Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

[Minimalist]

You do know, that the persons who wrote the first testament were probably aware of any prophecies in the old testament and well, probably tried to make things fit together a bit.

The Jewish idea of Messiah was that a man would rise up in popularity and military/political power and overthrow the foreign powers that were oppressing the Jewish people. If you were following a man that you believed to be Messiah, and instead of rising up and conquering the foreign powers he is arrested by them, beaten, mocked, spit on, stripped naked and crucified, you would conclude that he was not the Messiah.

It would literally require a miracle for the disciples to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. The idea of an isolated resurrection in the middle of history was completely foreign to them, the man that they had been following as Messiah was just crucified (which in Judaism would literally mean that you were cursed by God - thus not Messiah), and they were hiding for their lives locked up in a room together so that they themselves weren't crucified for following Jesus.

Only the resurrection of Jesus would have so changed them and convinced them that Jesus was in fact Messiah. Only an appearance from Jesus who had conquered death could take these cowards and change them to so boldly and fearlessly proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and had risen from the grave.

You must think jews are pretty stupid, then. I'll bet they would have caught on when he started that turn the other cheek, shit.

Oddly, turning the other cheek seems to be what catholic clergy does particularly well!

[Godscreated]

Only the resurrection of Jesus would have so changed them and convinced them that Jesus was in fact Messiah. Only an appearance from Jesus who had conquered death could take these cowards and change them to so boldly and fearlessly proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and had risen from the grave.

Maybe not. Maybe they didn't believe he was messiah, but wanted to carry on his ideals in the form of a new religion and made fake claims of a ressurrection (among other miracles) to fool people into following teachings they believed to be right. What is more, no source other than the bible mentions these 'miracles'. This miracle would be particularly hard to miss, especially considering the fact that it explicitly states that many people saw it. What, did they all get sudden amnesia?

How many great things in history were never recorded? How many of the great things in history that never was written down became word of mouth tales and are now considered fables.

[Godscreated]

Only the resurrection of Jesus would have so changed them and convinced them that Jesus was in fact Messiah. Only an appearance from Jesus who had conquered death could take these cowards and change them to so boldly and fearlessly proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and had risen from the grave.

Maybe not. Maybe they didn't believe he was messiah, but wanted to carry on his ideals in the form of a new religion and made fake claims of a ressurrection (among other miracles) to fool people into following teachings they believed to be right. What is more, no source other than the bible mentions these 'miracles'. This miracle would be particularly hard to miss, especially considering the fact that it explicitly states that many people saw it. What, did they all get sudden amnesia?

How many great things in history were never recorded? How many of the great things in history that never was written down became word of mouth tales and are now considered fables.

[Darkstar]

How many great things in history were never recorded? How many of the great things in history that never was written down became word of mouth tales and are now considered fables.

Like Paul Bunyon? Would you care to provide a fable that is actually true?

[Ryantology]

How many of the great things in history that never was written down became word of mouth tales and are now considered fables.

Nowhere near the number of tales, fables, and other forms of complete fabrication that simple minds have blindly accepted as fact throughout history while perpetrating horrible, violent and demeaning persecution upon those who do not.

Slaves of Yahweh are so insecure.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

not answereing my question wont make it go away.

What question? Am I aware of how the Bible has been translated throughout history?

I am familiar with a lot of it, but I'm not as well studied in this area as others.

I've been studying biblical hermeneutics recently and it's been eye-opening on how complicated translating text can really be.

Because of this I like to compare multiple translations.I typically use the ESV and NASB for own personal reading....but if I'm trying to study a text in depth I like to compare the NLT, ESV, ASV, Young's literal, and NASB to get a better gist of the text.

Also I have Logos so I'm able to use the Exegetical Guide to look into the original language and parcel out the different parts of speech for each word. Also it lets me do words studies.

---

Maybe not. Maybe they didn't believe he was messiah, but wanted to carry on his ideals in the form of a new religion and made fake claims of a ressurrection (among other miracles) to fool people into following teachings they believed to be right. What is more, no source other than the bible mentions these 'miracles'. This miracle would be particularly hard to miss, especially considering the fact that it explicitly states that many people saw it. What, did they all get sudden amnesia?

I'm not well studied on the "zombies" as you put it, but I am pretty well read regarding the resurrection.

I wrote about it here - http://morethanmorality.blogspot.com/201...ction.html

The theory you're proposing is commonly referred to as "The Conspiracy Hypothesis." The theory that the disciples stole the body and lied about His resurrection appearances, thus faking the resurrection.

While this was a popular theory in the eighteenth century by European deists, today however, it has been completely given up by modern scholarship.

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright sums it up like this, "if you're a first-century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you've basically got two choices: Either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus' corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples."

The only place you really read about this theory anymore is in the popular, sensationalist press or Internet fantasies.

[Minimalist]

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright sums it up like this, "if you're a first-century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you've basically got two choices: Either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus' corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples."

Actually, that makes sense. Of course, what makes more sense is that there was no "body" and all of this shit is merely the last edition of the dying/resurrected vegetation god which was so prevalent in the ancient world.

The Greeks, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians all had them. "Jesus" was nothing new.

[pocaracas]

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright sums it up like this, "if you're a first-century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you've basically got two choices: Either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus' corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples."

Actually, that makes sense. Of course, what makes more sense is that there was no "body" and all of this shit is merely the last edition of the dying/resurrected vegetation god which was so prevalent in the ancient world.

The Greeks, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians all had them. "Jesus" was nothing new.

A.K.A., copy/paste.

[Darkstar]

I'm not well studied on the "zombies" as you put it, but I am pretty well read regarding the resurrection.

I wrote about it here - http://morethanmorality.blogspot.com/201...ction.html

I'm not sure what that has to do with the dead walking the streets and appearing before many people. I used 'zombie' lightly; it implys rotted bodies but they might not have been, although the passage didn't specify. It seems odd that not one person would write about that.

The theory you're proposing is commonly referred to as "The Conspiracy Hypothesis." The theory that the disciples stole the body and lied about His resurrection appearances, thus faking the resurrection.

While this was a popular theory in the eighteenth century by European deists, today however, it has been completely given up by modern scholarship.

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright sums it up like this, "if you're a first-century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you've basically got two choices: Either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus' corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples."

The only place you really read about this theory anymore is in the popular, sensationalist press or Internet fantasies.

Either that or he was god in human form. Which seems more likely? Actually, there is a third interpretation: it never happened at all. Why did no one of the era write about it?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Actually, that makes sense. Of course, what makes more sense is that there was no "body" and all of this shit is merely the last edition of the dying/resurrected vegetation god which was so prevalent in the ancient world.

The Greeks, Egyptians, and Mesopotamians all had them. "Jesus" was nothing new.

N.T. Wright has done an impressive amount of research regarding the resurrection and the cultural milieu it took place in. He notes that the most influential thinker of the time was Homer and as far as Homer was concerned resurrection was just something that didn't happen. Wright provides a helpful summary, "Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was known to be false. Many believed that the dead were non-existent; outside Judaism, nobody believed in resurrection."

The writings of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Cicero portrayed the world in a dualistic view where the body was tainted and the spirit was pure. Those who followed Plato or Cicero did not want a body again; those who followed Homer knew they would not get one.

Wright concludes, "Nobody in the pagan world of Jesus' day and thereafter actually claimed that somebody had been truly dead and had then come to be truly, and bodily, alive once more."

What about the Jews themselves? What did they believe in regards to resurrection?

The teachings of Judaism were that at the end of the world, when time had come to an end, there would be a general resurrection to life for the righteous. However, the Jews had no conception of a resurrection that would take place in the middle of history for only one person. We often look back on history with our own knowledge reading into the situations of the past with our own biases. Jewish belief always concerned a general resurrection of the people at the end of time, not the resurrection of an isolated individual or in the middle of history.

Also Edwin Yamauchi has done research on the resurrection and concluded that there is no possibility that the idea of a resurrection was borrowed because there is no definitive evidence for the teaching of a deity resurrection in any of the mystery religions prior to the second century...which would have been way after the Christians were believing in it. It would seem that the other religions were actually influenced by Christianity!

*N.T. Wright, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003)
*Edwin Yamauchi, "Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?" Christianity Today, March 15, 1974 and March 29, 1974

---

I'm not sure what that has to do with the dead walking the streets and appearing before many people.

Earlier you had said this...

Maybe not. Maybe they didn't believe he was messiah, but wanted to carry on his ideals in the form of a new religion and made fake claims of a ressurrection (among other miracles) to fool people into following teachings they believed to be right.

That's what I was addressing.

I used 'zombie' lightly

So did I

Either that or he was god in human form. Which seems more likely?

It seems to me that given the facts of the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the changed convictions of the disciples we have reasonable evidence to believe that Jesus really was who He said He was.

What seems unlikely to me is to posit that all of these events occurred by natural means rather than super-natural given the evidence.

Why did no one of the era write about it?

They did write about it. Letters from the Saul of Tarsus, the historical biographies of Jesus life, they have been found and preserved. These are primarily historical documents.

It wasn't until later that the church compiled these into a book that we now know as the Bible.