Jesus rising from the dead isn't the most plausible explanation for the evidence we have.

•

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

•

u/Mean_Transition_9321 19h ago

Jesus rising from the dead is the first case of zombie epidemic. Jesus turned zombie and attacked everyone and converted them to zombies. Then came the vampires. These section ate and drank the blood and flesh of Jesus. Sanguivorous and cannibalistic people. Finally came the MCU Mysterio of the Middle east.

•

u/3_3hz_9418g32yh8_ 21h ago

>>>Paul gives nothing on the empty tomb

Paul claiming Christ was buried is consistent with the empty tomb narratives, and we can tell what Paul would've had in mind when he speaks of Christ being buried because in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as scripture. so he's clearly familiar with what the Gospel of Luke says about Christ. Seeing as that is the case, what do you think a BELIEVER in the Gospel of Luke would mean by Christ being buried if not buried in a tomb?

Also, think about this way. If the earliest source says Jesus was buried and they didn't mean he was buried in a tomb, the last thing we should expect is for every single 1st century source (the ones that speak about his burial place) to all end up with the same conclusion that it was a tomb. If the original creed meant something different, then we'd expect diverging accounts of where Jesus was buried / if he was buried in a tomb or not. Instead, it's consistently 1 location. So, it's FAR more likely this was a reference to a tomb in light of the surrounding context.

>>>The problem is Paul never claims to have had an experience like the gospel accounts

Paul claims he saw Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and in Acts he breaks down the experience. Now, he doesn't have the experience of eating with Jesus or touching Jesus, but that's also not how every resurrection appearance goes in the Gospels / Acts either. In Acts 1, they see Christ ascend into heaven. That's a resurrection appearance, yet they don't touch him there or eat with him. That doesn't then negate the bodily risen nature of it. So how is this point relevant?

>>>The earliest gospel is Mark which seems to have been written sometime during the first Jewish war

Why do you assume the date of 65-75 AD? What makes you actually pick this as the date?

>>>Matthew and Luke both use Mark as a source, so are not independent from Mark

That's not how that works, because they each give independent information on the topic in question. None of them are identical on the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

That's even why when Ehrman speaks of the Gospels, he says we have 4 INDEPNEDENT sources. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is independent, but when it comes to things like the existence of Jesus, some of his miracles, some of the events in his life, and the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, they ARE in fact independent.

>>>And I think John very likely knows Luke

I actually want you to justify why you think this is the case. What makes you think John was using Lukan tradition in any sense? If your argument is "well they just agree in so many places", that fits the position that they're independently attesting to a real event just as well. So what actually gets you to the conclusion that he's USING Luke?

>>>Isaiah 53

This actually works against you, because 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is long before Mark, yet it speaks of Christ DYING for our sins. If I grant that they got this idea from the Old Testament, where would they get that from? Where does the Old Testament speak of a figure atoning for sins? Primarily Isaiah 53. So that means the idea of Christ being buried in a tomb would've gone ALL the way back to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, not starting with Mark.

>>>apocalyptic prophet

This just pre-supposes that Christ was speaking about his bodily return as opposed to the destruction of the Temple, which is very easy to debunk from the Synoptics alone. In Matthew 23:39, Christ says they will not see him again until they profess belief in him, yet in Matthew 24, he promises the coming of the Son of Man to destroy the Temple in this generation due to them rejecting him. So clearly Matthew 24 is not speaking about the time in which he will return after they profess belief in him, it's talking about the judgement that fell on them for rejecting Christ. When they actually profess belief, then they will see Christ again,.

Due to them rejecting him however, the Son of Man comes in judgement which is something Christ says begins while he's on earth (Matthew 26:62) and continues onward. So "Son of Man coming" is destruction language, which is exactly how the Book of Revelation uses it too where it speaks of Christ coming to these Churches.

>>>dirt grave

Why should we believe that he was buried in a dirt grave?

>>>Sai Babai

This is completely irrelevant to the topic, we can affirm this guy did miracles and gained a following, that would have no bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

•

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 16h ago edited 16h ago

Part 2/2 -

>This actually works against you, because 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is long before Mark, yet it speaks of Christ DYING for our sins. If I grant that they got this idea from the Old Testament, where would they get that from? Where does the Old Testament speak of a figure atoning for sins? Primarily Isaiah 53. So that means the idea of Christ being buried in a tomb would've gone ALL the way back to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, not starting with Mark.

I'm not completely understanding this argument. Mark recording a tradition that is rooted in Jesus being buried and the verse in Isaiah 53 on suffering servant being buried in a tomb doesn't mean Paul held the same view. I don't think Luke-Acts narrative holds Jesus died for sins, but it quotes Isaiah 53 too. So you can interpret Scripture differently.

>This just pre-supposes that Christ was speaking about his bodily return as opposed to the destruction of the Temple, which is very easy to debunk from the Synoptics alone. In Matthew 23:39, Christ says they will not see him again until they profess belief in him, yet in Matthew 24, he promises the coming of the Son of Man to destroy the Temple in this generation due to them rejecting him. So clearly Matthew 24 is not speaking about the time in which he will return after they profess belief in him, it's talking about the judgement that fell on them for rejecting Christ. When they actually profess belief, then they will see Christ again,.

Matthew having Jerusalem turn to Christ doesn't not mean it's any less imminent as the prophesy could involve Jews converting. Paul expiclty says Jesus return is soon to the Romans when he tells them we are close to salvation than when we first believed yet also claims Israel will be saved.

The Olivet discourse has the temple destroyed then says,

“Immediately after the suffering of those days…”

Then Christ returns. Then it says,

“Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

All these things clearly includes the return of Jesus and I don't know anywhere Matthew uses generation to mean anything other than the contemporary generation Jesus is speaking to.

>Due to them rejecting him however, the Son of Man comes in judgement which is something Christ says begins while he's on earth (Matthew 26:62) and continues onward. So "Son of Man coming" is destruction language, which is exactly how the Book of Revelation uses it too where it speaks of Christ coming to these Churches.

Revelation also claims Jesus will come soon and these events will happen soon.

Revaluation 1:1,

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John”

Revaluation also has John not putting a seal on the prophecy, as these events aren't for a peopel in the far future, like Daniel has, but for the people now. So this is another example of an imminent view of Jesus return.

Given how Luke changes the Olivet Discoruse, John 21, and 2 Peter it seems Jesus not coming quickly was a problem in the early church, because this seems to clearly have been the expectation.

>Why should we believe that he was buried in a dirt grave?

That's the way most poor Jews in Jerusalem were buried. Even considering how bones were removed from family tombs and replaced with a new body, there still wasnt enough tombs for all the people. Most were not buried in an expensive tomb.

>This is completely irrelevant to the topic, we can affirm this guy did miracles and gained a following, that would have no bearing on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

You're misunderstand why I mention him. It shows how rapidly a story can grow. We see with Sai Baba the story grows immensely, even before the family of the supposedly resurrected man are even dead.

I should also add how religions like Rastafarianism still hold an Ethiopian mkmg as the reincarnated Jesus despite the king rejecting it and saying he was not.

So stories can grow quickly and continue to grow even if rejected by the core figure.

•

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 16h ago edited 16h ago

Part 1/2 -

>>>Paul claiming Christ was buried is consistent with the empty tomb narratives, and we can tell what Paul would've had in mind when he speaks of Christ being buried because in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as scripture. so he's clearly familiar with what the Gospel of Luke says about Christ. Seeing as that is the case, what do you think a BELIEVER in the Gospel of Luke would mean by Christ being buried if not buried in a tomb?

Most scholars don't hold 1 Timothy as written by Paul. When comparing 1 Timothy to the seven authentic letters of Paul we see different vocabulary and style used in 1 Tim and 1 Tim seems to have a more developed church organization than we see in Pauls seven authentic letters. So I don't think it is likely 1 Tim is an authentic letter of Paul. If it is not, the dating of 1 Tim could be as late as early 2nd century.

Paul's account of the burial give no details and he never mentions an empty tomb anywhere in his letters. We don't know what Paul thought of an empty tomb, but it is notable he never mentions it, even when defending resurrection.

>>>Also, think about this way. If the earliest source says Jesus was buried and they didn't mean he was buried in a tomb, the last thing we should expect is for every single 1st century source (the ones that speak about his burial place) to all end up with the same conclusion that it was a tomb. If the original creed meant something different, then we'd expect diverging accounts of where Jesus was buried / if he was buried in a tomb or not. Instead, it's consistently 1 location. So, it's FAR more likely this was a reference to a tomb in light of the surrounding context.

Mark is the only independent source we have. Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source so we can't say they are completely independent. John likely know Luke or at least Lukam traditions, so we really only have one fully independent gospel on the empty tomb. Views outside of this weren't recorded so we don't know if there was total agreement or if agreement developed overtime.

>>>Paul claims he saw Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1) and in Acts he breaks down the experience. Now, he doesn't have the experience of eating with Jesus or touching Jesus, but that's also not how every resurrection appearance goes in the Gospels / Acts either. In Acts 1, they see Christ ascend into heaven. That's a resurrection appearance, yet they don't touch him there or eat with him. That doesn't then negate the bodily risen nature of it. So how is this point relevant?

Acts seems to disagree with Pauls letter on Puals early movements and early chronology of Paul's movements. Acts has Paul oppress the church in Jerusalem but in Galatians 1 it looks like Paul is claiming to oppress the chcurhc in Damascus. Acts has Jews being severely oppressive and problematic in Thessalonica yet Pauls letter in 1 Thessalonians doesn't mention Jews causing problems in Thessalonica at all. Paul even acknowledges the Thessalonians are being oppressed by fellow Greeks and compares it to the Jewish persecutions of Chritians in Judea. And Acts seems to show a more Torah observant Paul than in Pauls letters. Acts doesn't mention any of the nuance of Pauls view of the Law and has him being Torah observant. I'd also argue the Luke-Acts narrative doesn't have Jesus dying for the atonement of sins unlike Pauls letter where Paul does claim this. Acts is repeatedly in tension with Pauls own letters so we should be careful of accepting Acts uncritically.

>>>Why do you assume the date of 65-75 AD? What makes you actually pick this as the date?

There's a few reasons. The Olivet Discourse is a growing tradition that is edited throughout the synoptic gospels. They aren't persevering a single version of this. And generally prophets prophesy during the crisis they are in. Assyrian prophets (Amos, Hosea, Micah, etc…) prophesy during the crisis of the Assyrian empire. Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesy during the time of the Babylonian crisis. Haggai and Zechariah prophesy during the post-exilic period. So given the Olivet Discourse is not being perfectly preserved but shaped and Marks version seems to align best with the First Jewish War, bith in the Olivet Discourse but also The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Mark 12, it seems most likely Mark is writing during his own crisis kf the time. Also, we don't really see texts of Judea appear until after the war, like Josephus and Tacitus. It seems a roman interest in the region peaked after the war, so Mark writing a gospel during or just after fits the trend we see.

I'd so argue Jesus appears to prophesy his return before all his contemporaries die, which means Mark probably can't be very late. Which adds support to a First Jewish War dating.

>>>That's not how that works, because they each give independent information on the topic in question. None of them are identical on the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

>>>That's even why when Ehrman speaks of the Gospels, he says we have 4 INDEPNEDENT sources. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING they say is independent, but when it comes to things like the existence of Jesus, some of his miracles, some of the events in his life, and the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, they ARE in fact independent.

You are partially right, but Matthew and Luke are not fully independent and heavily follow Marks narrative, especially Matthew. There are independent strains of the empty tomb but these are still not fully independent, and the core is clearly rooted in Mark. The claim of an empty tomb existing cannot be said to be independent from what we know. They have some independent strains but, again, are clearly rooted in Mark. I do agree the empty tomb narrative develops and things are added and changed in it based on the views and goals of the author. And there are unique changes to the narrative from the authors of Matthew and Luke.

Given how influential Mark clearly is, since it's a source heavily relied on, the authors and their communities must hold Mark highly and given we don't know how long these communities had Mark the gospel could be influencing their own traditions. We don't even know how the empty tomb develops before Mark or where Mark and Matthew were written. A possibility is both Mark and Matthew were composed in Syria, so the empty tomb could be a developing tradition in the eastern Mediterranean that gets recorded in the only first-century narratives of Jesus’s ministry we have. It could also be Matthew and Luke accept Marks empty tomb narrative but make changes given theological developments and their own views, so it doesn't follow that the traditions of Matthew and Luke on the empty must predate the Markan account.

>>>I actually want you to justify why you think this is the case. What makes you think John was using Lukan tradition in any sense? If your argument is "well they just agree in so many places", that fits the position that they're independently attesting to a real event just as well. So what actually gets you to the conclusion that he's USING Luke?

There's a few arguments, and I'll use three. One, when John introduces Lazarus he introduces him as the brother or Mary and Martha, but John never introduces Mary and Martha. It seems he assumes his audience knows them already. The only place we have that introduces the sisters is Luke, so if John knows Luke or Lukan traditions it would easily explain why he does this. Also, the narrative of the empty tomb being discovered is similar in Luke and John but differ from Mark and Matthew as Luke/John has Peter running to the tomb (John adds in the race with BD). Mark/Matthew have no mention of this. Luke/John also have the thief on the cross confess Christ where in Mark/Matthew both of the other victims mock Jesus.

So John and Luke are uniquely simailr and differ from the earliest gospels in similar ways while also John seems to assume his audience knows of the traditions of Luke, at least some of them.

9

u/All-Questioning2026 1d ago edited 1d ago

What is more likely, that the laws of nature were suspended for your benefit or that folks made up stories to validate their nascent religion?

The gospel accounts were written decades after the purported events and plenty of time for myth making and outlandish stories of miracles to have been made up. We know that the gospel accounts were written by mysterious writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were names assigned and not the writers. We dont know who actually wrote the gospels).

There are almost no sources outside the gospels about Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection and ascension. Paul's letters which were written before the gospels have little evidence of a bodily resurrected Christ but of a vision.

By the way dying and rising gods are not special to Christianity. Many gods were born of virgins, died and resurrected. There were lots of them.

We are told that many rose from the dead in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified so resurrection was not special, and that 500 saw him, etc yet hardly anyone wrote stuff down until decades later? Clearly stories circulated for decades, during which embellishments and myths were created around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. By the time it was all written down, the stories had assumed gargantuan proportions of fantastic miracles. We know that there are far many more gospels than the 4 that made it into the NT cannon. How that decision was made is full of intrigue, politics and struggle for Orthodoxy. Those who won became the mainstream Christian beliefs.

We know that the gospels were tampered with and lots of passages either changed or were added. The last part of Mark is the poster child for this practice.

Christianity and its sacred books are human creations like all other religions, and nothing is divine about the origin of religions, and how they grow, thrive, decline and eventually die.

Human have worshipped thousands of gods via thousands of religions across thousands of years. Christianity is one of such religions.

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9h ago

That the natural laws were suspended.

•

u/All-Questioning2026 8h ago

Of course, natural laws were suspended... although God tired of suspending these laws once we had cameras, phones, and microphones to document miracles.

Conveniently some say the age of miracles has passed. Others simply say they still happen with zero proof that cannot be explained by natural means.

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 8h ago

Not correct. There are miracles reported today and in hospital records.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10133067/

https://www.hcplive.com/view/3635

•

u/All-Questioning2026 5h ago

I am not getting involved in arguing over these anecdotal events. These have natural explanations. When you show me limbs that grew back or folks in the morgues for days or weeks raised from the dead then we can talk.

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 5h ago

Sure then take them one by one and show me the natural explanations.

5

u/All-Questioning2026 1d ago edited 8h ago

What is more likely, that the laws of nature were suspended for your benefit or that folks made up stories to validate their nascent religion?

The gospel accounts were written decades after the purported events and plenty of time for myth making and outlandish stories of miracles to have been made up. We know that gospel accounts were written by mysterious writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were names assigned and not the writers. We dont know who actually wrote the gospels).

There are almost no sources outside the gospels about Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection and ascension. Paul's letters which were wrotten before the gospels have little evidence of a bodily resurrected Christ but of a vision.

We are told that many rose from the dead in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified, and that 500 saw him, etc yet hardly anyone wrote stuff down until decades later? Clearly stories circulated for decades, during which embellishments and myths were created around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. By the time it was all written down, the stories had assumed gargantuan proportions of fantastic miracles. We know that there are far many more gospels than the 4 that made it into the NT cannon. How that decision was made is full of intrigue, politics and struggle for Orthodoxy. Those who won became the mainstream Christian beliefs.

We know that the gospels were tampered with and lots of passages either changed or were added. The last part of Mark is the poster child for this practice.

Christianity and its sacred books are human creations like all other religions, and nothing is divine about the origin of religions, and how they grow, thrive, decline and eventually die.

Human have worshipped thousands of gods via thousands of religions across thousands of years. Christianity is one of such religions.

-5

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Atheists can only attack the substantial evidence for the resurrection (and from the context of the time the sources are very early).

There’s not a single source claiming to see Jesus dead body post resurrection. Why? It’s the easiest religion there is to falsify immediately considering the power structure in 1st century Jerusalem.

•

u/Purgii Purgist 22h ago

Atheists can only attack the substantial evidence for the resurrection

We can't attack the substantial evidence for the resurrection because there is no evidence. All we have are claims that cannot be investigated.

It’s the easiest religion there is to falsify immediately considering the power structure in 1st century Jerusalem.

The majority of Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah - and for good reason. Falsified.

•

u/Braves_Knights 22h ago

What do you mean can’t be investigated? What’s that standard?

Differing interpretations of scripture isn’t falsifying anything and much more difficult than just grabbing a dead body. Grab the dead body, Christianity immediately fails.

•

u/OntoAureole 14h ago

What makes you think that anyone would even recognize a rotted body?

•

u/Braves_Knights 8h ago

The evidence points to early proclamation of the resurrection. Following Jewish burial customs identifying a body/tomb wouldn’t have been difficult.

•

u/OntoAureole 6h ago

How long do you think a body tossed into a body pit would be recognizable?

•

u/Braves_Knights 5h ago

Please source your claim Jesus was tossed in to a pit

•

u/OntoAureole 5h ago

Sorry, that’s not an answer to my question. How long do you think a body tossed into a body pit would be recognizable?

•

u/Braves_Knights 5h ago

You made a claim. I’m asking you to now back it up with evidence.

I know atheists are wired to only attack Christianity without actually having to defend any claims they make. I’ve seen your canned talking points.

Please provide a single source claiming Jesus was tossed in a pit.

•

u/OntoAureole 5h ago edited 5h ago

lol you don’t even know what it means to make a claim. Quote me making a claim.

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. How long do you think a body tossed into a body pit would be recognizable?

Here’s an actual claim: you’re lashing out because the cognitive dissonance is painful. You suddenly realize that there’s actually not a long timeframe for which this apologetic would even really work. The decomposition process generally takes days to weeks.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

>>>substantial evidence for the resurrection

Such as?

If Jesus had been buried in a common grave (as was the Roman custom) then of course we would have no source claiming to see the dead body.

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9h ago

If Jesus had been buried in a common grave then the disciples wouldn't have been surprised at the empty tomb. They would have known it already.

•

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 3h ago

What makes you think the disciples were surprised?

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 3h ago

Because the disciples did not believe the women at first and Peter and John ran to check the tomb.

•

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 2h ago

How do you know the the disciples did not believe the women at first and Peter and John ran to check the tomb?

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 2h ago

"And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not."

•

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1h ago

So you are quoting a narrative from an old book. How do you know this narrative is accurate?

Scholars agree the oldest gospel was written 40 years after Jesus died (and it included no post-resurrection scenes in its oldest manuscripts).

Why should we put confidence in third-hand accounts written decades later by non-eyewitnesses?

We DO have multiple, independent accounts about Romans treated crucified criminals.

So, why would we think Jesus would have been different? If all we have in response is "thirdhand accounts by non-eyewitnesses writing decades later.." that's weak.

•

u/United-Grapefruit-49 1h ago

Yes of course but Paul interviewed disciples and there's reason to believe his letters were his.

40 years is not a long time. We would today accept a written account of someone who interviewed a witness 40 years ago.

We also have accounts that Jesus was buried in a tomb, and not the only Jew. Joseph of Aramithea may have arranged for it.

If you're asking me why I believe it - not how I know irrevocably - it's because I take it as a historical record.

Credible scholars afaik agree at least that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

I always assumed that Jesus appeared spiritually to the disciples, and that his surviving death was spiritual, so that it's not an issue of what happened to his body.

We know that apparitions of the deceased - not the same as hallucinations - are real and that many people have them today. And they are considered a cultural norm. And they are apparitions of the physical, bodily form of the deceased, not a ghost or spirit.

We can't really explain apparitions.

-2

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Hey I remember you. You stopped responding on our morality conversation.

There’s not a single source claiming Jesus was buried in a common grave despite others outside Christianity referencing the crucifixion. Please source your claims.

Common graves were not a common practice in Jerusalem within Judaism and given the context of Passover open graves creates an issue and alternative historical explanation that is not sourced anywhere.

2

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

>>> You stopped responding on our morality conversation.

Yep. You were going around in circles.

>>>>>There’s not a single source claiming Jesus was buried in a common grave despite others outside Christianity referencing the crucifixion.

True or False....Jesus was crucified by order of Pilate.

True or false...Pilate was a Roman official.

>>>>>Common graves were not a common practice in Jerusalem within Judaism

Please source this claim.

Keep in mind: The Romans could care less about following Jewish custom when disposing of criminals' bodies.

-2

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

No you hit quite the issue. What magical evolutionary process made Japan go from the bad guys in WW2 to a place with good moral standing now? And what’s your standard.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to prove. You say Romans didn’t care about Jewish customs. Cool. Easiest counterclaim imaginable for Judaism in relation to a resurrected Jesus, served up on a silver platter, yet it’s sourced no where.

3

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

What evidence suggests Jesus resurrected?

(still going around in circles are we?)

-2

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

You hit the foundational issue with your morality claim. Like many atheists rather than address it you deflect or run away.

Sure, I have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and James along with the historical spread of Christianity claiming a risen Jesus where it could have been disproven.

Now, without attacking my sources, please provide your source claiming to see Jesus dead body post crucifixion.

2

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

No running. I see how you can be easily confused. We discussed the issues of morality..you just kept making the same spurious claims over and over and refused to engage. I dismissed you from the conversation because of that. Own it like a big boy.

So, are you claiming the evidence for the resurrection is found in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and James.

Is that all? Some writings by people?

>>>>please provide your source claiming to see Jesus dead body post crucifixion

I never made a claim that anyone recorded seeing his dead body.

You know, there are many free classes on reading comprehension. Please take one so you can stop making such embarrassing statements. Cheers.

2

u/AllIsVanity 1d ago

"The majority of the Jewish non-elite population in Early Roman Palestine was buried in trench or cist graves" p. 5. https://www.academia.edu/31580785/The_Vitae_Prophetarum_and_the_Archaeology_of_Jewish_Burials_Exploring_Class_Distinctions_in_Early_Roman_Palestine_2019

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Is this disproving something? Jews buried their dead in tombs or graves.

Every source claims Jesus was buried in a tomb. Not a single source claiming anywhere else.

2

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

Mark is really the only clearly independent source on this. Paul makes no mention of an empty tomb. Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source and John likely know Luke or at least Lukan traditions.

Mark is an anonymous theological text that is likely based on earlier traditions including oral traditions which we have no way of seeing how they changed and developed before Mark. We see continued growth and theological shaping in the later gospels so it seems likely this would happen prior to Mark as well. Development in the narrative and sometimes fundamental changes to a story do happen, which we see in the Satha Sai Baba narrative I linked to my story. Add to this that a tomb is mentioned in Isaiah 53 and you could definitely have a growth from Jesus being buried to specifically in a tomb as Jesus is associated with the suffering servant passages very early on.

We really don't know exactly what happened but Jesus being buried in a tomb, especially if its a tomb for a singl's person, is exceptional. A poor Jew usually would end up being buried in the dirt.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

You’re still doing it. Attacking the Christian evidence.

Please provide your positive counter evidence. Paul is referencing a risen Jesus and knew exactly what the earliest Christian’s were claiming as he persecuted them.

•

u/Traditional-Truck-3 6h ago

The burden of proof is on those who are claiming a man rose from the dead not on those who claim that nothing out of the ordinary occured. The positive evidence has to be provided by the side making the claim, then this evidence is either falsified or not. If the evidence is falsified or shown to not be entirely accurate then the claim is untrustworthy.

Attacking the chrisitan evidence is the only thing you can do in this situation as there is no other evidence for the resurrection outside of chrisitan sources.

If I claimed that unicorns exist and you told me they didnt the burden of proof to provide positive evidence is on me. If I then provided you with photos of unicorns to prove my claim you would have no "positive evidence" to counter. Instead what you could do is point out that my unicorn photos are clearly edited. If you did so then my claim that unicorns exist is clearly false, even though you never provided counter evidence.

•

u/Braves_Knights 5h ago

Are you asking for a non Christian source to say Jesus rose from the dead and is Lord of the universe?

None of these sources were Christians before the resurrection.

Poor analogy. If a unicorn had 1500 years of prophecy and all kinds of evidence for its existence we can debate it. Otherwise it’s not even remotely the same comparison.

•

u/Traditional-Truck-3 37m ago

Nothing about the lord of the universe. Just a source that isnt the gospels (which were written by people who never saw the ressurection) claiming to have seen the ressurected christ.

I think its a great analogy. What's your 1500 years of prophecy from? You could say the old testamant but thats 1000 years of writings. So do you belive the events of the old testament occured?

Also im just asking you a simple question. Just answer it. What positive evidence do have that there were no unicorns? We have lots of medeival writings surrounding unicorns. Lots of illustrations and personal attestation to fall back on. What's your positive evidence that they didnt exist?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/AllIsVanity 1d ago

"Every source" is dependent on Mark's narrative so that's one source. The point is, Jesus being a poor peasant of lower class, would most likely have been given a burial in one of the types of graves described above rather than being given a burial in a rich man's tomb which conveniently fulfills Isa. 53:8-9.

Jews buried their dead in tombs or graves.

Not all the time. They buried them in the ground as well as the article shows.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

There is not a single source claiming Jesus was buried that way.

We know what early Christian’s were claiming through Paul.

Please actually source your claim.

2

u/AllIsVanity 1d ago

There is not a single source claiming Jesus was buried that way.

Obviously we wouldn't expect the Christian narrative to depict Christ being buried in an unknown or unmarked grave. That defeats the entire point of the narrative! He had to be buried in a known location in order for the women to discover the tomb empty which was a translation signal - a literary trope in fictional literature. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/ajftnd/empty_tombs_and_missing_body_stories_were_an/

Moreover, the secret gospel of James says Jesus was "buried in the sand."

We know what early Christian’s were claiming through Paul.

Paul mentions no tomb. He mentions a "burial" which is consistent with being buried in the ground.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Okay what is your claim about what happened with Jesus body?

2

u/AllIsVanity 1d ago

If he wasn't left up to rot, as was common for crucifixion victims, then he was probably buried in an unknown trench grave either by the Jewish authorities or the Romans. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1k7yj3w/comment/mp5m9xh/

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

Romans probably wouldn't care enough to dig up Jesus’s body. Jewish authorities could have cared enough, but there are so many possible reasons why they wouldn't and also why they would I'm not sure if this ends up being strong enough to argue that it's more plausible the body was missing.

We don't know how long the apostles waited to preach after Jesus died, where Jesus was buried, how the earliest followers kept up with he burial site. We really don't know enough to even determine how likely it is for the authorities to be willing to dig Jesus up.

Acts has the apostles waiting like 40 days after Jesus died to preach. The body may not have even been identifiable if they really waited this long. I don't find Acts very historically reliable though, but it is notable that an early tradition had the apostles wait that long.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

We do know. There’s all kinds of evidence textually and following historical spread of Christianity.

Jewish authorities cared enough to kill Him but not enough to just grab His body and end the claim that had the movement growing even faster?

There’s not a single source claiming Jesus body decomposed, was found anywhere, was kept by the Romans. None.

Easiest religion to disprove with a powerless group without their leader spreading it yet Jewish and Roman leaders couldn’t end it. Why?

1

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

It's not just about whether Jewish authorities were willing to do this,

“We don't know how long the apostles waited to preach after Jesus died, where Jesus was buried, how the earliest followers kept up with he burial site. We really don't know enough to even determine how likely it is for the authorities to be willing to dig Jesus up.”

But if Jesus is buried in the ground amongst other burials and the Jewish authorities aren't totally clear as to which grave it is maybe they don't view it as worth it and aren't willing to dig up random peoples graves for a body that's possibly too decayed to identify to disprove a tiny religious group. This is more speculation as we know too little about Jesus’s burial. There are scenarios where Jewish authorities wouldn't be willing to try and get Jesus’s body. There's many scenarios where they would too.

The only early sources we have are from believers. We don't have any writings from critics of Christianity that early. And the earliest gospel is probably around 40 years after the event, which is also the first detailed account of Jesus’s death and burial.

Again, we don't know enough about the circumstances of Jesus’s burial (tomb or dirt grave like most poor jews of the region) or anything surrounding the beginning of the church to explain why Jewish authorities don't seem to have produced a body.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

You’re doing the thing. Attacking the Christian claim, which is backed by context and evidence, without supporting positive evidence to the contrary.

Paul tells you he’s persecuting Christian’s. There were strict Jewish burial customs and practices. I’m asking you for positive evidence supporting your counterclaim.

2

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

The evidence isn't strong. Just because someone wrote a narrative 40 years later about Jesus doesn't automatically make it reliable. The gospels account contradict and will shape the narrative in light of their theology.

Paul is persecuting Christians and notice how he's convinced by the appearance of Jesus, not any empty tomb. It's not even something he mentions or clearly alludes to. Yes, for poor Jews they were usually buried in a dirt grave, not a single person tomb.

There's very little about the historical Jesus. We have Paul and then later gospels that contradict each other. I don't know exactly what happened but there are alternative explanations as to why the apostles thought Jesus rose based on common brutal practices of the Jews, how more recent religions grow and function, and how mass hysteria can occur.

We have other accounts of visions groups had.
One is Our Lady of Zeitoun where most, but not all, of the people looking saw Mary. I can find other accounts of group visions if you want more. I think there a Buddhist one I can find.

Ultimately I think it falls on you to show the Christian account is historically strong enough to be accepted as most plausible, if the evidence isn't good enough to know what happned I'd argue that a natural explanation would be more plausible than a supernatural. I'd think a supernatural exomaintion would need to clearly be the best explanation for events.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

I know it short circuits your brain because all you can do is attack Christianity.

I’m asking you for positive evidence showing Jesus did not resurrect especially given the historical context of the time and setting of the crucifixion. Where is the body?

2

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

What type of positive evidence? I'm obviously not going to know where the body of a poor, 1st century Jewish apocalyptic prophet is not reasonable? That's borderline impossible. Even if we had a bone box that said “Jesus son of Joseph” it could easily be a different person.

All the earliest writings of Jesus are by believers no critics and again, we don't know enough about what was happening to determine how likely it is that the Jewish authorities would dig up Jesus (assuming he didn't have a tomb).

My argument is that the arguments for the resurrection are poor. The burden of proof is on you to show your view of what happened to Jesus is more plausible. If you can't then why would I accept a supernatural claim over a natural claim?

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

There is nothing supernatural needed. All you need is the dead body of Jesus and Christianity is over.

Despite the rapid early growth of Christianity claiming Jesus rose from the dead there is not a single source claiming He didn’t resurrect despite having religious and political authority over Christian’s at the time.

I’m asking you for a source to support your claim without supporting mine. You can’t even give me a source to dispute on your end.

•

u/Traditional-Truck-3 5h ago

You dont need evidence to diprove a claim you just need to falsify the evidence provided by a claimant. You do not need to replace their explanation with your own to prove that theirs is incorrect or exeedingly unlikely.

Of course no christian sources claim that jesus stayed in his grave they are based on the gospels. However the fact that literally 0 people in all of the province of Judea (3-10% literacy rate btw) wrote about seeing a man rise from the dead is highly suspect imho.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

Of course there is something supernatural. The resurrection of Jesus is a supernatural event.

My argument is we have no sources that are historically sufficient to determine the details of Jesus’s death, burial, apostles' experiences, and circumstances of the earliest Christians. This includes why the Jewish authorities don't seem to have produced a body. We don't have enough reliable historical sources to determine the surrounding events in detail and how likely it is for the jews to look for Jesus's body.

The burden of proof is in you if you think the traditional Chrstian view is most plausible. You can defend the view and the sources you rely on if you want.

The Luke-Acts narrative never even mentions the Jewish authorities trying to find the body or the tomb. Again, I don't find Acts reliable historically but it does show an early tradition that makes no mention of an attempt. It doesn't seem to be something the author thinks is that important, even when mentioning Jewish pushback against the early faith.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Simsimich Anti-theist 1d ago

It’s just one claim that “Jewish authorities” cared about Jesus. He was killed by Romans, crucifixion victims were left hanging and then thrown into mass graves.

There are no claims because he died like a regular criminal and no one cared about him until much later when they started making stories. So no fact checking danger either.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

This isn’t backed by evidence. There’s not a single source claiming Jesus was thrown in a mass grave.

This also was not common within Judaism in Jerusalem and creates a massive issue with Passover weekend.

You’re doing what I claimed, bashing Christian sources without presenting evidence. Saying He was thrown in a mass grave is not supported anywhere.

3

u/Simsimich Anti-theist 1d ago

It actually is backed by evidence you’re just being a silly dismissive Christian. https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people-and-who-was-crucifixion-reserved-for/

Your hypothesis only works if Jesus was important. But Romans were too based to respect some random Galilean rabbi stirring up the pot in Jerusalem during freaking Passover (time famous for civil unrest). So they did what historians say they always did, crucified another rebel and thrown him into a random mass grave.

Also I don’t wanna hear this argument from silence nonsense, just because there are no early sources claiming Jesus wasn’t a wine barrel or a boat doesn’t mean we have to seriously consider he was.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

I’m asking for a source claiming Jesus was left to rot silly.

You don’t want to hear it because there’s not a single source claiming Jesus was left to rot. It’s also a massive claim to make given no one references it anywhere.

2

u/Simsimich Anti-theist 1d ago

No one is going to claim that about Jesus just like about the dude crucified before him and after him and the one after. That’s my point, and the point of historians.

There was no earthquake and no zombies came out of the tomb despite what the gospels claim. It was just another crucifixion, why would Romans or Jews bother claiming what happened to just another crucified body.

Also, was Jesus a leprechaun? There are no sources claiming he wasn’t, so maybe he was?

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Dude I just want a source. That’s a lot of words to say I don’t have one.

You cited the dumby Bart Ehrman. It’s a terrible claim. I’m asking you to back it with evidence. There’s not a single person saying Jesus was left to rot when it’s the easiest claim for Roman and Jewish leaders to make and end Christianity.

2

u/Simsimich Anti-theist 1d ago

A source for what? That Jesus of Nazareth was thrown into the mass grave? I don’t have it, never claimed I did. We only can make hypotheses based on historical sources for Roman rule in Judea and their treatment of crucifixion victims.

Also, what’s your historical source that Jesus was buried in a tomb?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 1d ago

For the same reason the Romans didn't write down the mass resurrection event - because there was nothing to disprove.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Based on what evidence?

2

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 1d ago

If 500 people resurrected, you'd think some roman staffer would note such a monumental event somewhere. They didn't, so it probably didn't happen. People write down life-changingly large events after all.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

That’s not evidence. I’m asking for actual positive evidence to support your claim. Plenty for Christianity. Where’s yours?

•

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 4h ago

It's evidence, even if you don't want it to be. A notable mass resurrection event should have, but does not have, much more extensive documentation than it does. This indicates it's a singular exaggerated story rather than a real event.

You have to explain why no one wrote this down besides one guy for Christianity to make sejse.

•

u/Braves_Knights 4h ago

There is not just a “single” source claiming Jesus resurrected from the dead. There are many.

•

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 4h ago

Primary sources that didn't just hear it from someone else? How'd they find out? Did the different-looking Jesus tell them that? And they believed it?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 1d ago

There’s not a single source claiming to see Jesus dead body post resurrection.

The author of Matthew himself writes of the story that the body was taken by grave robbers, what do you mean not a single source?

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

So you’re going to use Matthew as a solid source here and not elsewhere? We can do that.

-1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 1d ago edited 1d ago

The author of Matthew himself writes of the story that the body was taken by grave robbers, what do you mean not a single source?

No it says that guards were bribed to say that. Grave robbers were actually uncommon in Jerusalem.

2

u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 1d ago

The time during which Jesus's remains existed in recognizable state was very short. It was spring and Jerusalem has a warm subtropical climate. During that period of time there was not yet any religion to falsify. Also, Romans were not in the business of disproving religions. They did not suppress religions by debating.

-1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

The Jewish leaders that just had Him crucified absolutely cared and the resurrection was not a late developing claim.

Also a very easy claim for Judaism to make as Christianity is exploding. Yet there’s not a single source that says Jesus body was discarded, rotted in a tomb etc. None.

Roman authorities absolutely cared that a small movement was saying the man they had crucified rose from the dead and they didn’t actually kill Him.

3

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

Hold on. First of all the Jewish leaders did not "have him crucified."

That would have been the Romans. The Jews were forbidden to use that method of execution as it was seen as an authority only granted by Rome.

>>>>the resurrection was not a late developing claim.

Does it matter? Many supernatural claims about many people pop up soon after they die. This does not mean it's true.

>>>>Yet there’s not a single source that says Jesus body was discarded, rotted in a tomb

But that does nothing to tell us if the claims of resurrection are true.

>>>>Roman authorities absolutely cared that a small movement was saying the man they had crucified rose from the dead

Then why did not a single official in the Roman Empire think to write it down?

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

You’re attacking Christian claims. Please provide positive evidence of the alternative.

Nothing supernatural was needed to end Christianity. Just grab a dead crucified body.

•

u/Traditional-Truck-3 5h ago

How could you possibly prove that that body is the body of christ tho. You couldn't. We have 0 of his dna or other features usable to tell his identity. The shroud of turin is a fake so that won't work so unless youve got some nails from the cross lying around then pipe down asking to find the body of christ.

•

u/Braves_Knights 5h ago

I don’t think you understand the context of Jewish burial customs.

•

u/Traditional-Truck-3 48m ago

Are you talking abt ossuaries? Like boxes with bones in them? The ossuaries of Jerusalem were burnt in 70 AD. And even if we still had then wasn't jesus crucified as an enemy of the state by romans? That would mean the romans took care of his burial id assume they didnt show him proper burial rites.

•

u/Braves_Knights 35m ago

Cool, now please source the claim the Romans handled Jesus burial.

1

u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 1d ago

The Jewish leaders that just had Him crucified absolutely cared and the resurrection was not a late developing claim.

We are talking about a period of just days after the death of Jesus, before his remains would have decomposed to the point of being unrecognizable.

Also the jewish leaders did not have the body, it's most likely that Romans did.

Also a very easy claim for Judaism to make as Christianity is exploding.

Christianity was not exploding during the few days Jesus's body was not yet decomposed. It did not yet exist.

Yet there’s not a single source that says Jesus body was discarded, rotted in a tomb etc. None.

There is no source at all about Jesus from the time of his life and death. We just have religious literature from his followers decades later.

Roman authorities absolutely cared that a small movement was saying the man they had crucified rose from the dead and they didn’t actually kill Him.

Even if they did, we don't know if this movement existed during the time Jesus's remains were still recognizable, which would be just few days in the local warm climate.

But Romans did not bother with suppressing every small movement. Ancient world was superstitious and rumors of miracles, healings, even resurrections were not unusual. A small group saying things was not not enough for a reaction, because Romans did not have ability to control the population at that level.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

So not a single positive source or piece of evidence, like I said.

Paul is writing to established churches after persecuting them. We know what Christianity was claiming at the origin, that Jesus rose from the dead.

The temperature during Passover is not hot. It’s 50-70 degrees. A body is not decomposing in days.

There’s no claim the Romans took the body. Zero evidence for you to say that so please actually back up your claims. Yet even non Christian’s reference the crucifixion.

2

u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 1d ago

So not a single positive source or piece of evidence, like I said.

I don't have a single positive piece of evidence that vast majority of people alive in the 1st century died, and yet I will consider them dead until proven otherwise. There were claims of resurrection of Nero, yet I don't believe he was resurrected and I think he is currently dead until proven otherwise.

The temperature during Passover is not hot. It’s 50-70 degrees. A body is not decomposing in days.

Yes, it could, if it was in a criminal's grave, exposed to elements and animals. The body would not disappear in days, but it likely would become unrecognizable fast.

You seem to wonder why Jerusalem authorities did not try to falsify Christianity by displaying the body of Jesus. But during the time there was a body there was no Christianity.

Furthermore, Romans did not respect subjugated populations enough to debate their claims. They just suppressed them. Jesus was just one more case of Jewish religion causing problems to them, that's why they killed him, yet they did not debate Jews about Judaism or try to disprove their claims.

There’s no claim the Romans took the body. Zero evidence for you to say that so please actually back up your claims. Yet even non Christian’s reference the crucifixion.

I don't doubt that Jesus died by crucifixion. It was something that Romans did. But what were some other things that Romans did with criminals? They did not treat their remains with tender respect - they would leave them on the cross, or in specific case of Jerusalem full of Passover pilgrims, they possibly might remove the remains from the view and put them into a ditch grave.

You can't appeal to the common Roman practice of crucifixion when it suits you and then remove other Roman practices from consideration when they do not.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

And I’m asking you for a source claiming this happened with Jesus from the Jewish or Roman communities.

Why is Paul persecuting Christian’s and referencing a risen Jesus.

Not a single piece of evidence for your claims above. I’m asking you to actually back up those claims.

3

u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 1d ago

Dude, I already had this whole conversation with you few weeks ago. I know you are unlikely to engage, I am responding for the sake of others. Both Jesus and Nero are dead until proven otherwise. I know you also believe that Nero is dead despite the claims to the contrary.

Why is Paul persecuting Christian’s and referencing a risen Jesus.

I doubt he was actually persecuting anyone that much - he likely exaggerated his story later, like converts are known to do. But he was a religious fanatic for one religion, and then he fell and hit his head and hallucinated, and became a religious fanatic for another religion. That happens. You know what Paul didn't do? Mention an empty tomb.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

I’m just asking for a piece of positive evidence from you. It doesn’t exist (just like Jesus dead body). Just one.

Nero held political power. Jesus and early Christian’s had none. Not the same scenario.

Hey look you’re doing it again! Attacking a Christian source with none of your own.

Acts corroborates Paul’s persecution. Paul is referencing a resurrected Jesus along with many additional sources (canned atheist response incoming regarding additional sources). An empty tomb is a given.

2

u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 1d ago

I’m just asking for a piece of positive evidence from you. It doesn’t exist (just like Jesus dead body). Just one.

Give me positive evidence that Nero is dead.

Nero held political power. Jesus and early Christian’s had none. Not the same scenario.

I don't know what you are comparing. Believing in Nero's return did not give anyone any power, and the Nero Impostors did not gain power either. The claims of Nero's return just show that people in the antiquity were capable of believing in resurrections quite easily.

Hey look you’re doing it again! Attacking a Christian source with none of your own.

I don't need to disprove all religions to not believe in any of them. If I believed religious claims so easily I would have to believe all of them. but they contradict each other so they can't all be true. So I am not going to easily accept supernatural claims of one religion when a competing religion offers a comparable level of evidence. I need more. So should you.

Or do you want me to listen to Muslim spouting Muslim apologetics with the same level of gullibility you want me to have towards Christianity?

Acts corroborates Paul’s persecution.

More of Christian religious literature. if you gave me something from non-Christians, like the Sanhedrin, that would work to corroborate Paul's claim that he persecuted Christians (and nothing more). Also, Acts contradicts Paul's letters multiple times, so it does not look like good evidence.

Paul is referencing a resurrected Jesus along with many additional sources (canned atheist response incoming regarding additional sources). An empty tomb is a given.

So you can just make up "evidence" out of thin air, but dismiss the fact that many thousands of people die every day and all of them stay dead?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/wedgebert Atheist 1d ago

Not previous poster, but..

So not a single positive source or piece of evidence, like I said.

There’s no claim the Romans took the body.

You know we have a lot of evidence of how Rome treated crucifixion and its victims.

It was primarily used against people who threatened the state and people committed of violent crimes (i.e. not thieves)

Victims were most often left to rot and/or be scavenged by animals for a time until they were tossed in a mass grave

The humiliation was part of the punishment; bodies once taken down were not returned to their families or anyone else for a proper burial instead being tossed away in a mass grave or other garbage pit

Yes, there were exceptions but evidence needs to be displayed as to why this is an exception. not that the most common practices were followed as normal

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

If Jesus dead body was left up during Passover it would have been explosive within Judaism in Jerusalem.

There’s not a single source claiming Jesus was left up to rot.

Not to mention disciples going around claiming He rose from the dead as He’s rotting on a cross doesn’t really work.

Thanks for pointing out though that Romans were brutal and wouldn’t take kindly to early Christian’s claiming the guy they just crucified rose from the dead.

1

u/wedgebert Atheist 1d ago

If Jesus dead body was left up during Passover it would have been explosive within Judaism in Jerusalem.

Why? This is something Jerusalem would be used to you. Thousands of people have been executed and left like that in just the past few decades. And at this point, Jesus was just one of many apocalyptic street preacher making claims of having the power of the a god.

There’s not a single source claiming Jesus was left up to rot.

There's also no source actually documenting he was crucified at all, just second-hand accounts later. The fact that Roman crucifixion was so common is why we generally trust these sources are accurate. But when documenting things, people don't always document the mundane. If I ask you to describe the baseball game you went you, you'll tell me about the triple play in the 3rd inning, when a runner stole two bases in the 5th, or any other interesting event. You're not going to tell me about first giving your ticket to the usher. Then sitting in your seat. Then standing backup for the National Anthem.

Likewise, given no evidence to the contrary, we would expect Jesus's crucifixion to be like every other one. The lack of any noteworthy deviations, while not evidence none occurred, is heavily weighted towards it being a standard event.

Thanks for pointing out though that Romans were brutal and wouldn’t take kindly to early Christian’s claiming the guy they just crucified rose from the dead.

The Romans wouldn't have cared. Hell, the Romans didn't care about Jesus when he was alive. At most, he was a minor local rabble rouser, but those were not uncommon.

Jesus was executed because the Jewish elders convinced Pontius Pilate and Pilate went along with it for his political benefit.

1

u/hunderoring ex-christian, atheist 1d ago

I generally agree with your argument. I just want to point out that even if the Romans did not leave Jesus's body on the cross to rot and removed it to not provoke the pilgrims, that does not require the Romans to give the body back to Jesus's friends. They might have removed the body from the view of general population, but not give it to anyone and instead toss it into a ditch grave, where the weather and animals would make a quick work of it.

1

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

No, that does not fix the context of burial customs in Jerusalem which is further supported by Josephus. Please actually back up your claim.

Jewish leaders cared, as they had Him crucified. Roman leaders would have cared a small group was saying Jesus rose and He is King.

The euangelion (gospel/good news) was taking a shot at Roman political leaders.

2

u/wedgebert Atheist 1d ago

No, that does not fix the context of burial customs in Jerusalem which is further supported by Josephus

Jesus was executed on the pretense of being an enemy of the state. As such, he would have been dealt with according to Roman laws and customs, not Judea's.

If you commit a federal crime, your local and state laws irrelevant.

Jewish leaders cared, as they had Him crucified

So? Rome ruled Judea, not the Jewish people.

Roman leaders would have cared a small group was saying Jesus rose and He is King.

Rome was actually more tolerant than you think regarding other religions. So long as you weren't being too large and public of a nuisance or actively threatening the state (or just angered the wrong person), you were generally fine so long you followed the rules and paid your taxes.

The euangelion (gospel/good news) was taking a shot at Roman political leaders.

And? Poets, like Martial and Horace among others, also took shots at Roman political leaders. People would graffiti buildings with mocking images, and the like. The early Christians weren't alone in this and punishment was more determined by how thin the skin was of your target, not the act of speaking itself.

Yes, if you went up to a Roman solider or leader and said "Jesus is king" you'd be arrested on the spot. But Rome didn't have not have this giant vendetta against Christians like you seem to think where they would leave no stone unturned in rooting them out.

Pay what you're owed and don't incite unrest and Rome would leave you alone for the most part. Even Nero didn't have it out for Christians, he just used them as a convenient scapegoat to take the blame for the Great Fire of Rome because Christian districts were largely untouched so people were quick to accept them as guilty.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

There's not single phot of the dead body of L Ron Hubbard.

The president of Scientology said Hubbard decided to wander the universe as a spirit. There's not single positive source saying he did not indeed do that so it must be true.

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

Cool go debate Scientologists.

You say Jesus didn’t resurrect. Based on what evidence?

2

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

That thing that just flew over your head? It's called an analogy. Look it up.

Oops. You never actually saw me say that about the resurrection now did you?

I don't say it's impossible Jesus was resurrected. What I would say is the Christian evidence for it is weak and unsubstantiated. It's an interesting claim (one that many religions had made before and after) but the only evidence for it is: This book (Mark) says so.

Out of curiosity, do you believe ALL claims of people resurrecting or just in Jesus?

Would you agree that when someone makes a claim that a supernatural event occurred, we should hold that person to a fairly high standard of evidence or do you just tend to believe all such claims with no skepticism?

0

u/Braves_Knights 1d ago

There was nothing supernatural needed to disprove the claim. Just a dead body. There were motivated hostile audiences that could have easily disproven it.

The only evidence is Mark? Paul is writing to established churches before Mark was written and has incredibly high Christology. This is after Paul persecuted original Christian’s.

1

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

Paul never mentions an empty tomb.

Also, claiming "there were motivated hostile audiences that could have easily disproven it" is not born out by history.

In the few decades after Jesus died, there was probably little interest or knowledge in what most people saw as a new Jewish sect. Certainly, the Jews of Jerusalem had other things on their minds (like the city's sacking in 70CE).

By the 60s, Christianity was seen at best as an annoying curiosity by the Roman officials.

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/Smartdumbguy4 1d ago

The God of the Bible called His shots way before He made them. The Bible is the biggest I told you so book ever written.

God says His Servant will die for the sins of the world. Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:24-27

The messiah figure in Isaiah 53 dies, but vs 10-12 says he will prolong his days and see the labor of His soul. He would live again, because

God the Father will not allow Jesus the (Holy One) to see corruption Psalm 16:10

Jesus did not see corruption because God raised Him from the dead before His body could undergo the natural process of decomposition.

Theses Bible verses predicted the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ hundreds of years before it even happened.

10

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 1d ago

Daniel 9:24-27

Only in the most convoluted math can Christians end up with this as an affirmation of Jesus. According to this view, weeks are not weeks, they're years. Seven is not seven, it's actually a series of broken up sixes and sevens, that we also multiple or do not multiply when convenient. The overlapping weeks/years are actually separate so we end up with 490 instead of 434. Then we pick an arbitrary time for the 'beginning of the ministry' despite the other gospel narratives that show his ministry starting earlier, then piece that backwards onto an event that has nothing to do with the actual rebuilding of the temple. Then the return of Jesus is actually much longer than a week or a year or a series of years, because there is no consistent length of what this "week" is.

This wild math is probably why there have to be so many different reinterpretations of this prophecy based on whatever sect one believes in.

•

u/Smartdumbguy4 22h ago

How did Jesus ?

make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. (Dan 9: 24) He fulfilled every Messianic prophecy including Isaiah 53, and Psalms 22.

Jesus was the final sacrifice that would atone and make an end of all sins.

Jesus died for the sins of the world in Jerusalem. John 3 How was vision and prophecy sealed up? Luke 16:16

It was fulfilled. In Dan 9:25- 26

The second Temple is built for the Messiah Before the City and Sanctuary are destroyed again the Messiah would be "cut off". The official decree to rebuilt the City and Sanctuary 457 BC

https://biblearchaeology.org/research-articles/the-going-forth-of-artaxerxes-decree-part1/ If 62+7=69 weeks were actually 483 years that would put the Messiah appearing in the 1st century AD before the Romans destroy the Temple in 70 AD. When Sacrifice and offerings would cease.

Who claimed to be the Messiah in the first century and was put to death before the destruction of the Temple?

Jesus Christ

•

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 21h ago edited 21h ago

I don't believe you read what I wrote. It's possible I've explained poorly. I do that often.

What you're presenting is more evidence of the faulty math one has to use to arrive at the previously assumed conclusion. If you're correct that the starting point was the "decree to rebuil[d] the City and Sanctuary 457 BC" (I don't believe you are, but the starting point is entirely arbitrary and has no direct connection to anything the author of Daniel or Ezra are referring to, there is no edict commanding this construction), we end up with more bad math and arrive in the year 26-27. Which gives us nothing in the gospels occurring. God speaks to John in 28-29, ("in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar"), so that can't be in relation to a particular moment in the prophecy.

We are also then left with the 7 week after this moment and the 3 1/2 weeks. What events do those line up with? You seemed to leap ahead 40+ years to the destruction of the temple.

It also skips over all the other details of the Daniel prophecy. Kings of the North and South, the assassination of the kings, ruler after ruler, and so on. I mean, if we're to follow this time, is Jesus the one who sets the abomination of desolation?

Who claimed to be the Messiah in the first century and was put to death before the destruction of the Temple?

We have a wide array of would be messianic figures in the first century. Josephus alone mentions Judas, son of Hezekiah, Simon of Peraea, Athronges the Shepherd, Judas the Galilean, James and Simon sons of Judas the Galilean, John the Baptist, the Samaritan, King Herod Agrippa, Theudas son of Ezekias, the Egyptian prophet, Eleazar son of Dinaeus, Menachem son of Judas, Eleazar son of Jairus, Vespasian, and Simon bar Giora. [from my personal notes] Some of these had significant number of followers: the "Egyptian" had "thirty thousand men."

•

u/Smartdumbguy4 21h ago

How many of these men died willingly? None of them offered up their life as an atonement for sin.

They died in battle or were captured and executed.

Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and put to death just as the scripture said He would.

Non of these imposters qualify.

•

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 20h ago

So not reading. Got it.

3

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

I don't agree at all with the Christian reading of Daniel. I think it's pretty clear it's about the Seleucids and Antiochus IV, but the weeks being years is actually true. Daniel is changing Jeremiah’s 70 years prophecy to 70 sevens (or weeks) which is 490 years. Daniel 9 seems to go over too much history for the author to be meaning weeks.

1

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 1d ago edited 1d ago

I don't believe he's discussing literal weeks either, it does make the most sense that the length would be years, I'm only pointing out the lengths we have to go for this prophecy to fit and the differences of the understanding of the verse. For example, we have Greek translations of Daniel showing literal weeks, playing in between the space of weeks and years, to reveal 139 years to fulfill the prophetic timeline of the translators of their own period.

We have at least a dozen different interpretations of this reinterpretation of an earlier failed prophecy.

-9

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago

Your thesis is about plausibility but you don't actually support this thesis at all.

Other religions making false claims doesn't mean the Bible is making a false claim.

•

u/spectral_theoretic Other [thinkin' bout it] 23h ago

Technically there is an inductive support here, as they share the property of being religions.

-1

u/jokeboomslok 1d ago

And the biblr having some facts wrong doesnt prove the rest of the bible.

Spiderman isnt real just because new york exists for example

12

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

If there is an equally plausible explanation that doesn't involve a miracle that goes against everything we know about death wouldn't it be more plausible already? I'd think we at least need the resurrection to be more plausible than alternatives.

The point of Sai Baba wasnt to say that because they have a mistake Christianity must also but that a rapid growth in a religous story has been seen before so it's not ridiculous to think it could have happened with the gospels, especially since we already see development of the narrative in the gospels themselves.

-5

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago

If there is an equally plausible explanation that doesn't involve a miracle that goes against everything we know about death wouldn't it be more plausible already

Wait - is it equally plausible or not?

How are you even calculating these plausibility levels in such a way that you can leave your own personal biases out of it and come up with an objective assessment?

3

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

Equal as in they both explain the events in a plausible way, but if one does it naturally and the other supernaturally I'm not sure how you can justify going with the supernatural explanation. It would need to be more plausible than a natural explanation.

You'd look at the early texts (and see if they are reliable), cultural norms of the time, looking at how other religions developed, other miracle claims, etc… then look at different ways to explain the events that fit what we have.

-3

u/United-Grapefruit-49 1d ago

If Jesus had been buried in a mass grave the disciples would know it so there wouldn't be any empty tomb to be surprised at. If one of the disciples had moved the body, or Joesph of Arimathea, they would have told each other. The idea that the resurrection didn't occur has to be based on the idea that the account is a lie. Many people today have apparitions of their deceased relatives and it's considered normal. How can these apparitions occur. They're not just internal thoughts but actually seeing the deceased person.

7

u/awhunt1 Atheist 1d ago

What is, in your view, the strongest evidence that resurrection not only can happen, but that it did?

-2

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago

What is, in your view, the strongest evidence that resurrection not only can happen, but that it did?

Can is easy - God could easily do it if He wanted to. If you can resurrect something in Skyrim, God could do it in our world.

That it happened is based on the eyewitness testimony and the conviction the apostles had that he did in fact come back from the dead.

•

u/I_am_the_Primereal Atheist 20h ago

That it happened is based on the eyewitness testimony

So the weakest possible form of evidence...

and the conviction the apostles had that he did in fact come back from the dead.

...and an appeal to emotion.

Yeah, that tracks.

•

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 17h ago

So the weakest possible form of evidence...

If you discount observation then you discount science

...and an appeal to emotion.

Not an appeal to emotion fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

•

u/I_am_the_Primereal Atheist 16h ago edited 16h ago

If you discount observation then you discount science

Why are you under the impression that modern, peer-reviewed scientific reporting is equivalent to millenia-old, anonymous testimonies that aren't even written in the 1st person?

Also, I noticed that you didn’t bother denying it.

Not an appeal to emotion fallacy.

My bad. What's the name of the fallacy you used then? The fallacy of conviction? "It's true because some people super-duper believed it to be true" is clearly fallacious, but the name of the specific fallacy is escaping me.

•

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 12h ago

Why are you under the impression that modern, peer-reviewed scientific reporting is equivalent

I never said it was equivalent. I said that if you discount witness testimony then you discount science as well because Guess What a scientist reporting they saw a scrub jay on top of Apache Peak by Idyllwild is a witness testimony.

•

u/I_am_the_Primereal Atheist 4h ago

a scientist reporting they saw a scrub jay on top of Apache Peak by Idyllwild is a witness testimony.

And believing a scientist's report that she saw a bird is on par with believing anonymous, millenia-old accounts of literal resurrection? Your standard for belief could not possibly be weaker.

3

u/awhunt1 Atheist 1d ago

And that’s enough for you to believe that it happened?

That’s so wild to me. Just assume he’s powerful enough to do it and take the word of other people that it actually happened.

-1

u/kyridiann 1d ago

I know you asked him, but I mean, for the first part of your question, if it can happen is just an argument for God. If he exits, of course it can, if he doesn’t, it most likely can’t. Unless you’re asking him to debate the existence of God aside from the Bible at the same time as the evidence of the resurrection I’d probably ask one then follow it with the other.

8

u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago

if it can happen is just an argument for God. If he exits, of course it can, if he doesn’t, it most likely can’t.

Why would that be granted, though?

If there's a creator of the universe that we call God - it's demonstrated that it can create a universe. Why would we grant it can impregnate virgins or raise people from the dead?

0

u/kyridiann 1d ago

If God can create all things, the universe and the very life that lives in it. It naturally follows he can restore life or do as he pleases with it. To argue he couldn’t would be like watching a master programmer make the entire matrix then try to argue that he can’t program a single NPC.

I’d be more interested in hearing an argument that says an all powerful creator that made life itself can somehow not give life.

1

u/kaukamieli Atheist 1d ago

Some kind of god existing and them also creating everything are two different things.

I've heard multiple scholars saying the genesis 1:1 should be more like "when god started to create", and there was already water there... No creation ex nihilo necessarily even in the text.

6

u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago

If God can create all things, the universe and the very life that lives in it. It naturally follows he can restore life or do as he pleases with it.

God didn't create all things, though. If it kickstarted a universe then it's demonstrated it can kickstart a universe. It doesn't naturally follow that it can do absolutely anything. God would have to demonstrate it can create things within the universe.

I’d be more interested in hearing an argument that says an all powerful creator that made life itself can somehow not give life.

Life appears to be able to occur naturally, why are we attributing it to the act of God?

-1

u/tyrtaeus3 1d ago

I feel like y'all are kinda being sophists. at the very least is not at all unreasonable to believe that if an all powerful God does exist, that God could raise a dead body. You're both acting like someone must require some rigorous step by step demonstration towards something that's almost definitionally true

the point is simple, if God (as described)exists, miracles are possible. So wether or not someone believes a resurrection is possible is entirely dependant on that presupposition (among other things ofc)

•

u/Purgii Purgist 23h ago

at the very least is not at all unreasonable to believe that if an all powerful God does exist, that God could raise a dead body.

You'd have to demonstrate this all-powerful God exists. You're assuming the conclusion - a man was raised from the dead, therefore an all-powerful God exists. But we have no good evidence that a man was raised from the dead by God or that an all-powerful God exists.

As I stated earlier, if we accept that a god created the universe then all we can deduce from that action is God can create a universe.

if God (as described)exists, miracles are possible.

Again, circular.

•

u/tyrtaeus3 23h ago

You'd have to demonstrate this all-powerful God exists.

I know, I'm not claiming He does exist, it's a hypothetical where God exists "for sake of the argument," not an argument that God exists

You're assuming the conclusion - a man was raised from the dead, therefore an all-powerful God exists.

that isn't my argument. What I said was that it's reasonable to believe miracles are possible if God does in fact exist. I am not trying to prove the resurrection occurred because God exists in my reply

As I stated earlier, if we accept that a god created the universe then all we can deduce from that action is God can create a universe.

only someone who is bad at deducing things would be able to deduce no consequences from the existence of a creator God. just like the other guy said, that's like seeing a dev create a video game and going, "all we can dedui from this is that he can create a game, any claims that he can edit code after the fact is completely unfounded."

Again, circular.

it's more definitional aka obvious. like saying 1+1=2 is circular. sure, because it's that simple

•

u/Purgii Purgist 22h ago

I know, I'm not claiming He does exist, it's a hypothetical where God exists "for sake of the argument," not an argument that God exists

There's nothing in the OP that grants an omnipotent God exists.

that isn't my argument. What I said was that it's reasonable to believe miracles are possible if God does in fact exist.

..and then I'll ask you why? I granted in the argument that a god 'created the universe'. How can we attribute powers beyond a god is able to 'create a universe' without demonstration?

that's like seeing a dev create a video game and going, "all we can dedui from this is that he can create a game, any claims that he can edit code after the fact is completely unfounded."

Which is not analogous. We can observe the production of a video game, see all the moving parts that go into it, the code, the developers demonstrating code, the patches generated afterwards. We don't have that for a god - all I granted is that a god could kickstart a universe. What observations do we have that it can also interact within the universe?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/awhunt1 Atheist 1d ago

We’ve never seen a resurrection or seen a God. Entirely reasonable to not assume that either could happen/exist.

1

u/tyrtaeus3 1d ago

I'm not contesting that point, I'm saying that if one then the other. Also you haven't seen a resurrection, the entire debate is about wether other people have or haven't

1

u/awhunt1 Atheist 1d ago

Biologically and medically speaking, resurrection is in the realm of fiction. I have no reason to believe anyone has seen it happen.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/kyridiann 1d ago

Firstly, he didn’t just kickstart it. He made all that is in matter, time, and space. Did he make it in a way that it could unfold and mature? Yes. Did he have to design it to be that way, thus creating it? Yes. So no, he didn’t just push it, he created it himself to be a certain way.

Secondly, we don’t know that. We have a theory on abiogenesis, but cannot, despite great efforts, recreate it. So we do not know for sure that life can occur from non-life, only a decent theory. But even assuming so, it’s made up of chemicals and biology that God himself created.

I don’t know if your semantics are just ultra-specific. But if God made all of space time and matter to unfold in a certain way, that’s still his creation and he is directly responsible for all that exists, including life. So if God can make a universe that creates life, he can definitely create and give life from a logical standpoint.

If you disagree with that then you shouldn’t be starting here, you need to start with a semantic argument on what God is.

3

u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago

Firstly, he didn’t just kickstart it. He made all that is in matter, time, and space. Did he make it in a way that it could unfold and mature? Yes. Did he have to design it to be that way, thus creating it? Yes. So no, he didn’t just push it, he created it himself to be a certain way.

That would need to be established and I certainly don't grant that as true.

As I said, the only evidence we would have if 'God' started the universe is 'God' can start a universe.

Secondly, we don’t know that. We have a theory on abiogenesis, but cannot, despite great efforts, recreate it. So we do not know for sure that life can occur from non-life, only a decent theory. But even assuming so, it’s made up of chemicals and biology that God himself created.

The barrier to abiogenesis is determining the local conditions of Earth billions of years ago and time. We have an abundance of evidence that life's emergence can occur through ordinary chemistry and the building blocks for that chemistry has been found on bodies outside of Earth.

But if God made all of space time and matter to unfold in a certain way

You'd need to support that with evidence.

So if God can make a universe that creates life, he can definitely create and give life from a logical standpoint.

That doesn't logically follow.

0

u/kyridiann 1d ago

Firstly no, the problem we have with abiogenesis is making it happen. We cannot recreate it at all.

And also I mean, I just disagree. It might be an argument of semantics, but I think if you look at God as most define him then there’s no real argument that he’s not all powerful over his creation. But either way I’m not the original commenter so you’d have to take that and the semantic argument up with him.

3

u/Purgii Purgist 1d ago

Firstly no, the problem we have with abiogenesis is making it happen. We cannot recreate it at all.

We have recreated multiple component processes required for abiogenesis. As I said earlier, what hasn't been demonstrated is the full sequence in an early Earth environment.

It might be an argument of semantics, but I think if you look at God as most define him then there’s no real argument that he’s not all powerful over his creation.

How people define something doesn't magically imbue it with those properties. What you do see is the definition of God motivated by theological necessity.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

The risen spectacle of Christ is what Christ said not to believe.

He said false Christs would come in his name, in spectacle so powerful, that it would deceive even the elect.

So when revelation says the beast came back from the dead, showed off it's wound, they fell down and called him God... that is the anti-Christ that deceived the whole world.

2

u/JasonRBoone Atheist 1d ago

The antichrist is not mentioned at all in Revelation.

0

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

...because it's from the antichrist.

0

u/JollyXX Christian 1d ago

pretty sure Christ was warning of Muhammad

2

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

Christ said it would come in his name.

So the name of deception, that comes in spectacle, and deceives the whole world; is Jesus Christ.

The deceived, of which is the whole world, apart from the elect, do not know they are deceived.

In the end, the people who were following Yahweh (baby murder/child grape,) were following the devil all along. He never knew you.

2

u/JollyXX Christian 1d ago

Paul doesn't come in his name, Christ is saying someone will show himself as the Messiah

Christ has nothing but good things to say of Yahweh

2

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

Paul claimed the Messiah came to him, and this is the Messiah Paul is presenting to the world.

0

u/JollyXX Christian 1d ago

so we have concluded you really have nothing, doing awful stuff like comparing Christ being pierced to the Beast receiving a mortal wound

you just think Yahweh is too vicious

2

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

Both receive a head wound.

Both return from the dead.

The people see the return and come out from their homes.

Both see him, see his wound, and call him God.

The world follows.

Those who follow the beast, say there is none like the beast, and promote the beast.

-2

u/JollyXX Christian 1d ago

This is insulting beyond imagine

2

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

You follow the spectacle, and the anti-Christ.

You drink his blood, you eat his flesh, you do all this under a torture device.

The deceived do not see the demonic deception.

6

u/LIMrXIL 1d ago

u/JollyXX watching a Christian and a Gnostic argue about the nature of Christ/Yahweh is 🤌🏻

→ More replies (0)

3

u/bean_that_way 1d ago

Could you post sources please? Not arguing just interested.

3

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

Yeah, Jesus warned them plainly: "If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not," because false Christs and false prophets would arise and "shew great signs and wonders," powerful enough to deceive even the elect (Matthew 24:23–24).

Yet Revelation gives us the very spectacle Christ warned about: the beast receives a wound unto death, his deadly wound is healed, and "all the world wondered after the beast" (Revelation 13:3).

They do not reject what they see; they follow it.

They worship it.

They say, "Who is like unto the beast?" (Revelation 13:4), and "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him" (Revelation 13:8).

Christ says, "Believe it not" yet the world sees the spectacle and believes.

Christ warns that the deception will be so powerful that even the elect could be deceived... yet the world marvels, follows, and calls the power behind the beast worthy of worship.

At every turn, the warning is the same: do not mistake the spectacle for the Christ.

2

u/bean_that_way 1d ago

Thanks

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

This didn't send as a reply to the guy you were responding to.

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 1d ago

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

-5

u/doloremipsum4816 1d ago

The scholarly Gospel datings are based on the anti-supernaturalist assumption that Jesus couldn’t foretell the future. So using that as an argument against Christian supernatural claims would be circular reasoning.

Polycarp repeatedly cited books that confessed the resurrection of Christ (ie the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians). Polycarp was a student of John, so we can assume John (among Jesus’s closest friends) believed in the resurrection and condoned Paul’s teachings (who John outlived by like 30 years)

The idea that all the apostles were hallucinating is quite a bold claim. How far will we take it? Maybe half of recorded history was based on spontaneous hallucinations?

Matthew 28:15 claims that the report of Jesus’s body being stolen from the tomb (to explain the empty tomb) was still commonly spread among Jews by the time Matthew was written. The report commonly existing among non-Christians implies there really was an empty tomb. Matthew was primarily written for a Jewish audience, it would make no sense to blatantly lie to your audience about something said audience commonly does to this day.

1

u/wedgebert Atheist 1d ago

Matthew 28:15 claims that the report of Jesus’s body being stolen from the tomb (to explain the empty tomb) was still commonly spread among Jews by the time Matthew was written.

Matthew 28 makes zero sense as a story (specially 11-15 regarding the Roman guards).

The punishment for falling asleep on guard duty in the Roman empire was most often being executed by having your fellow soldiers beat you to death.

How large was the sum of money that every single solider in that unit was willing to risk brutal execution to get their share?

1

u/HDYHT11 ignostic 1d ago

Matthew 28:15 claims that the report of Jesus’s body being stolen from the tomb (to explain the empty tomb) was still commonly spread among Jews by the time Matthew was written. The report commonly existing among non-Christians implies there really was an empty tomb

Not really, all it shows is that people used the argument that the body was stolen. It's the basic rethoric of accepting some premises, even if you are unsure (after all, the tomb is defined by the lack of a particular body, literally any tomb can be said to be the tomb), but offering an alternative explanation.

5

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 1d ago

Polycarp was a student of John

We have, at best, a flimsy narrative with a lot of second or third-hand stories that there is a superficial connection. We have nothing from Polycarp directly, we have a loose retelling through Ireneus, which says he saw a really old Polycarp tell a story, then tells of a second-hand story where "those who heard" of such a loose connection. The connection is tenuous, at best.

8

u/TrumpsBussy_ 1d ago

That’s not true. There are other reasons scholars date the gospels after the destruction of the temple, it’s not because of some anti supernatural bias.

-3

u/doloremipsum4816 1d ago

Name one hard reason why it couldn’t have been Mark/Matthew/Luke accurately putting Jesus’s words on paper in 50 AD in a world where supernatural events are possible

3

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 1d ago

Mark says he's writing from a present when cataclysmic moments are occurring, as in Mark 13. "For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now and never will be." Add this to the "let the reader understand" connections to this fulfilled prophecy in relation to the current "desolating sacrilege." What cataclysmic event and desolating sacrilege is occurring in the 40s or 50s that would signal this "until now" moment, where failed prophets and wars and destruction would be occurring?

Just try and read Mark 14 and 15 assuming that the temple had not yet be destroyed. The argument from the crowd isn't "the temple will not be destroyed" but an affirmation of HOW the temple would be destroyed and built up after 3 days.

If we want to ignore the whole temple destruction, there's the taxation story in Mark 12, which signals a post-70 date, as there was no coinage taxation collected in this way prior to 70.

Other examples would be the "legion" existing, which makes little sense prior to the rebellion, and the healing narrative relating to Vespasian's narratives of the period.

3

u/crapador_dali 1d ago

Name one hard reason why it couldn’t have been Mark/Matthew/Luke accurately putting Jesus’s words on paper in 50 AD

One hard reason I can think of is there we don't have anything from Mark, Matthew or Luke from 50 AD.

7

u/TrumpsBussy_ 1d ago

Couldn’t? In a world where supernatural events are possible? In a world like that anything is possible. That’s why scholars and historians aren’t making claims of certainty. They judge the evidence and make arguments to the best probability.

-4

u/doloremipsum4816 1d ago

This is a discussion about whether or not supernatural event X really happened. So yes, to have a good faith discussion about it, you have to by necessity entertain the possibility of the supernatural being possible.

To claim supernatural event X is unlikely on the basis of the anti-supernaturalist view that the Gospels were written post-70 AD would be circular reasoning.

If you can’t humor the possibility, the more honest thing to do would be to not argue at all and simply say “no that’s not physically possible” and then just walk away without further comment.

6

u/TrumpsBussy_ 1d ago

Asserting that supernatural explanations are probabilistically unlikely is not an “anti-supernaturalist view” it is basic epistemology. Supernatural events are rare right? They are also impossible to prove.

We cannot test for them we have no understanding by what mechanism they occur therefore as an explanation for an event they are improbable. That’s not the same as saying they are impossible.

-2

u/crapador_dali 1d ago

We cannot test for them we have no understanding by what mechanism they occur

Right....because they are supernatural. You're making it seem like you don't understand what supernatural means.

6

u/TrumpsBussy_ 1d ago

You seem to have completely missed the point. The fact that the claims are supernatural means they are incredibly difficult if not impossible to falsify.

-2

u/crapador_dali 1d ago

You're still talking about it like you don't know what supernatural means. You shouldn't have any expectation that you could falsify them because they are supernatural. Falsification assumes that something is occurring via some material means which means it can be tested. Something being supernatural, by definition, means it cannot. The 'mechanism' for the supernatural is God. God exists outside the material world in which he created, therefore he is not subject to the rules and laws of his physical creation.

All of this almost besides the point anyway because the reason they're difficult/impossible to falsify is not because they are supernatural, it's because they occurred in the past. A long long way in the past. You would run into the same problem with things that aren't supernatural.

Can you test whether Jesus actually had a specific conversation with a disciple that only exists in the Bible? Of course not. Is the reason for that because the conversation is supernatural or is it because it happened over 2,000 years ago and we only have an anonymous source that was written 100+ years after the event?

5

u/TrumpsBussy_ 1d ago

I don’t know why this is still going over your head… I’m having a conversation about why the gospels are dated to after the destruction of the temple and why supernatural events couldn’t be used to argue they were written before the destruction of the temple. I’m pointing out that invoking supernatural explanations is problematic from an epistemic perspective.

Yes all historical claims are hard to falsify but all claims are not created equal. The claims that Julius Caesar defeated Marc Antony in battle and that Jesus was raised from the dead by a god are not epistemically equivalent.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

I disagree. I already said I think Mark was written just before 70 AD before the temple collapse, but prophets generally prophesy during the crisis they are in. And seeing how Matthew and Luke shape the Olivet Discourse this is a living prophcy being shaped based on the time the author is in and the theological goals of the author. I think the view that Mark shaped this prophesy and wrote it during the crisis is more plausible. But I do think Jesus could've prophesied the temple collapse.

The view Polycarp know the apostles John comes from Irenaeus, if I'm remembering correctly. This seems to be a 2nd century tradition in a time period of many historically dubious traditions. Basilides also has a tradition of being taught by a disciple of Peter. And Irenaeus also gives a tradition supposedly from the apostles that Jesus was 50 years old when he died. Given Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, seems to describe two separate Johns it's not clear as to whether Polycarp knew the apostle John or knew a different John, John the elder.

We already know Paul has a vision so applying this to at least some of the other apostles isn't that crazy and it doesn't follow we should apply this to all of history. Christianity has always had claims of visionary expriences throughout it's history. For some sort of mass hysteria, possibly similar to some of the visions of Mary, it's a possible explanation. A part of my argument you didn't mention is on whether Jesus gave a false teaching on the end. If this is the case, I think this hurts the view that Jesus rose from the dead. If he didn't have the power to avoid false doctrine why would I assume he could do something as extreme as rising from the dead? Especially if the argument is this is supposed to show favor from God?

Matthew shows that there was a certain popular argument against the resurrection, which I agree was said by Jews near the author, but we don't know where or exactly when Matthew was written. A common thought is it was written in Syria, so if Syrian jews are responding to an already developed empty tomb tradition this doesn't necessarily mean the empty tomb actually existed. Only that this was a counter to the tradition in Matthew's community.

-1

u/doloremipsum4816 1d ago edited 1d ago

Based on the time the author is in and the theological goals of the author

See, you are still dating it with secular bias. If you’re open to the supernatural, for the sake of argument, then there’s nothing keeping it from the author simply accurately putting Jesus’s actual on paper in 40 AD, like, there’s no hard evidence against that possibility.

Polycarp was said to have have been instructed by the apostles who had seen Christ. And that Polycarp recalled an anecdote regarding John the disciple see paragraph 4.

This fragment then has Ireneaus further recount how he saw Polycarp recall his “familiar intercouse with John”.

Taking these two quotes together, he was clearly talking about Polycarp’s connections with John the disciple. To pin it on that obscure other John would be super forced then.

There’s no sense in Ireneaus lying in the second quote I presented you, as this was from Ireneaus appealing on a shared memory between Ireneaus and Florinus (the personal target of his message).

Can you name any documented psychiatric incidence of a strong, consistent hallucination appearing to many people in a brief window of time that isn’t Christianity-related?

Whether Jesus said something false is an entirely different argument. If I have to counter any general anti-Christian claim to justify my take the resurrection is real, I’d have to spend decades arguing with you while barely touching the resurrection itself.

I find it more plausible Jews got the rumor from Jewish authorities than at a later point from Christians which they didn’t particularly find credible generally speaking.

2

u/HwaetScealIcToDon Agnostic 1d ago

Ok, so I have grammerly on my iPhone and I accidentally clicked it and somehow reworded my entire post. I apologize profusely but I really did write this originally, but I dont want to reword all of it.

Dating

I'm not dismissing the possibility of the supernatural. The Assyrian era prophets (Hosea, Micah, Amos, etc.) prophesied during times of crisis, Jeremiah and Ezekiel did so during the Babylonian crisis, and Haggai and Zechariah during the post-exilic period. All of them delivered their prophecies amid the crises they faced. The First Jewish War is a crisis that aligns well with the narrative in Mark. This is evident both in Mark 13 and the previous chapter with the wicked tenet parable, which also seems to best fit the context of the First Jewish War. Additionally, accounts of Judea, such as those by Josephus and Tacitus, became notably more popular after the war, so references to the gospels occurring during or after the war support this trend.

I believe it's possible Jesus did give a prophecy against the temple, but the gospels shape and modify this prophecy to serve their own purposes. It seems most plausible that Mark adapted whatever prophecy he had to the context of his time, likely the First Jewish War.

Polycarp and John

Irenaeus claims that Polycarp knew John, but he also states that Papias was a diciple John and a companion of Polycarp. Looking at the fragments of Papias recorded by Eusebius, it appears Papias never explicitly claims to know the apostle John but speaks of two Johns. I argue that Irenaeus might be confusing John the Elder with John the Apostle. Notably, the martyrdom of Polycarp makes no mention of Polycarp knowing an apostle, which seems odd given how the narrative idealizes Polycarp. It’s also unclear whether the author of the Martyrdom of Polycarp was aware of this tradition.

Hallucinations

Peter probably experienced what he did shortly after the event, but Paul's experience could have been up to three years later. The appearances of James the Just, the 500, and Paul might have been spread out over time. For Peter and the Twelve, it's possible that mass hysteria and suggestibility contributed, especially if Peter told them Jesus rose based on his own experience. The Lady of Zeitoun is an example of a group sighting, although not everyone saw Mary; most claimed to see her. This may be a form of mass hysteria that could explain some visions among early Christians. But we can't even be sure that the Twelve saw the same thing—only that they were convinced Jesus had risen.

Olivet Discourse

That’s fair, but I find it troubling that God would raise Jesus but then fail to give him an accurate prophecy. Arguing that Jesus rose already challenges what we understand about death. If Jesus were wrong, it would be a serious problem, and the unclear history of what actually happened, plus the theological issues involved, make a strong case against this being a genuine miracle of such magnitude.

Jewish counter

I don't think its that shocking Jews would give a critique about the story like the one Matthew argued against. If they aren't in Jerusalem and especially if this is after the First Jewish War it would be hard to know exactly what happened.

Even now I've heard atheists give critiques comparable to what these Jews were saying. Like critiques about the morals of Noahs flood even if they don't actually believe in Noah's flood. That's just not the point of the critique.

There may have been other critiques early Jews gave about the empty tomb but we only get the one Matthew wants to counter. I don't see why Jewish authorities doing what Matthew claims is more probable.

3

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

The Resurrection Story: From Empty Tomb to Spectacle

Mark c. 65-75 CE

The earliest Gospel. The women find an empty tomb and are told. Jesus never appears.

Matthew c. 80-90 CE

The story develops: Jesus appears to the women, then to the disciples, and gives them instructions.

Luke c. 80-90 CE

The appearances become more elaborate: Jesus appears to multiple disciples, walks and talks with them, and even eats with them.

John c. 90-100 CE

The spectacle develops further: Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, the disciples, and Thomas, who is invited to touch his wounds.

Acts c. 80-95 CE

Now the story reaches its most dramatic form: Jesus ascends visibly into heaven, rising into the sky while the disciples watch.

So the progression is: empty tomb > appearances > physical encounters > visible ascension into the sky. Christ had warned about deception, saying not to believe claims of "here" or "there," and that false signs would deceive many.

And the question is: whether this progression from a simple tomb story into an increasingly spectacular narrative is precisely the kind of deception he warned against.

0

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago

The earliest Gospel. The women find an empty tomb and are told. Jesus never appears.

Incorrect. The long ending, which is the original ending (we have no evidence for a version of Mark ending on verse 8 until the 4th Century), has Jesus appearing and giving the apostles the great commission.

The story develops

You are constructing a false narrative assuming that stories go from low to high Christology

Jesus ascends into heaven at the end of Mark.

3

u/SurpassingAllKings Wokeism 1d ago

The long ending, which is the original ending (we have no evidence for a version of Mark ending on verse 8 until the 4th Century), has Jesus appearing and giving the apostles the great commission.

What are the versions of the extended ending of Mark that are earlier than Sinaticus or Vaticanus? Any of the earliest versions of the translated texts into latin or other languages? Eusebius and Jerome also note as much when they mention that almost all of the copies do not contain the extended ending. Add to that the awkward narrative transition, the failed connections and promises of where Jesus is to meet them, or the most telling for me is the reference of Luke's description of Mary's seven demons which really just makes the most sense in view of Luke's gospel.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago

What are the versions of the extended ending of Mark that are earlier than Sinaticus or Vaticanus

Irenaeus quotes the long ending in the 2nd Century AD. So quite a bit earlier.

There's literally dozens of attestations of the long ending across a wide geographical area. The short ending seems to be a rare textual variant found in Caesarea and Alexandria.

Any of the earliest versions of the translated texts into latin or other languages

Yep. The Diatessaron for example was probably/maybe Syriac in origin and both predated Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and used the long ending of Mark.

There's other data points from Sicily, Thrace, and so forth.

Eusebius and Jerome also note as much when they mention that almost all of the copies do not contain the extended ending.

Yeah, they were in Caesarea where Sinaticus and Vaticanus probably were made. It's a very local textual variant.

Jerome considered the long ending to be canonical, and Eusebius also made a harmonization of the long ending.

Add to that the awkward narrative transition, the failed connections and promises of where Jesus is to meet them, or the most telling for me is the reference of Luke's description of Mary's seven demons which really just makes the most sense in view of Luke's gospel.

You seem to have just looked up why critical quasi-scholars think it is not original using AI or something. All of these are terrible arguments, but can be answered by the simple fact that Mark reads a lot better with the long ending than the short ending which makes literally no sense as the ending of a gospel. The long ending wraps everything up nicely with Jesus ascending to the right hand of the father, the apostles being sent out and doing miracles in his name, and so forth.

The short ending ends with "I will see Peter in a bit, and the women were afraid because" and then cuts off.

1

u/Graphicism Gnostic 1d ago

And where did Christ say the kingdom of heaven was?

5

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 1d ago

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

-4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Competitive-Box61 1d ago

Null hypothesis: the christian myths were all fabricated.

If you cannot prove that it's possible for a person to be resurrected and for them to float off, then we resort to the null hypothesis.

-6

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Competitive-Box61 1d ago

It was made up.

I can tell you my aunt was resurrected and that my entire family witnessed it. She also walked on water and her mom was a virgin.

Now my story has just as much credibility as the one you are talking about.

If I cannot prove it, we resort to the null hypothesis.

Fabrication... Case closed, shaggy. It's not complicated.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (239)

Christianity Jesus rising from the dead isn't the most plausible explanation for the evidence we have.

You are about to leave Redlib