Taking a look at the gospel accounts

All of them, or just the Fab Four?  And even the Fab Four do not agree.  So which one is more right?  We think a lot on the word 'tomb' when it's just a hole in the rock, with another rock(s) covering the hole.

what the historians themselves do not dispute
You don't know many historians do you?  There is not much that is not in dispute.  Hell for the American Civil War (a much more recent event) about all the agreement I can find is: Between 1861 and 1865 there was a war, the North won.  These events, poorly documented to begin with by our standards, most of those records scattered to the wild wind, much of it coming from widely differing factions all with an axe to grind and then run through a couple of translation-by-committee meat grinders have little to sustain any agreement. 

First the Romans were not having an easy time in Judea.
Who ever had an easy time governing in that god-forsaken place?  Of all the ungovernable places on earth it's the most ungovernable of all.  'Twas ever thus.

And you just kind of toss that off, when in reality it's pretty important.  If Rome is (and they are) having trouble in Judea then it's unique because Rome really only faced trouble on its frontiers, you don't have this kind of trouble inside the Empire.  The Empire is set up to avoid this kind of trouble.  Rome runs in a way that modern empires do not, it never replaced the local culture, rather Rome moved into that culture.  Rome let local law be, which means in Judea the Jewish Law (whatever that meant, it is/was Jewish Law and it has lots of interpretations) ran civil affairs and stuff like 'blasphemy' courts and Roman Law only dealt with Imperial stuff (money and trade and the Legion).  So there was no need for the Jewish courts to turn him over unless they could not agree.  And they couldn't.  Never could.  That's why it was ungovernable. 

And, what we have in the Bible, is something written by people (except perhaps Luke) who viewed Rome as the oppressor, an occupying force (and it was) and so what is written about the trial, who among the high priests and the major cults that were both religious and political, (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes - who the writers of the bible also have disagreements with), who was really saying what becomes problematic.

Maybe Pilot ditched it.  He had a good reason to.  No body, no resurrection (a very common religious belief at the time in that area, this one resurrection story is not an isolated example).  It is also recorded that the guards went to the priests and also claim that the body was gone. The priest go so far as to bribe the guards and relay the story to Pilot.  That's a classic deception ploy by the way.  Get the people who ditched the body to go tell the others it's missing.  Guess who knows exactly where not to search too?

In order for them to get the wrong tomb it would have had to look a lot like the tomb into which Jesus was laid.
It's a hole in the rock in an area full of holes in the rock being used to store dead bodies.  Burial was a big huge deal to just about everyone in the ancient world.  Most religions were a huge part burial cult.  They took place at certain sites, so which hole in the rock is it exactly?  Once its covered up it could look like any of the others.

It also would have had to be very close to the same area
Like the place of execution, the tomb is clearly outside the city walls as the existed at that time.

When it comes to history, and the Bible falls into the category of a history book, you have to remember history is written by the victors.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 16, 2011, 02:05:49 PM
I'm not trying to ruin a moment here but the brain itself is a wonderful thing.  It responds to chemicals such as melatonin (sleep), serotonin (happiness), oxytocin (love), dopamine (feeling good), and literally dozens of others.  Under times of great stress (such as running a marathon or fighting for your life) the brain releases endorphins to counteract the pain and let you keep going.  This is commonly referred to as runner's high.

Your brain has to interpret acoustic and visual information.  It has to recognize countless faces, excelling at those we see most often or have strong memories of.  When it acts up, it can make you see and hear things that aren't even there at all. 

My point is that the brain is responsible for pretty much everything.  It drives our perception of reality and tells us how we're feeling.  It's the command center of the body and it needs a lot of oxygen to function.  When the heart stops, the brain stops receiving oxygen.  All sorts of systems get screwed up leading to out of body experiences and the like.  That white light is a cascade of neural activity as the brain's cells struggle to survive.  You might even see people important to you.  All in all it seems like a better place.  After that flurry of activity, the brain cells begin to die and after a time there is no way to revive the person as the brain is simply too damaged to get going again.  Death itself isn't instantaneous either.  It's a fairly long process lasting several minutes from cardiac arrest until total irreversible death.

Understanding this model, I'm not afraid of death.  It should prove to be quite pleasant when it occurs.  Of course I could end up getting my head blown off or have one of many other violent deaths.  You know it's funny, my mother always says "For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don't no proof is enough."  I suppose that's true to an extent.  If you already believe, you'll see things that prove your faith all the time and leave it at that.  And those who don't believe will see the same occurrence and see it as a matter worth investigating.

In the face of unexplained input the brain makes up an explanation, to great unexplained phenomena (the reason for life, the universe and everything) the best the human brain could do was to come up with religion and/or metaphysics.

Kate D

Quote from: tekla on June 20, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
Taking a look at the gospel accounts

All of them, or just the Fab Four?  And even the Fab Four do not agree.  So which one is more right?  We think a lot on the word 'tomb' when it's just a hole in the rock, with another rock(s) covering the hole.

As my posts have been over a period of time and i have been adding to my first post i did not think i needed to reiterate that i was looking at the 4.

Quote from: tekla on June 20, 2011, 09:01:42 AM

what the historians themselves do not dispute
You don't know many historians do you?  There is not much that is not in dispute.  Hell for the American Civil War (a much more recent event) about all the agreement I can find is: Between 1861 and 1865 there was a war, the North won.  These events, poorly documented to begin with by our standards, most of those records scattered to the wild wind, much of it coming from widely differing factions all with an axe to grind and then run through a couple of translation-by-committee meat grinders have little to sustain any agreement. 

Where in that statement did i say that there was much that they do not dispute?

Quote from: tekla on June 20, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
Taking a look at the gospel accounts


First the Romans were not having an easy time in Judea.
Who ever had an easy time governing in that god-forsaken place?  Of all the ungovernable places on earth it's the most ungovernable of all.  'Twas ever thus.

And you just kind of toss that off, when in reality it's pretty important.  If Rome is (and they are) having trouble in Judea then it's unique because Rome really only faced trouble on its frontiers, you don't have this kind of trouble inside the Empire. 
The Empire is set up to avoid this kind of trouble.  Rome runs in a way that modern empires do not, it never replaced the local culture, rather Rome moved into that culture.
Rome let local law be, which means in Judea the Jewish Law (whatever that meant, it is/was Jewish Law and it has lots of interpretations) ran civil affairs and stuff like
'blasphemy' courts and Roman Law only dealt with Imperial stuff (money and trade and the Legion).  So there was no need for the Jewish courts to turn him over unless they
could not agree.  And they couldn't.  Never could.  That's why it was ungovernable.

Here again if you go back i had stated there was only about 4 other plausible explanations of what may have happened to the body. There did not at this point for this
explanation that any more was needed other than both Pilot and the priests had motive and reason to end this as quickly as possible.

Quote from: tekla on June 20, 2011, 09:01:42 AM

And, what we have in the Bible, is something written by people (except perhaps Luke) who viewed Rome as the oppressor, an occupying force (and it was) and so what is written about the trial, who among the high priests and the major cults that were both religious and political, (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes - who the writers of the bible also have disagreements with), who was really saying what becomes problematic.

Which makes Luke a bit unique. Being that he is most likely Greek,was educated,and most likely was taught rational thinking, he would not have been easily persuaded without
to his mind solid evidence that what he was saying is true. His letter was written to one close and dear friend who was Greek. He even states his purpose for writing the letter
was that his friend could know that what his friend was being taught was the truth. The political and religious squabbles other than where they had an impact on what he was trying say
would have most likely had very little impact on him.

Quote from: tekla on June 20, 2011, 09:01:42 AM

Maybe Pilot ditched it.  He had a good reason to.  No body, no resurrection (a very common religious belief at the time in that area, this one resurrection story is not an isolated example).  It is also recorded that the guards went to the priests and also claim that the body was gone. The priest go so far as to bribe the guards and relay the story to Pilot.  That's a classic deception ploy by the way.  Get the people who ditched the body to go tell the others it's missing.  Guess who knows exactly where not to search too?

This does not make sense to me as why would he poke the hornets nest so to speak? It also does not make sense as the priests themselves would have
made 100 % sure that they had the right tomb. They had every reason to protect their power and position. If you were in power and could very easily disprove the very thing that is
becoming a thorn in the side why not do so? Disprove it and it's check and mate,game over,time to go home and last one out turn off the lights. Disprove
the resurrection and Christianity fails as that is what they pointed back to.

As there are many others stories of a resurrection does that not beg the questions does this not mean that somehow with all the other stories
that this is the single one that somehow continued on. All of the others must somehow,as they did not go anywhere, were disproved as they all died.
Which implies that those who were hearing these claims knew what they were looking at and hearing,they somehow knew what to look for if it was false.
Add to that the fact that within a very short time they were preaching this in the heart of Rome itself while the very ones
who claimed to have seen it were still ALIVE

Quote from: tekla on June 20, 2011, 09:01:42 AM

It also would have had to be very close to the same area
Like the place of execution, the tomb is clearly outside the city walls as the existed at that time.

Taking into account that Jesus dies at 3:00 PM on a Friday afternoon just before the Sabbath. And factoring in even the very latest date for Easter and the Sabbath starts at sundown,
it only allows at the maximum 3 hours and 15 minutes of daylight to remove the body,wash it,wrap the body in linen and pack it with spices and transport it to the tomb
lay it in the tomb and secure the entrance. How far could the tomb be outside the city? Not very if all this was to be done before sunset.

Looking at the controversy even here, it's no wonder that believing isn't as common as it used to be.

There will always  be controversary, because in the end it is a matter of "Faith".

No matter what proof you look for, think you have found, no matter what scientific example you look at, whatever, your final acceptance of God is a matter of faith.

God is not provable to those who don't want to find Him.

I do apologize for the post breaks. (It did not look like that on my end when i posted it) For some reason the right margin keeps going on my comp screen
and i am not sure why.

this is an absolutely fantastic thread, and i wish there was a "like" button for posts on here.

my own personal accepting of jesus has been largely due to the life that has been dealt to me. i've honestly had a fairly difficult life.

a quick synopsis of the few things i have dealt with;
three divorces with biological parents.
military parents and grandparents on both sides of the family, forcing me to be someone i'm not.
the loss of home, vehicle, and a job on more than one occassion.
the death of a best friend and business partner, causing me to go bankrupt and again lose my home lol.

there's a whole lot more to it, but the point is that i've come to an excellent relationship with God on my own terms. i was raised catholic, then moved to christianity, but they're just labels. i'm not fond of labels. granted, the best church experience i've had was christian. anyways, through the strugges i've gone through God has always brought me through, made me a stronger person, and showed me the reason was always to bring me to a higher place. for the longest time i questioned why God would allow me to have such a difficult life, and even questioned God's existence because of hardship. it wasn't until i lost everything, and was on the opposite side of the country from family to realize that he was there all along. and again, not only was he there, but was allowing such hardships for a reason.

i hope this is beneficial for someone. and again, this is a fantastic thread.

Hi, Madirocks,

Thank you for sharing your story with us. I am happy to know that you are forging ahead despite so many reversals.

We all have our experinces that leads us to belive in the existance of G-d. For me it is the beouty of evoution, molecular biology, and quantum physics that l;eads me to belive in a Cosmological G-d.

Kate D

I think the concept of a personal God, as opposed to a distant grand designer, can be a rather important survival tool.  Belief in God will lead you to be more optimistic.  Think about someone raised in a loving household vs an abusive one.  I'm sorry if anyone reading this suffered abuse, however chances are those raised in a loving household will have a better outlook on life.  The same goes for believing that someone is always there for you, even if you can't see them. 

This belief could even be written into some sort of genetic memory.  It could have pushed our ancestors farther for food.  It could have given them the edge they needed to endure harsh conditions.  If that's true, then God certainly does exist, just not in the traditional sense.

Kia Ora,

It's possible this happens because ones "senses" have succumb to "advertising"[with a little "subliminal" persuasion thrown in]   ... And as we all know this can apply to things both spiritual and commercial...

The concept of a God has been "up for sale - on the market" for a long time...And sale people are on "commission" ....

Well that's one possibility on  "What makes one/you believe!" But I could be wrong..........

Metta Zenda

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 24, 2011, 11:10:52 AM
I think the concept of a personal God, as opposed to a distant grand designer, can be a rather important survival tool.  Belief in God will lead you to be more optimistic.  Think about someone raised in a loving household vs an abusive one.  I'm sorry if anyone reading this suffered abuse, however chances are those raised in a loving household will have a better outlook on life.  The same goes for believing that someone is always there for you, even if you can't see them. 

This belief could even be written into some sort of genetic memory.  It could have pushed our ancestors farther for food.  It could have given them the edge they needed to endure harsh conditions.  If that's true, then God certainly does exist, just not in the traditional sense.

Dr Maddie,

I could not haver put it better, the clarity the logic. I wish I could hre ypu to work with me

Kate D

I think I killed the thread.

I love your posts Maddie.

Kate D

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on June 27, 2011, 06:57:54 PM
I think I killed the thread.

Maddie,
I will go on if you want. I am just dealing with severe time issues at the present. I am just so swamped with projects that i do need to get done and i do also work from home which i am so swamped also. I just have to make sure i balance things out otherwise i will start getting feeling overwelmed  with everything and i will go into a severe depression and i for sure do not want to go down that path again.

I do also deal with a severe lack of confidence in myself and it has been hard for me to put down my words. (it has been good as i am taking the steps to be able to build it up but it is still very shaky at times) and i am starting to have to deal with it at the moment. Please bear with me as it will take me a bit of time to finish but i will get there.

How far could the tomb be outside the city? Not very if all this was to be done before sunset.

You forget how tiny the world, and cities in particular were, before cars.  Really old Jerusalem is not all that big.

The execution and burial were almost right next to each other.  Really, no refrigerators in a desert climate, you bury dead things fast.  They are/were close enough (ahem, allegedly) that both locations are within Church of the Holy Sepulcher.  Since about 326 C.E., there have been efforts to preserve (not really) the site of the cruxifixtion and the tomb.  So they were going on what was pretty recent knowledge (because most religions are huge burial cults, people don't forget where they put the dead.  On the other hand the Romans had already kicked the Jews out, so perhaps they were just guessing.  This location is inside the wall built by Herod Agrippa about 100 yards, if that, beyond the Wall of the Kings, which was the city when Jesus was there.  It's about 220 acres (one square kilometer / 0.386102 sq. mi - for reference, at least for me, Golden Gate Park is about 5X bigger, 1013 acres)

Anyway they are not more than a hundred, hundred-fifty, feet apart.

Disprove the resurrection and Christianity fails as that is what they pointed back to.
Pilot didn't care about that.  All he cared about was order and stability.  It wasn't Jesus that he was trying to calm down, it was the Jews.  You know he loses that job eventually for being to hard on the Jews, they were nothing but trouble.  Really, there is no Christianity at that time, there is only this crazy rabbi (and there are lots of them floating about at the time) with his own little sect of Judaism going on.

If you were in power and could very easily disprove the very thing that is becoming a thorn in the side why not do so?
The thorn was not the tiny Christian cult, but the entire Jewish political scene.  That turmoil had zip to do with Jesus, had everything to do being under occupation.  What, some 30-70 (depending on how you count it, the calendarization of all this is more than slightly suspect) years after the time of Jesus the Romans finally used the one remaining tool for keeping order.  They destroyed it.  And the Romans were not interested in arguing religion, any religion.  Part of what kept the Pax Romana together was a near total religious freedom and toleration.  That, and no one ever wants to argue religion with Jewish academics, they invented that game.  They always win.

Rome never seemed to worry about getting people to agree with them.  If you really disagreed they crucified you, for minor disagreements you'd spend the rest of your life as a galley slave, in the mines, or as entertainment in the games.

Which makes Luke a bit unique. Being that he is most likely Greek,was educated,and most likely was taught rational thinking, he would not have been easily persuaded without  to his mind solid evidence that what he was saying is true.
Well the first thing that makes Luke unique is he never was near Jesus.  He comes along much later and seems to use the gospel of Mark.  And being taught rational thought does not always produce constant rational thinking.  And the main Greek deal, at least as I read it, is that it's very much in a Greek Historical accounting style.

there was only about 4 other plausible explanations
I favor any explanation that accounts for folly, irresponsibility, anger, and stupidity.  Because that's the way human beings really act.

The Romans never allowed the bodies to be pulled off the crosses. They were left there to rot, to be a visual and smelly reminder not to mess with law.


Kate D

Actually, aside from a pretty pointed reminder not to fight with Rome, the bodies were left there to intentionally deprive the person and their family of a burial, which was (not surprising in a burial cult religion) a real big deal.  But I was under the impression that Jewish Law forbid them being up at that time, and in matters of local custom, Rome let local custom prevail.  And this was only a little death event.  Only 3 of them.  Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' men along the Appian Way from Capua to Rome.  That's 119 miles of people on crucifixes.  Josephus (who is the one and only contemporary source to mention Jesus) tells a story of the Romans crucifying people along the walls of Jerusalem.  So he took them down, I'm sure he had more to hang as soon as the holiday was over.

When I hear about the fall of the Roman Empire I think, "What fall?"  It never fell.  It just morphed into the Catholic Church.

Quote from: Julie Marie on June 29, 2011, 08:44:45 AM
When I hear about the fall of the Roman Empire I think, "What fall?"  It never fell.  It just morphed into the Catholic Church.

and all the sweet lead used to make water pipes for piping water into the city surely messed with their minds.