I think Terminator's position is well put and on the mark.

People can write books and posture and argue about days, hours or minutes on the precise time that Christ was in the grave or tomb. But to what avail? Are such postures anything but hearsay and speculation?

Where is there any definitive undisputed record from Roman govenment, or from Scribes, Pharisee's, etc., that has ever disputed the clear account given by Christ himself? Even if such did exist, how could anyone verify the accuracy of any such condraditory claim?

Their opposing testimony, if existent at all, is in extreme jeopardy at the outset, due to their evidence tampering, by bribing the guards with money.

Anyone who presents any arguement in opposition to what Christ said, has already placed themselves directly in the posture of calling Christ a liar on this issue.

I for one do loath to achieve such a posture.

The biblical record is replete with extensive eye witness accounts of so many regarding the resurrection and/or ascension that to me it seems absurd to even raise any worthwile arguement to the contrary. Especially with no credible evidence to the contrary.

Hmmmm...

Quote:
"Anyone who presents any arguement in opposition to what Christ said, has already placed themselves directly in the posture of calling Christ a liar on this issue. "

Not sure that I did that (if that was directed to me) it is just a pure and simple bit of mathamatics.

Was it 3 days and 3 nights then?? If so, please correct my math error to set me straight. I'm willing to learn.

Dharma,

My comments were not directed at you.

The original question was" What if Jesus survived the crucifixion?" This seems to have taken a tangent of, as I see it a pointless argument on how long did he remain in the tomb.

Unless you or anyone else can establish a verified date and time when his body was prepared and entombed per the Hebrew calendar, then translate that to our present day calendar and on what date and hour, he was resurrected, then why waste time on something that probably no one can agree upon. This diversity of opinion will at some future time be fully obvious to all and any contention relating thereto will then forever cease.

If there are some doubters and skeptics that want toclaim that Christ survived the Crucifixion, perhaps you would be willing to give a personal demonstration as to how this was done.

First let's see you endure the brutal lashing, the crown of thorns, then allow yourself to have the nails of that day driven through your feet, your hands and your wrists, then spend all those agonizing hours on the cross.

Then top all this off by allowing a formidable weapon called a Roman spear to be mightily thrust deep into your chest cavity and suffer also the reverse lacerations so finally inflicted in the removal process of that spear. Any volunteers?

I think the answer is obvious!

There was no question or doubt raised regarding of the verity of death in the mind of the experienced Roman soldiers.

There was no question or doubt raised regarding of the verity of death on the part of the Jews who master minded this deadly plot to crucify him.

There is not one iota of evidence of questioning among all those who witnessed this event that the final result was death.

There was not one iota of evidence of doubt or questioning on the part of the Sanhedrin regarding the finality of the death of Christ.

Their only immediate action after his ressurection, was engage in witness tampering by paying a large sum of bribe money to the Roman guards.

I ask why anyone should even question his death in light of so many hundreds of witnesses who could testify of his ressurection?

Are or should we be so weak in our faith so as to classify ourselves as a modern day "doubting thomas"?

I guess that my question was actually posed when the 3 days 3 nights was posed as a proof of the fulfillment of the prophecy (re: Jonah and the whale) and that if it were NOT 3 days and 3 nights that this prophecy was a "tad off".

That being said, I do so agree that it is a very moot point of a minor trivial discrepancy (at best).


OK... on to another point then.

Revelations won wrote (View Post): › First let's see you endure the brutal lashing, the crown of thorns, then allow yourself to have the nails of that day driven through your feet, your hands and your wrists, then spend all those agonizing hours on the cross. Then top all this off by allowing a formidable weapon called a Roman spear to be mightily thrust deep into your chest cavity and suffer also the reverse lacerations so finally inflicted in the removal process of that spear. Any volunteers? I think the answer is obvious!

Perhaps not so obvious. I am sure there are MANY people who would endure that IF they were certain that by enduring it would assure them a place in heaven sitting at the right hand of God for eternity. What would temporary pain and torture be compared to eternal bliss with God (no matter how painful)?? Those suffering on earth with incurable diseases might ( in some cases) beg to opt for this choice.

We have seen from recent history that individuals would willing give up their own lives voluntarily and GLADLY because their faith tells them that they will be glorified and be assured a place in heaven.

Talk about faith.... or in this case (recent history and suicide bombings) misplaced faith.

Your point is well taken. Yes many are willing to die for their country or even for the cause of Christ.

The big challenge is, how many are willing to live for Christ by keeping all his commandments?

Back to my issue raised in my last post. I submitted that it would be very difficult to survive all that the Master suffered without tasting of death.


As for me, I do not question the reality of his death by crucifixion and subsequent ressurection.

Revelations won wrote (View Post): › As for me, I do not question the reality of his death by crucifixion and subsequent ressurection.

We are in total agreement on that point. Well said.

Revelations won wrote (View Post): › The big challenge is, how many are willing to live for Christ by keeping all his commandments?

How many commandments do you think Jesus had? I know of only 2.

GodsHappyAngel wrote (View Post): › Read an excerpt of Baigent's new book, below.

And the excerpt tells us exactly NOTHING! Just a story by the Baigent. So what?

Revelations won wrote (View Post): › Where is there any definitive undisputed record from Roman govenment, or from Scribes, Pharisee's, etc., that has ever disputed the clear account given by Christ himself?

What account by Christ himself? All the gospels were written by people many years after the events. They were based on oral traditions that preceded them, or even other written documents, such as "Q" that was used by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Are you thinking the gospels were written by, or dictated by, Christ?

Quote: › Even if such did exist, how could anyone verify the accuracy of any such condraditory claim?

The same way we test the veracity of any historical document.

As it stands, I know of no contradictory claims by contemporary or near contemporary documents. The Talmud and Midrash of course say Jesus was not resurrected, but they can't produce a body, either. Instead, they accuse the disciples of stealing it.

BTW, the Talmud and Midrash say the Jews stoned Jesus for apostasy (instead of just trying as in the gospel of John) and then hung the body on a tree.

Quote: › The biblical record is replete with extensive eye witness accounts of so many regarding the resurrection and/or ascension that to me it seems absurd to even raise any worthwile arguement to the contrary.

You might want to rephrase this. Mark has no eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus. The original Mark (before added to by later scribes) ends with the women finding an empty tomb and "a young man ... dressed in a white robe".

Matthew in 28:16-17 simply says the disciples went to Galilee "to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him" No details given.

Luke is the only one of the synoptic gospels to give details and but only has two sightings of the risen Christ. The first ecounter is with 2 men -- "apostles" -- but one is "Cleopas" who is not mentioned anywhere else. Then Jesus appeared to the "eleven". And that's it.

John is the only gospel to give multiple sightings. It is this gospel that gives the story of Thomas and Jesus appearing to Peter while he was fishing and walking on water out to him. But John is the last gospel written and is the farthest removed in time from the original events.

So your statement "extensive eyewitness accounts of so many" will not stand testing. It is so much an exaggeration that it could be termed false witness. If you use this as an argument outside this forum, people are going to hand you your head for your ignorance of what is really in the gospels.

Dharma wrote (View Post): › Correct my asking but in this quote from above posts: "Here is the answer on how long Y'shua was in the grave. Mat. 12:40 Just as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly,so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. " Jesus died on the cross on Friday and the tomb was empty by Sunday morning. Friday night to Sunday morning is only 2 nights and Friday till Sunday does not equal 3 days but 2 at the most. (Firday to Saturday day 1...Saturday to Sunday day 2) Correct??

Well, you took the verse out of context. The Pharisees were asking for a "sign" from Jesus. Jesus replies " an evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given it except the sign of Jonah" That's when we get 12:40. It is not clear that when Jesus says "son of man" he is referring to himself. This is one of the places that implies that Jesus is not. In Matthew 26:2 Jesus says "YOu know that after 2 days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man wil lbe dleivered up to be crucified." In this passage, it looks like "Son of man" = Jesus.

It's confusing.

Because days start in the Jewish reckoning at sundown, Friday is day 1, Saturday is day 2, and Sunday is day 3. This is why Christians say that Jesus rose on the third day.

Revelations won wrote (View Post): › The original question was" What if Jesus survived the crucifixion?"

The answer is obvious: Christianity is toast. IF Jesus did survive the crucifixion, that means the Resurrection did not happen. No Resurrection, no Christianity.

You implicitly acknowledge this by your extensive denial that this eventuality is possible. Unfortunately, your denials are unimpressive since they don't follow scripture or what we know from all our study of history.

Quote: › First let's see you endure the brutal lashing, the crown of thorns, then allow yourself to have the nails of that day driven through your feet, your hands and your wrists, then spend all those agonizing hours on the cross.

People did survive this. In fact, crucifixion was done because it was SLOW, lingering death. Josephus talks of people surviving crucifixion for days. The reason the legs were to be broken was because the prisoners had to die so they could be buried before sundown, since the next day was the Sabbath.

Death by crucifixion is due to suffocation. Hanging all the weight from the arms causes spasms in the muscles of the chest and diaphragm and the victim stops breathing and starts suffocating. He then puts his weight on his feet but, since there are nails in them, that hurts. A lot! So take the weight off the legs and hang and start suffocating.

When the Romans wanted the victim to live a particularly long time, they put a small board nearly behind the buttocks so the victim could partially rest his weight on it.

Eventually, of course, strength gives out and the victim is no longer able to shift the weight to his legs.

Quote: › Then top all this off by allowing a formidable weapon called a Roman spear to be mightily thrust deep into your chest cavity

According to the accounts, the spear was stuck into the abdomen. From the description of "clear fluid" coming from the wound, it would have been into the stomach, not the chest. And this isn't immediately fatal. Infection would probably have killed him -- but that would have taken a couple of weeks.

Quote: › There was not question of the verity of death on the part of the Jews who master minded this deadly plot to crucify him.

Where does it say they examined Jesus to see if he was really dead. Yes, the intention was to have the Romans execute Jesus, but I can't see anything to say that the Jews documented "the verity of death" in this particular case.

Quote: › There is not one iota of evidence among all those who witnessed this event that the final result was death.

I think you misspoke here. You are saying there isn't evidence that death occurred! I think you meant to say "the final result was not death". That is consistent with the rest of your post. If you meant what you said, you contradict yourself.

Quote: › There was not one iota of evidence on the part of the Sanhedrin regarding the finality of the death of Christ.

There's no evidence AT ALL about this. We have no evidence from the Sanhedrin. Once they turned Jesus over to Pilate, we don't hear anything more about them. Certainly not regarding "the finality of the death of Christ".

Quote: › Their only immediate action after his ressurection, was engage in witness tampering by paying a large sum of bribe money to the Roman guards.

That's only in Matthew. And Matthew is writing the story to counter the accusations by the Jews that the disciples stole the body. There is no reason anyone would have posted a guard over the tomb.

You need to be careful about giving false witness about scripture. All you do is cast doubt on it and on Christianity.

lucaspa wrote (View Post): › The answer is obvious: Christianity is toast. IF Jesus did survive the crucifixion, that means the Resurrection did not happen. No Resurrection, no Christianity.

Would you feel the same regarding "no literal Adam and Eve" as presented in Genesis??

No Adam and Eve.
No original disobedience or "eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil"
Thus no "original sin.
No original sin, no need for a redeemer?

Just asking for your thoughts on this.

Dharma wrote (View Post): › Would you feel the same regarding "no literal Adam and Eve" as presented in Genesis?? No Adam and Eve. No original disobedience or "eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" Thus no "original sin. No original sin, no need for a redeemer?

That's the really poor logic and theology of Fundamentalism/creationism. So no, not at all. That argument is one (among many) that Paul used to try to explain the significance of Jesus to gentiles while still maintaing some contact with Judaism. Paul was loathe to abandon Judaism entirely but the gospel he preached really had no connection to the Torah. So Paul (and some of the gospels) tried to make one. For instance, the birth story in Matthew is tailored to make Jesus synonymous with Moses.

Genesis 2-3 is an allegory. In Hebrew adam = dirt and eve = hearth. So we have two people Dirt and Hearth. The story is intended to explain how we -- each of us -- get separated from God. The separation comes from disobedience to God. Adam and Eve's disobedience was in eating the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Each of us disobeys God in different ways, but we all do it at some time. Remember, the commonality of all Paul's explanations for salvation is that Jesus died for our sins. Not Adam's. But my sins and your sins. The sins we commit. The disobedience that we do. Adam and Eve are simply a representation of that.

As minor themes, Genesis 2-3 also refutes the Egyptian theology of the time: we can become divine with the accumulation of enough knowledge. That doesn't work for Adam and Eve. They do NOT become gods by gaining knowledge. The people of the time -- very familiar with ancient Egyptian religion -- would have recognized this theme immediately. We, separated by 2,000 years from a religion that is now dead, don't know that theme. Therefore we misinterpret. Even Paul may not have been aware of the theme, because that Egyptian religion had been dead for 300 years before Paul's time. Also as minor themes, we are given rather endearing but naive explanations for why farming is so hard, why childbirth is so painful, and why people seem to have an instinctual fear of snakes.

BTW, that Christianity is toast if the Resurrection did not happen is the reason Cameron's recent announcement of finding a burial jar with Jesus' remains is causing such a stir. That would be the body that nobody could find.

One reason to doubt Cameron's claim is that the Jews of the time would have produced the body! Remember, they are a LOT closer to the event and could have questioned people. They were also against the rising Jesus cult. Therefore, either the rabbis would have questioned people until they found the remains OR a faithful Jew would have come forward on his own and told the rabbis where Jesus was buried.