Why don't we know the date Jesus rose up from the dead?

[Thor]

Believers insist that Jesus was a real person who performed real miracles. I say he's a myth. To me, some convincing evidence for this comes from the fact that we don't know when he was crucified or rose up from the dead. Of course, we also don't know the date he was born (I hope no one is going to try to argue that he was born December 25).

I can sort of accept that we don't know when he was born. He was supposedly born in a barn and maybe the date was somehow lost to history. But we don't know when he died? When he was resurrected? A momentous event like this and NO ONE thought to write down the date? Particularly when you consider that Jesus was (supposedly) publicly executed! Come on! We know the exact dates of many things that happened in the ancient world, but we don't know wehn Jesus died? I find this hard to swallow.

Do any believers have a reason why this would be?

[tavarish]

The four gospels, Josephus, and the other usual crap.

[Shinylight]

He didn't get resurrected, it is impossible. He was dead for 3 days supposedly, people can come back to life but after 3 days there is no chance.

[Minimalist]

It's even worse than that, Thor.

Pontius Pilate served as prefect of Judaea for 10 years from 26 - 36. As he was made a central character in the story we thus have a terminus ad quem of 36 but since Passover is always in the Spring, we can further refine the date to the end of March, 36 as the latest possible date. The problem comes in on the other end.

All 3 synoptic gospels indicate that 'jesus' ministry did not begin until John the Baptist was killed. Matthew and Luke equate the arrest and subsequent execution to the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias, either the widow or divorced wife of his brother, Phillip. This gives us our second historical marker. This is an actual event, mentioned by Josephus.

Antipas was married to the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea and he duly moved to divorce her in order to marry Herodias. However, independent kings within the Roman empire were not all that independent and it was necessary for him to travel to Rome and obtain the consent of Tiberius for a royal wedding. Josephus recounts that he did this which would have taken a good six months round trip. Upon his return the divorce caused Aretas to attack Antipas' kingdom. Attacking a Roman ally was never a good idea and Tiberius directed the governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius, to deal with Aretas. The problem is that Vitellius did not begin his governorship until 35, he was not even eligible until he was elected consul in 34 and finished his term for such an important military command as Augustus and Tiberius had things set up.

So the political situation goes to shit in 35. It doesn't make sense for John the Baptist to have been denouncing a marriage which had not yet taken place. ( It also doesn't make much sense for John the Baptist, who was a Judaean and therefore a subject of Pilate to have been all that concerned about what Antipas was doing in Galilee in the first place. But this is just another example of the gospel writers having forgotten that the country was divided upon the death of Herod the Great!). Josephus mentions Antipas having John killed but does not specifically relate it to the marriage. It was Vitellius, btw, who removed Pilate as prefect ( an act which probably had more to do with Roman politics than anything else) and replaced him with another officer. Vitellius also removed Caiaphas as high priest around this time.

So we have Antipas divorcing Aretas' daughter in 35, touching off a small war. If the gospel accounts are to be credited the marriage that they claim got John arrested for denouncing must have happened in 35 also. Jesus' ministry begins upon John's arrest and MUST have ended by March, 36. Doesn't leave a lot of time. Certainly not enough for the gospel of John's 3 year ministry, does it?

[Thor]

It's even worse than that, Thor.

Pontius Pilate served as prefect of Judaea for 10 years from 26 - 36. As he was made a central character in the story we thus have a terminus ad quem of 36 but since Passover is always in the Spring, we can further refine the date to the end of March, 36 as the latest possible date. The problem comes in on the other end.

All 3 synoptic gospels indicate that 'jesus' ministry did not begin until John the Baptist was killed. Matthew and Luke equate the arrest and subsequent execution to the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias, either the widow or divorced wife of his brother, Phillip. This gives us our second historical marker. This is an actual event, mentioned by Josephus.

Antipas was married to the daughter of King Aretas of Nabatea and he duly moved to divorce her in order to marry Herodias. However, independent kings within the Roman empire were not all that independent and it was necessary for him to travel to Rome and obtain the consent of Tiberius for a royal wedding. Josephus recounts that he did this which would have taken a good six months round trip. Upon his return the divorce caused Aretas to attack Antipas' kingdom. Attacking a Roman ally was never a good idea and Tiberius directed the governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius, to deal with Aretas. The problem is that Vitellius did not begin his governorship until 35, he was not even eligible until he was elected consul in 34 and finished his term for such an important military command as Augustus and Tiberius had things set up.

So the political situation goes to shit in 35. It doesn't make sense for John the Baptist to have been denouncing a marriage which had not yet taken place. ( It also doesn't make much sense for John the Baptist, who was a Judaean and therefore a subject of Pilate to have been all that concerned about what Antipas was doing in Galilee in the first place. But this is just another example of the gospel writers having forgotten that the country was divided upon the death of Herod the Great!). Josephus mentions Antipas having John killed but does not specifically relate it to the marriage. It was Vitellius, btw, who removed Pilate as prefect ( an act which probably had more to do with Roman politics than anything else) and replaced him with another officer. Vitellius also removed Caiaphas as high priest around this time.

So we have Antipas divorcing Aretas' daughter in 35, touching off a small war. If the gospel accounts are to be credited the marriage that they claim got John arrested for denouncing must have happened in 35 also. Jesus' ministry begins upon John's arrest and MUST have ended by March, 36. Doesn't leave a lot of time. Certainly not enough for the gospel of John's 3 year ministry, does it?

Quite a history lesson! Thanks!

And since Pontius Pilate was an actual person, you would think there would be some record detailing his death sentence to a Jew named Jesus.

---

The four gospels, Josephus, and the other usual crap.

Well, Josephus wasn't alive when Jesus supposedly lived, so anything he writes about Jesus is, at best, hearsay. And the gospels do not indicate what date Jesus was resurrected. Why not? You'd think there would be some record telling us when this momentous event happened. Unless, of course, this event never really happened at all...

[Minimalist]

And since Pontius Pilate was an actual person, you would think there would be some record detailing his death sentence to a Jew named Jesus.

Actually, no. It would have been a minor issue. First off, crucifixion was reserved for rebels and slaves. The gospels claim that JC was neither. Common criminals were despatched in the arena in a far more cost-effective manner. Even the Ben-Hur notion of galley slaves is largely fiction. By the first century the Roman Navy was small as they controlled the entire coast of the Med. Roman ships mainly traveled under sail and if they needed to be rowed their own crews did the rowing.

The odds of finding an actual reference in Roman sources to such an insignificant person are astronomical. Far more likely that there would have been a reference by his followers or people writing at the time. Philo who died in 50 AD was a well-known Jewish writer and even wrote to Emperor Caligula in which he mentioned what a prick Pilate had been..... but he never mentions anything even remotely referencing anyone killed by Pilate who "multitudes" hailed as the messiah.
I wonder why?

Lastly, the fact that xtian forgers actually wrote documents purporting to be from Pilate about his actions in killing JC tells me that there were no actual reports even in the 3d-4th century. If you had actual proof, why try to invent some?

[Thor]

And since Pontius Pilate was an actual person, you would think there would be some record detailing his death sentence to a Jew named Jesus.

Actually, no. It would have been a minor issue. First off, crucifixion was reserved for rebels and slaves. The gospels claim that JC was neither. Common criminals were despatched in the arena in a far more cost-effective manner. Even the Ben-Hur notion of galley slaves is largely fiction. By the first century the Roman Navy was small as they controlled the entire coast of the Med. Roman ships mainly traveled under sail and if they needed to be rowed their own crews did the rowing.

The odds of finding an actual reference in Roman sources to such an insignificant person are astronomical. Far more likely that there would have been a reference by his followers or people writing at the time. Philo who died in 50 AD was a well-known Jewish writer and even wrote to Emperor Caligula in which he mentioned what a prick Pilate had been..... but he never mentions anything even remotely referencing anyone killed by Pilate who "multitudes" hailed as the messiah.
I wonder why?

Lastly, the fact that xtian forgers actually wrote documents purporting to be from Pilate about his actions in killing JC tells me that there were no actual reports even in the 3d-4th century. If you had actual proof, why try to invent some?

Very interesting. I was thinking that since JC was supposedly a famous person, there would be something recording the sentence handed out to such a notorious individual. Sounds like I'm wrong. In any case, you're right. Why is there no mention of JC's execution from historians of the time, or his followers? The whole thing has the stench of myth if you ask me.

[Minimalist]

Why is there no mention of JC's execution from historians of the time, or his followers?

Forget that.

Why is there no mention of a Jewish criminal coming back from the dead after being executed by a Roman magistrate? Pliny the Elder wrote an enormous book which contains lots of fantastic mythic shit from all over the empire. He died in 79 AD during the eruption of Vesuvius. Yet, he never heard this tale?

Let's be clear about something. Xtians want it both ways. They propose on the one hand that JC was so important and so dangerous that the religious authorities in Jerusalem had no choice except to break every fucking rule in their own book to have a trial on Passover, YET, at the same time, he was so insignificant that no one paid any attention to him. Recall Pilate's reaction to having him brought before him. Basically "who is this fucking guy." If JC were stirring up the countryside you can bet your ass that Pilate would have known about him. That was his job.

Jerusalem in 30AD was no longer the jerkwater little town that it had been in Old Testment times. Herod, with Roman engineering help, had built aqueducts to increase the water supply and his construction of the port of Caesarea Maritima had greatly enriched the country AND given it a sea-borne link to the rest of the empire. Ideas travel along trade routes too. Had someone that a Roman magistrate condemned to death come back from the FUCKING DEAD it would have been big news across the empire. It would have been seen as a repudiation by god(s) of the magistrate's action and since the magistrate is appointed by the emperor who was thought of as a god, himself, the implications are clear.

Yet....in all first century Greco-Roman literature we hear not a single word about any of this.

[Thor]

Why is there no mention of JC's execution from historians of the time, or his followers?

Forget that.

Why is there no mention of a Jewish criminal coming back from the dead after being executed by a Roman magistrate? Pliny the Elder wrote an enormous book which contains lots of fantastic mythic shit from all over the empire. He died in 79 AD during the eruption of Vesuvius. Yet, he never heard this tale?

Let's be clear about something. Xtians want it both ways. They propose on the one hand that JC was so important and so dangerous that the religious authorities in Jerusalem had no choice except to break every fucking rule in their own book to have a trial on Passover, YET, at the same time, he was so insignificant that no one paid any attention to him. Recall Pilate's reaction to having him brought before him. Basically "who is this fucking guy." If JC were stirring up the countryside you can bet your ass that Pilate would have known about him. That was his job.

Jerusalem in 30AD was no longer the jerkwater little town that it had been in Old Testment times. Herod, with Roman engineering help, had built aqueducts to increase the water supply and his construction of the port of Caesarea Maritima had greatly enriched the country AND given it a sea-borne link to the rest of the empire. Ideas travel along trade routes too. Had someone that a Roman magistrate condemned to death come back from the FUCKING DEAD it would have been big news across the empire. It would have been seen as a repudiation by god(s) of the magistrate's action and since the magistrate is appointed by the emperor who was thought of as a god, himself, the implications are clear.

Yet....in all first century Greco-Roman literature we hear not a single word about any of this.

You are quite versed in history! Great stuff! And a great point that it would be big news across the empire if a guy condemned to death came back to life after being executed. The fact that none of this stuff pops up in contemporary historical writings speaks volumes as to its veracity. The crap about JC doesn't show up until DECADES later. And yes, believers want it both ways. I've had them argue that JC was the rock star of his day. But then they want us to believe that nothing shows up in the historical record about him because he was considered insignificant by the authorities. It makes no sense!

[Minimalist]

You seem into this today, Thor, so let me offer you another little tidbit.

This excerpt is from Josephus, The Jewish War, Book VI, Chapter 5.3

Pay close attention to the words and actions of the Roman Procurator, Albinus, and to the lack of reply given by this "Jesus."

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

One wonders where "Mark" got his ideas from!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV