict, there is no reason for Pilate to allow any third party burial service to swoop in.

And I say it that way because the character of Joseph has all the signs of deus ex machina in the Markan plot. Jesus has been abandoned by his disciples, convicted by the Sanhedrin, and executed by Pilate. Yet along comes the noble knight riding in from Arimathea, daring to ask Pilate to be able to meddle in his affairs, disregarding the prohibition on honorable burial for the condemned, and providing proper interment in his own newly rock-hewn tomb before sundown on the sabbath, which just happens to be nearby and which just happens to have never contained anyone yet (lest he defile the grave of his ancestors).


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

(continuation of post above)


How does Raymond Brown deal with this enigma of a man, Joseph of Arimathea? Brown suggests that Joseph was merely a "pious Sanhedrinist" who desired to see that God's law be carried out with respect to burial before the sun sets.[58] This thesis is not without its difficulties. For example, in Mark, Joseph requests the body of Jesus specifically and disregards the other two crucified. The pious Jew presumably would have wanted to take care of all three; alternatively, if it be supposed that the thieves would have been buried by the Romans anyway, then there is no reason for the pious Jew to get involved at all. Brown suggests, "We have to assume that the story in the Synoptics has been narrowed down in its focus to Jesus, ignoring the two others who were no longer theologically or dramatically important."[59] This is not entirely unreasonable, although it would be another mark against the reliability of Mark, who does seem to assume that no other bodies were placed in the tomb with Jesus. But is it very likely that a pious Sanhedrinist would be rushing about on the day before the sabbath during the Passover to have the bodies of the crucified properly buried? As I have indicated, Pilate was perfectly capable of performing the burial with his own means, and thus there would be no offense to the law of God. Indeed, the Romans were in an easier position to perform the burial, since they would not have acquired ritual impurity thereby. Moreover, the historical Joseph would probably have had better things to do at this time than greatly inconvience himself for those who could only be commonly perceived as crucified scum, the Galilean just as much as the highwaymen.[60] Not only would it require the ritual impurity of himself or the summoning of his servants to the cross, as well as the expense of the linen and anointing oil, but most of all it would require the use of his own nearby rock-hewn tomb (which, again, just happens to have nobody buried there yet). Tombs at that time were undoubtedly expensive to build or to quarry, and for this reason tombs were jealously preserved within families over several generations. The only motivation for a pious Jew to undertake a tomb burial for the man would be a strong belief that the crucified deserved an honorable burial. However, this would require that Joseph considered the charge to be unjust in the sight of God. Not only is it difficult to understand why a simple pious Sanhedrinist would be moved to conclude that such a one had been crucified unjustly, but it is hardly plausible that Pilate would have allowed Jesus to be given an honorable burial, as this would be tantamount to an admission that Jesus was crucified without just cause.

It is not without reason, therefore, that Craig suggests that Joseph was indeed a secret admirer of Jesus: "his daring to ask Pilate for a request lacking legal foundation, his proper burial of Jesus's body alone, and his laying the body in his own, expensive tomb are acts that go beyond the duties of a merely pious Jew."[61] Against such a view, Brown writes, "No canonical Gospel shows cooperation between Joseph and the women followers of Jesus who are portrayed as present at the burial, observing where Jesus was put (Mark 15:47 and par.). Lack of cooperation in burial between the two groups of Jesus' disciples is not readily intelligible, especially when haste was needed. Why did the women not help Joseph if he was a fellow disciple, instead of planning to come back after the Sabbath when he would not be there?"[62] Again we might wonder what could have motivated the Sanhedrinist to an admiration for this particular crucified Galilean, especially if there were any historical reality to the actions of Jesus against the Temple. An original tradition that Jesus was buried by hostile figures would count against the disciple interpretation. Moreover, the tendency is towards making Joseph appear more like a disciple and thus suggests that the historical reality was nothing of the sort. As Brown says of those who take Mark as meaning that Joseph was a devotee of Jesus, "If that was what Mark meant, why did he take such an indirect and obscure way of saying so?"[63] Brown shows the figure of Joseph as it moves from Mark, to the later evangelists, to the Gospel of Peter, to the Gospel of Nicodemus, and eventually into the Glastonbury legend to exhibit an increasing sense that Joseph was a model disciple of Jesus.[64] Craig has added his own speculation to the mix of legend concerning Joseph with his suggestion that Joseph was a delegate of the Sanhedrin and a secret disciple who was commissioned to dispose of all three bodies in a criminal's grave yet who nevertheless tricked both Pilate and the Sanhedrin by giving a proper burial for the Lord in his own nearby tomb.[65] Craig had already noted considerations against the idea that Joseph was acting as anything other than a private citizen: "None of the gospels suggest that Joseph was acting as a delegate of the Sanhedrin; there was nothing in the law that required that the bodies be buried immediately, and the Jews may have been content to leave that to the Romans. That Joseph dared to go to Pilate and ask specifically for Jesus's body is difficult to understand if he was simply an emissary of the Sanhedrin, assigned to dispose of the bodies."[66] It is for these reasons that Craig seems to prefer the suggestion that the Romans disposed of the thieves while Joseph took the body of Jesus. Yet again, however, Jesus is the least likely of the three for Pilate to release, for not only might it suggest that the crucifixion was unjust but it also would lend justification to whatever sedition that Pilate suspected and would honor one who had been condemned as a threat to order.

There is one final reason to think that Pilate would have ensured that Jesus did not receive an honorable tomb burial. Raymond Brown notes, "There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets."[67] Craig agrees, stating, "During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."[68] If Pilate considered the historical Jesus to be an enemy of the state, how much more would Pilate have to fear not only making him a martyr but also establishing a shrine to Jesus right in Jerusalem? It is in Pilate's best interest to make certain that Jesus would have been buried without honor and in obscurity.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

Thinking about it, I believe Enoch and Elijah both ascended into heaven. 
And there were a few resurrections too. Lazarus, Eutychus..a young man who fell asleep and fell from a third story window (Acts 20:9-12) , The widow of Zarephath' son through Elijah's prayers (I Kings 17:19-22), The Shunammite woman's son (2 Kings 4:17-36) and a few other too!!!

What gives here string? I'm beginning to think that flying up to heaven and coming back from the dead was no big thing a couple thousand years ago.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

Matthew 27:51-53 (New King James Version)

Matthew 27:51-53

New King James Version (NKJV)

51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

Acts 9:36-41

New King James Version (NKJV)
Dorcas Restored to Life

36 At Joppa there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which is translated Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did. 37 But it happened in those days that she became sick and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. 38 And since Lydda was near Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent two men to him, imploring him not to delay in coming to them. 39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he had come, they brought him to the upper room. And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them. 40 But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. 41 Then he gave her his hand and lifted her up; and when he had called the saints and widows, he presented her alive.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

2 Kings 13:21

New King James Version (NKJV)

21 So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2013)

BH - in post #110 did you max out the allowable charactars and have to continue in post #111? Just curious, that may be a record!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> BH - in post #110 did you max out the allowable charactars and have to continue in post #111? Just curious, that may be a record!



Nah, no record, done that many a time on here Ted.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nah, no record, done that many a time on here Ted.



So you DID max the number of allowable characters?

If so, well done! I have reached the limits of MS excel before, but that was for work with a ridiculously large data set. That pales in comparison to actual words I want to type. Impressive


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> So you DID max the number of allowable characters?
> 
> If so, well done! I have reached the limits of MS excel before, but that was for work with a ridiculously large data set. That pales in comparison to actual words I want to type. Impressive



I've done it before.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I've done it before.



I am sure you will do it again.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> I am sure you will do it again.



It is easier to cut/paste an article rather than post a link that no one will take the time to click on.
But if you have any information actually about the OP topic please feel free to get into the conversation. If all you have about the resurrection is a reply about a long post......well.......


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is easier to cut/paste an article rather than post a link that no one will take the time to click on.
> But if you have any information actually about the OP topic please feel free to get into the conversation. If all you have about the resurrection is a reply about a long post......well.......



Sometimes at work, people leave me a voicemail that consumes the allotted voicemail time constraints, and then they call me back to continue. These messages are almost always a waste of time. The folks that leave these incredibly long messages have trouble expressing themselves.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Sometimes at work, people leave me a voicemail that consumes the allotted voicemail time constraints, and then they call me back to continue. These messages are almost always a waste of time. The folks that leave these incredibly long messages have trouble expressing themselves.



When I am going to refer to an article it is better to just list the entire article so I want read is not just a snippet and it shows it is not taken out of context.


----------

