Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. - Religion (2) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. (6426 Views)
The Site Of The Burial And Resurrection Of Jesus Christ, The Tomb Is Empty / Brighton Elliot Moyo Dies After 'Resurrection' By Prophet Lukau / Analyzing the Report on Apostle Sulamann by Sharia Report (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Anas09: 7:45pm On Dec 19, 2016 |
Rilwayne001:I didn't read. Go back to the cave Seun calved out for you. You want relevance? You are not getting any. |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 7:54pm On Dec 19, 2016 |
Anas09: You didn't read because you can't comprehend. Insult is what you know best to do and nothing intelligent whatsoever. And FYI, here is an extension of what Seun calved for us and even not you. Christians have always been claiming Christianity is not a religion, then what are you guys doing in the religion section?   5 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Anas09: 7:57pm On Dec 19, 2016 |
Rilwayne001:Ignored. |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by haffaze777(m): 6:17am On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001: keep it coming blother,we are solidly behind u 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 6:28am On Dec 20, 2016 |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 10:05am On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001: ^^ General Consideration There are numerous reasons for doubting the tradition of Jesus’s burial by Joseph. For one thing, it is hard to make historical sense of this tradition just within the context of Mark’s narrative. Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death” (14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified. Why, after Jesus is dead, is he suddenly risking himself (as implied by the fact that he had to gather up his courage) and seeking to do an act of mercy by arranging for a decent burial for Jesus’s corpse? Mark gives us no clue. My hunch is that the trial narrative and the burial narrative come from different sets of traditions inherited by Mark. Or did Mark simply invent one of the two traditions himself and overlook the apparent discrepancy? In any event, a burial by Joseph is clearly a historical problem in light of other passages just within the New Testament. I pointed out earlier that Paul shows no evidence of knowing anything about a Joseph of Arimathea or Jesus’s burial by a “respected member of the council.” This datum was not included in the very early creed that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and if the author of that creed had known such a thing, he surely would have included it, since without naming the person who buried Jesus, as we have seen, he created an imbalance with the second portion of the creed where he does name the person to whom Jesus appeared (Cephas). Thus, this early creed knows nothing about Joseph. And Paul also betrays no knowledge of him. Moreover, another tradition of Jesus’s burial says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. As I pointed out earlier, the book of Acts was written by the same person who wrote the Gospel of Luke. When writing Luke, this unknown author (we obviously call him Luke, but we don’t know who he really was) used a number of earlier written and oral sources for his stories, as he himself indicates. Scholars today are convinced that one of his sources was the Gospel of Mark, and so Luke includes the story of Joseph of Arimathea in his version of Jesus’s death and resurrection. When Luke wrote his second volume, the book of Acts, he had yet other sources available to him. Acts is not about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus but about the spread of the Christian church throughout the Roman empire afterward. About one- fourth of the book of Acts consists of speeches made by its main characters, mainly Peter and Paul—speeches, for example, to convert people to believe in Jesus or to instruct those who already believe. 3 Likes |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 10:10am On Dec 20, 2016 |
Scholars have long recognized that Luke himself wrote these speeches—they are not the speeches that these apostles really delivered at one time or another. Luke is writing decades after the events he narrates, and no one at the time was taking notes. Ancient historians as a whole made up the speeches of their main characters, as such a stalwart historian as the Greek Thucydides explicidy tells us (Peloponnesian War 1.22.1-2). They had little choice. When Luke composed his speeches, however, it appears that he did so, in part, on the basis of earlier sources that had come down to him—just as his accounts of Jesus’s teachings in the Gospel came from earlier sources (such as Mark). But if different traditions (speeches, for example) come from different sources, there is no guarantee that they will stand in complete harmony with one another. If they do not stand in harmony, it is almost always because someone is changing the stories or making something up. That makes Paul’s speech in Acts 13 very interesting Paul is speaking in a synagogue service in Antioch of Pisidia, and he uses the occasion to tell the congregation that the Jewish leaders in [b] Jerusalem had sinned severely against God by having Jesus killed: “Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb” (Acts 13:28-29). This may appear to harmonize generally with what the Gospels say about Jesus’s death and burial —in that he died and was buried—but here it is not a single member of the Sanhedrin who buries Jesus, but the council as a whole. This is a different tradition. There is no word of Joseph here, any more than there is in Paul’s letters. Does this pre-Lukan tradition represent an older tradition than what is found in Mark about Joseph of Arimathea? Is the oldest surviving burial tradition one that says Jesus was buried by a group of Jews? 1 Like |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Demmzy15(m): 1:32pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001, pity this guys na. It's harmattan o! 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 2:57pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Demmzy15: I pity them that's why i wanted them to see the lie they've been indoctrinated with. This thread will be a pain in their neck until they prove historically the crucifixtion and resurrection lie. Cc: 4evergod  4 Likes |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Naijacitizen(m): 3:37pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Following |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Demmzy15(m): 5:16pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001:I pity many of them o, some are very nice people but gullibility is really bad. So sad!  2 Likes |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by truthmans2012: 5:57pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Thread dead on arrival !!! 3 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Scholar8200(m): 6:04pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
truthmans2012:Indeed, the pharisees and elders failed, this thread, a modern version of the efforts of the aforementioned teeters in that direction, methinks. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by DoctorAlien(m): 6:26pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001: What gullibility is more terrible than being a muslim? Who is more gullible? The Christian or the muslim who fights against the belief(in the resurrection of Christ) of the Catholic church which founded Islam in a bid to achieve their selfish and evil aims? Have you ever wondered why Islam and Roman Catholicism have too many similarities? Have you ever paused to think? |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by truthmans2012: 6:41pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
DoctorAlien: Catholic Fraternity. With Islam: https://www.nairaland.com/3095303/catholic-fraternity-islam |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 7:11pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
truthmans2012: DoctorAlien: We are not here to talk about how Catholics created islam; don't derail the purpose of the thread. We are here to analyze the crucifixion and resurrection claim as indicated in the topic of the thread. So it would do good if you can provide counter arguments to the points I've been raising so far, trust me i might change my views if they are convincing enough. And you doctoralien, i remember this thread where you claimed to be providing absolute prove for the resurrection of Jesus, i hope you will be using those prove to disprove the points being raised on this thread. And as per Catholics creating Islam; that's a topic that really interests me. Kindly create a thread and tell us how they actually did. Thank you in advance .  2 Likes |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by DoctorAlien(m): 7:18pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001, [url=christianitybeliefs.org/islam-in-bible-prophecy/islam-and-roman-catholicism-similarities/]Here are some similarities between Islam and Roman Catholicism.[/url] Read and think. Then do more research on the topic "The Catholic church created Islam". |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 7:27pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
DoctorAlien: These are just similarities and nothing shows what you are saying. Then do more research on the topic "The Catholic church created Islam". I thought you've done the research before asking me to do? Kindly create a thread to enlighten on how they created Islam. After all when you want to preach Jesus you don't ask people to make their research. 2 Likes |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by DoctorAlien(m): 7:31pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
Rilwayne001: If you won't do the research, leave it then and continue with your Jesuit-run Islam. Okay? |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by plainbibletruth: 9:28pm On Dec 20, 2016 |
It is interesting that Muslims will go to any length – even changing the meaning of words and portions in their own quran – just to do all they can to attempt to ‘prove’ their point on any issue. Going to any length to prove a point is what I see the OP attempt to do here. In spite of the superior position the quran presents of Jesus – in some instances actually indicating that he was referred to as the SAVIOUR – many Muslims still refuse to accept him for who he is. The UNIQUENESS of Jesus is very clear in the quran. More is said about him than even Mohamed. His pre-eminence over every other human being is stressed. These uniqueness were highlighted in the thread – https://www.nairaland.com/2391643/uniqueness-jesus-quran It should be clear to Muslims like Rilwayne001 that even the quran will stand in evidence against them that they simply refused to believe in the only one who could have delivered them from eternity in hell because it (the quran) has provided ENOUGH EVIDENCE for them to know that Jesus Christ is SAVIOUR [/b]and [b]LORD. |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 1:50pm On Dec 21, 2016 |
plainbibletruth: Hey friend, longest time. Where have you been? I hope you are fine? Kindly don't derail this beautiful thread ok? Your input(s) or say your refutations is all we wanted. Perhaps I will change my views afterwards. Thanks. 2 Likes |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 3:29pm On Dec 23, 2016 |
Rilwayne001: ^^ It would make sense that this was the older tradition of the two. [b. Any tradition that is going to lead up to an empty tomb simply has to show that Jesus was properly buried, in a tomb. But who could do the burial? According to all the traditions, Jesus did not have any family in Jerusalem, and so there was no possibility of a family tomb in which to lay him or family members to do the requisite work of burial. Moreover, the accounts consistently report that his followers had all fled the scene, so they could not do the job. The Romans were not about to do it, for reasons that will become clear below. That leaves only one choice. If the followers of Jesus knew that he “had” to be buried in a tomb— since otherwise there could he no story about the tomb being empty—and they had to invent a story that described this burial, then the only ones who could possibly do the deed were the Jewish authorities themselves. And so that is the oldest tradition we have, as in Acts 13:29. Possibly this is the tradition that lies behind I Corinthians 15:4 as well: “and he was buried.” As the burial tradition came to be told and retold, it possibly became embellished and made more concrete. Storytellers were apt to add details to stories that were vague, or to give names to people otherwise left nameless in a tradition, or to add named individuals to stories that originally mentioned only nameless individuals or undifferentiated groups of people. This is a tradition that lived on long after the New Testament period. In the story of Joseph of Arimathea we may have an early instance of the phenomenon: what was originally a vague statement that the unnamed Jewish leaders buried Jesus becomes a story of one leader in particular, who is named, doing so. In addition, we have clear evidence in the Gospel traditions that as time went on, and stories were embellished, there was a tendency to find “good guys” among the “bad guys” of the stories. For example, in Mark’s Gospel both of the criminals being crucified with Jesus malign and mock him on the cross; in Luke’s later Gospel only one of the two does so, and the other confesses faith in Jesus and asks him to remember him when he comes into his kingdom(Luke 23:39-43). In John’s Gospel there is an additional good guy among the Sanhedrin bad guys who wants to help with Jesus’s burial, as Nicodemus accompanies Joseph to do his duties to Jesus’s corpse (John 19:38-42). Most notable is Pontius Pilate, who, as a thoroughly bad guy, condemned Jesus to death in our earliest Gospel Mark. But he does so only with great reluctance in Matthew and only after explicitly declaring Jesus innocent three times in both Luke andJohn. In later Gospels from outside the New Testament, Pilate is portrayed as an increasingly innocent good guy, to the point that he actually converts and becomes a believer in Jesus. In part, this ongoing and increasing exoneration of Pilate is enacted in order to show where the real guilt for Jesus’s undeserved death lies. For these authors living long after the fact, the guilt lies with the recalcitrant Jews. But the pattern is also part of a process of trying to find someone good in the barrel of rotten opponents of Jesus. Naming Joseph of Arimathea as a kind of secret admirer or respecter or even follower of Jesus may be part of the same process.In addition to the rather general considerations I have just given for questioning the idea that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus, there are three more specific reasons for doubting the tradition that Jesus received a decent burial at all, in a tomb that could later be recognized as empty. To be continued.. |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by yazach: 10:55am On Dec 27, 2016 |
Emusan: Sheu Elisabeth(meaning : drinking orange), how market? Longest time Please refute the op Keep on musan |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by zionmade(m): 7:23pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
Rilwayne i really sense u re well educated and enlightened about Christianity (though in a wrong way) all these while i have been dealing with muslims before i take dem pass one round they run away telling me i want to convert them. I really think u will last longer so pls pm me ur number lets sort it out. Though all the while u were narrating u were afraid to tell us dat according to Islam It was judas who was crucified and God hid Jesus away into mecca where hw was raised alive into heaven |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 8:13pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
zionmade: In a wrong way, how? Why don't you show us in the true sense the right way of understanding Christianity? Perhaps you can start by addressing the OP, and seriously i may change my views if your refutations are convincing enough. Until then, I don't think you have the right to think I'm enlightened in a wrong way. It's more like making a claim without backing it up with a proof, which will be discarded. However, i believe you will be addressing the OP in your next post and not running away like other Christians have done. all these while i have been dealing with muslims before i take dem pass one round they run away telling me i want to convert them. Wow, that's interesting!! truthmans2012 comes to mind. Always boasting, when actually he's an empty barrel. I'm not calling you that though.  I really think u will last longer so pls pm me ur number lets sort it out. Why do i need to PM you? Whatever we want to discuss outside here can be discussed here. Atleast it will even be of benefit for other ignorant non-christian like me and for ignorant Christians like albhagdadi, 4evergod and truthman that ran away from this thread. Or you don't want them to learn from what you are about to teach us  Though all the while u were narrating u were afraid to tell us dat according to Islam It was judas who was crucified and God hid Jesus away into mecca where hw was raised alive into heaven 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by zionmade(m): 9:07pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
Rilwayne001:Addresse dat last paragraph true or false? If i start quoting scriptures u will tell me they were corrupted and dat is exactly wat every muslim is taught If i start quoting apostle paul u will tell me dat he is d worst sinner u ever know. I even read where friendchoice said he wrote porn verses of d bible If a dirty drop of water goes into ur drinking water, will u still drink d water? No Den why do u guys qoute d bible because if a single page of d bible is corrupted den d whole bible is corrupted U say u believe in Jesus but u say the portion of the bible where he said "i and my father are one", "I am the resurrection and the life" "I lay down my life and take it up at my own will" "for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son" "No man cometh to the father except by me" u guys said all these ones were forged den tell me why u re interested in a forged document as d bible |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 9:27pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
zionmade:Where in the Quran was it stated that Judas was crucified in place of Jesus? If i start quoting scriptures u will tell me they were corrupted Yes and dat is exactly wat every muslim is taught If i start quoting apostle paul u will tell me dat he is d worst sinner u ever know. How did you know? Have you quoted him and i said that? I even read where friendchoice said he wrote porn verses of d bible Lol If a dirty drop of water goes into ur drinking water, will u still drink d water? No If there's no alternative, i may just have to remove the dirt and drink the rest. If, however, there's an alternative, i definitely will pour it away and get the alternative. Den why do u guys qoute d bible because if a single page of d bible is corrupted den d whole bible is corrupted Well, i used to be the type that believe some part of the Bible and disbelieve on the rest, but i am no longer that type. I lack total believe in the Bible. You may have to read this https://www.nairaland.com/3446032/problems-gospels-honest-survey-4evergod to get my stance on it. U say u believe in Jesus but u say the portion of the bible where he said "i and my father are one", "I am the resurrection and the life" "I lay down my life and take it up at my own will" "for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son" "No man cometh to the father except by me" u guys said all these ones were forged den tell me why u re interested in a forged document as d bible Yawnnnnnnns!! The gospel of John is the fakest book I've ever read followed by other gospels in the Bible. Now please spare me all these crap and address the OP for once.  |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Rilwayne001: 9:29pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
Meanwhile, as per the topic of the thread, I've been busy for the past weeks now, and so I will be updating the thread by weekend. |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by zionmade(m): 9:35pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
Rilwayne001:Where will i mount my base on to address u. Is it on d same bible u call corrupted? Dats d problem with islam if u want us to iron it out based on the bible den we should assume everything there is truth. U can comme to d bible pick some dat fits d teaching of islam and tell me they are truth and d one dat contradicts islam and tell me dat they are corrupted. Is it not clear to u dat someone is trying to deceive u. Ok to even help u list all d books in the bible u think dat is not corrupted den i will address op purely based on dem |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by zionmade(m): 9:45pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
U said John is d fakest portion of d bible but john 14:16 is where ur imams teach u dat Jesus prophesied about mohammad dat he will come and teach u all things I U were told dat the person dat usedd word salam aleikum was Jesus. But d first place he used d word was wen he met his disciples in a closed room after he has resurrected and yet u guys were told he never resurrected. www.nairaland.com/300566/jesus-islam-according-bible-judge read dat post by a muslim Now please tell me where ur confusion is really coming from |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by Empiree: 9:56pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
zionmade:Even if we are to assume Bible is 100% valid, your creed will forever conflicts with bible and bible will forever be in conflicts within itself. We have been through this before. There is no way around it, sir. And there is no Islamic text that says Judas was killed in place of Jesus (as). That was simply theory made up by some people. You can please bring up islamic evidence for it (if any), start with Quran itself. And far as I am concerned, I don't believe in theory of substitution. It has implication. Now can you address op? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Historically Analyzing The Crucifixtion And Resurrection Claim. by zionmade(m): 10:08pm On Jan 09, 2017 |
Empiree:Ok just tell me where i would make reference to while addressing d op. Where exactly do u want me to pick my points from if not d bible. If i was talking face to face with u den i wont even reference d bible because i have better ways of communication of which u wont even know wen am done wit u. Back to d point point out d books of d bible u think are not corrupted so i will stand on those ones and tackle ur ignorance |
Why Do Pastors Avoid Using The Names (YAHWEH And YESHUA) / God's Work On Man: The Pastor Nick Vujicic And Family Story (photos) / Do You Still Take Your Bible To Church?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 96 |