72 hours

@FMF

I am going to give more of my conversing time to someone else now FMF. A decade or so we've debated off and on the same things ?

@sonship said
@FMF
A decade or so we've debated off and on the same things ?

@sonship said
Zechariah had written of the king of Israel coming into the city on a donkey hundreds of years previous.

But the timing of His death is really hard to imagine He engineered (unless He is God).

Can you conspired the exact appropriate day of your execution by hostil enemies ?

What you propose is harder to believe then the account of the Gospels of His arres ...[text shortened]... straightforward account of the gospels.

How did He get Judas to betray Him at the proper time?

@sonship said
@moonbus

The fulfilment of some prophecies has a banal (not supernatural) explanation. For example, Jesus entering Jerusalem on a mule. If we assume Jesus knew of the prophecy, that Judea's future king would enter the city on a mule, he could easily have chosen to indicate to the residents of Jerusalem that their future king was entering by availing himself of this ...[text shortened]... Exodus 12 was a type.

https://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=13DCC0C0C6

@FMF

Nothing I've read in this thread so far rebuts my initial response, that the resurrection is a make-or-break issue for Christians. See how vehemently they defend it? Not one will conscience even the remote possibility that it did not really happen, that it was either allegorical (a spiritual renewal, not a bodily one) or that it was not unique, or that it was an afterthought added by later writers who cherry-picked certain bits of the OT to interpret them so as to foreshadow the coming of Jesus. The Jews did not, and do not, interpret those bits that way, and why should they -- it's their testament.

@fmf said
Why is it such a dealbreaker for most Christians [with regard to whether they consider someone to be a kindred spirit ~ a "cultural Christian", perhaps?] if that person simply doesn't believe that Jesus experienced a cessation of all biological functions as a result of being executed that lasted 72 hours followed by a reactivation of those biological functions? Aren't there much ...[text shortened]... eachings ~ than this totally unverifiable and seemingly take-it-or-leave-it story of "resurrection"?

@moonbus said
@FMF

Nothing I've read in this thread so far rebuts my initial response, that the resurrection is a make-or-break issue for Christians. See how vehemently they defend it? Not one will conscience even the remote possibility that it did not really happen, that it was either allegorical (a spiritual renewal, not a bodily one) or that it was not unique, or that it was an after ...[text shortened]... not, and do not, interpret those bits that way, and why should they -- it's their testament.

@caissad4 said
3 Pm on Friday to sunrise on Sunday . Less than 48 hours . Short weekend .

@moonbus said
@FMF

Nothing I've read in this thread so far rebuts my initial response, that the resurrection is a make-or-break issue for Christians. See how vehemently they defend it? Not one will conscience even the remote possibility that it did not really happen, that it was either allegorical (a spiritual renewal, not a bodily one) or that it was not unique, or that it was an after ...[text shortened]... not, and do not, interpret those bits that way, and why should they -- it's their testament.

@kellyjay said
Seeing that I agreed with you, do you actually think you have stumbled upon some grand truth about Christians and Christianity? I have noticed you don't respond directly to my questions, this just about you, if so I'll leave you to it and not bother you again taking you seriously.

@KellyJay

I responded to FMF's OP, whether the resurrection is make-or-break for Christians. I believe we have established that. You have more than adequately demonstrated that you are not willing to accept the possibility that it did not really happen. You reject any alternative non-supernatural explanation and your standard rebuttal is to quote Scripture. In the absence of Scripture, you have no evidence that the resurrection really happened.

Not one of the gospels was written by someone who actually knew Jesus; not one of the gospels was written by someone who witnessed the crucifixion; not one of the gospels was written during Jesus's lifetime. Biblical scholars are generally in agreement that Mark's was written first, no sooner than 80 years after Jesus's death. Those of Matthew, Luke, and John were written later. It's hearsay, no sooner than 80 after the events allegedly took place. Your documentary so-called evidence for a resurrection does not stand up to historical scrutiny.

If someone claimed he had been abducted by extra-terrestrials, transported by unknown means to a far planet, and there subjected to a medical examination, I would expect something better than his say-so that it really happened. I would expect to see some hard evidence, a piece of the spaceship, for example, which could be examined here and now and scientifically determined to be not of human manufacture. And now suppose that this same claim were being made about something that allegedly happened 2,000 years ago, and that the claim was made by someone who wasn't even there; hearsay 80 years later You would have to be very credulous indeed to believe such a story, based solely on someone's say so.

Some say there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection and that thousands of Jews converted at the time. Well, that too is someone's say-so. Produce the 500 witnesses, I want to cross-examine them. I want to know whether they were all at a drinking party at the time of alleged re-appearance of Jesus or the alleged space-alien abduction.

Just in terms of empirical probability, a space-alien abduction is less improbable than that a man rose from dead. I expect a lot better evidence than someone's say-so, 80 years after the event.

@moonbus said
@divegeester

Cupitt is fine writer. Very clear. It is, to say the least, a distinctly odd position for a priest to take. Well, maybe not for an Anglican priest . . .

PS to your remark, what if the resurrection was made up but the healings were real:

If we're going to suppose that the resurrection bit was made up, why should anyone think that the healing bits were not ...[text shortened]... s left right and center, changing water into wine, healing the centurion's sick servant, etc. etc.).

@moonbus said
@KellyJay

I responded to FMF's OP, whether the resurrection is make-or-break for Christians. I believe we have established that. You have more than adequately demonstrated that you are not willing to accept the possibility that it did not really happen. You reject any alternative non-supernatural explanation and your standard rebuttal is to quote Scripture. In the absence ...[text shortened]... man rose from dead. I expect a lot better evidence than someone's say-so, 80 years after the event.

@sonship saidI am going to give more of my conversing time to someone else now FMF. A decade or so we've debated off and on the same things ?

@moonbus said
The timing of his death is easily explained without recourse to supernatural powers. It was well-known when the Roman court was in session and that executions were carried out immediately; these things were scheduled in advance and public knowledge.

Jesus could quite easily have arranged to have himself betrayed (by Judas as an accomplice) in time for this.