to think it's highly unlikely that Jesus was dead when they put him into the tomb?

[cunexttuesonline]

Crucified for 1 day with nails put in hands and feet and a spear wound on his side. I think he must have just been unconscious when put in the cave. Then 'came to' the day later and pushed the stone away with the sort of supehuman strength that, for example, women get whentheir babies are trapped under soemthing heavy. Guards outside tomb could have been sleeping or buggered off or something.

Well, from what I've read, one of the very earliest statements of Christian faith, composed long before the Gospels, is now in 1 Corinthians 15:3b -5:

'Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and he was buried, and he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures...'

So the resurrection was the Christian message from very early on; it wasn't a later addition - in what we now have as the New Testament there was never a time when Jesus is presented as a moral exemplar or good teacher - he was the risen Messiah as far as Paul and the other writers are concerned.

Is there actual proof that the body buried was in fact Jesus?
Just another thought ......

I'm not sure what would count as actual proof, nilbymaaf. I prefe to think in terms of historical plausibility which I think is a more sensible way of working out whether things may be true or not.

So, on that basis, is it historically plausible that a body-swap could have occured in the case of a high-profile execution?

If so, who do you envisage being involved in this kind of body swap, and why?

Philip Pullman (I know, I know) just wrote a novel about this. But I can't remember the title.

Anyone? Bueller?

It's called 'The Good Man Jesus And The Scoundrel Christ' iirc - not read it yet: is it worth it?

Thank you! I enjoyed it. As to whether it is worth reading, I think so.

Clockface, in that quote, which "scriptures" are being referenced?

A lot of it refs to Isaiah 53 snorbs, there are others but that is more specifically pointing to that particular one I think (prepared to be wrong)

There are many historical references to Jesus written in his time and afterwards, I dont think there is any doubt that a man called Jesus lived, and had a following of disciples. The roman records show that a man called Jesus was condemned and crucified in Jerusalem around the time of the Passover festival in AD 33. Even if (and its highly unlikely as others have said) the Romans made a whoopsy and he wasnt actually dead, a man who had been flogged half to death, denied water and food for many hours, hung on a cross with nails through his hands and feet in the full heat of the day with no shelter, had a spear stuck in his side, and then wrapped in a burial cloth, left in a tomb without water or food for a further 36 hours, would somehow find the strength to get up, and roll a bloody great stone away from the entrance, and overcome the armed guards. It didnt happen. You can either believe that his followers came and did for the guards and removed his body, or that he rose from the dead. Personally, I believe the latter.

Oooh, good question Snorbs!

Short answer: who knows? He doesn't say. One can make an educated guess - there were lots of Hebrew scriptures which Jesus' followers interpreted as him fulfilling. In 1 Corinthians (the letter that the quote came from) Paul talks about how Jesus was with the Exodus people - so transcending time.

Also it's reasonable to reckon that Paul would have heard the same traditions / narratives as the disciples - and in the gospels there's a really strong emphasis on how Jesus' death fulfils the Hebrew Bible. In Matthew there's a passage which pretty much goes - 'this happened to Jesus - to fulfil the scripture that .... that happened to Jesus - to fulfil the scripture that...' So that was one of the very early beliefs about Jesus, too, that through his life, death, resurrection and ascention into heaven, Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures. In Matthew's gospel I'd go so far as to say that Matthew presents Jesus as fulfilling all the Scriptures, every last bit of them, every 'jot and tittle' as the good old King James Bible has it. (Bearing in mind that Paul's letters were written before the gospels).

sickoftheholidays - so you are saying it is not possible for someone who has been badly tortured and is dehydrated etc to find the strength to roll away the stone, however it IS possible for someone to die and then come back to life.

There are plenty od religions in the world, which all have their myths and legends. Why deny anyone the pleasure of believing what they want to believe?

It's not Isaiah 53 MHDateallthechocolate - The Suffering Servant there is the nation of Israel (It's a continuation of the discussion of Israel from the previous chapter).

LynetteScavo Why do you think no other religious would have you?

sickoftheholidays - which Roman records "show that a man called Jesus was condemned and crucified in Jerusalem around the time of the Passover festival in AD 33". I am really interested in this as I was under the impression that there were no contemporary records at all about the life of Jesus.

BTW I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to state that there is just as much proof of Jesus life as there was for the life of Henry VIII or Julius Caesar (as has been stated in this thread). Unless there are some records I don't know about...

Notjust - scholars are in various states of disagreement on that one - one of the arguments is that prophecy often refers to the now and the not yet, not just the not yet, so there can be elements in a passage that refer to a situation as in Isa 53 and Israel that point to stuff elsewhere - NT writers often pointed out portions of scripture that referred to situations contemporary to them as also pointing to the Messiah. Isa 53 is one such Messianic passage. I find it amazingly powerful and am quite happy to accept it as both a contemporary to the time and a powerful prophecy about Jesus. But then I'm difficult in general

Jospehus was a contemporary Roman-Jewish historia lola who said all this. It is mostly from the biblical accounts though, which are generally agreed to have been written between 20 and 60 years after Jesus' death - pretty contemporary really.

Some people on here do talk a load of rubbish. If people want to believe in Jesus, or the easter bunny, or pixies, fine. Just don't tell me I'm not entitled to disbelieve, as and when I want, whether it is 'Easter' or not. Easter and Christmas both hijack old pagan ceremonies anyway.

To quote patientgriselda: 'perhaps one that could be posed at another time, when it won't have quite the same offence-factor'?

Bollocks to that- believe if you want, don't if you want- I fail to see why a believer would be offended that another person doesn't believe. To me it is far more offensive that someone believes censorship is appropriate in this sort of situation.

Re. some of the later posts in this thread, Jesus was a common name there at the time, no?

Jade Yes, it's the Latin translation of a Greek/Hellentic version of either a the Hebrew or a Hebrew Arabic name which would be Joshua in English. Either the Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic names would have been common during the time period.

MHD The post-Gospel NT writers often took Judaic writings to mean things to support their claims that Christianity had usurped Judaism and were looking for evidence, however, the Gospel writers often show that the Jewish population he was around had no concept of the idea that the Messiah was meant to suffer and die for them, and would even denounce the concept to his face when he told them he was going to do so. Those people were eager for the Messiah (there were dozens upon dozens of people claiming that they would become the Messiah or had others do so at the time - claiming to be the one who would become the Messiah wasn't a crime and isn't a crime, as it was and is believed that one or many in each generation have the potential -- it's fulfilling it that's been the problem) and they knew that the Torah prophecies for the Messiah are quite clear on what a person had to do to be the Messiah, and none of them have to do with suffering or dying through suffering before the prophecies are completed.

The identity of the servant is established repeatedly in Isaiah 41 :8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; and 49:3. They all repeatedly say that Jacob/Israel is the servant. The narrator of section 53 is specified in chapter 52 as the nations of the world who are startled at that Israel, who is often referred to as the "servant of the Lord" (The Messiah is never referred to as such), coming through such a numerous states of sorrow into a brighter future. There are many passages on the Messiah, but this isn't one of them, and can only be taken as one if you don't read the rest of the book.

Josephus was a Jewish man who was paid by the Romans to write these things (after they captured him and they pretty much owned his life due to the way he was captured), and many of the things he wrote have been proven to be false in order to make the Romans look better. He's pretty much only a source if you can collaborate it with someone else. He also wrote very little about Jesus, and what he did was negative (more negative towards his family). And 20-60 years is a significant time when looking for first hand accounts, because it means they are unlikely first hand accounts and those that are are marred by issues of memories, particularly in a time period with comparably short life spans. Mythos take over in much shorter time spans - just look at the crazy things written about Roman Emperors very shortly after their deaths to see how fast mythos about a person can spread.

According to Wikipedia, Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus' death so hardly a contemporary account. Also, it says that a lot of scholars are fairly certain that his mention of Jesus was a later interpolation into the text.

Were there any other Roman records or is it just Josephus?

It is understandable that there wouldn't be much but surely if the execution and apparent resurrection of Jesus was such a big deal at the time, someone would have made a note of the events as they were happening?

lolaclare - unfortunately I'm not good at all at remembering sources, but I'm sure I've read that there are something like 300 contemporary extra-biblical references to the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, whereas there are less than 20 historical references to Caesar (not claiming those are exact figures btw - but those number ring a bell).

I just found this googling (was trying to find the source I was talking about above), I have no idea who this guy is but its an interesting article - seems tyo be by a Jewish chap.

Historical Record for Jesus

lola, remember that there was a very strong oral tradition at the time - not comparable to our current print culture - and historians do consider documents written 30, 40 even 60 years after an event to be 'contemporary' - not just regarding Jesus, but regarding historical events and figures around that period in history.

If you are really interested, I highly reccomend this series called The Christ Files. Its very interesting and easy to watch. The guys who presents it is a Christian, but also an historian, and comes at it in a very scholarly way. You can of course disagree with his conclusions but the evidence he presents is very balanced and interesting.

PS -lolaclare I think you can buy that dvd through the link at the bottom of the page. Its an Australian website - not sure if they deliver to the UK but they might :)

"If Jesus didn't rise then Christianity is a sham. And if he did rise then it has serious implications for all people. There is no room for middle ground "he was a nice teacher", because if he wasn't God and didn't rise from death, he was a dangerour nutter, not a nice teacher."

Why was he a dangerous nutter not a nice teacher?

And from whose perspective is "Who Moved the Stone" written?

But don't we have writings by Julius Caesar about the events in his life?

A quick google has brought up the following contemporary sources: Sallust (86 ? 34 BCE) a contemporary historian wrote about Julius Caesar (The Catiline Conspiracy) and was made governor of Numeria by Caesar. Cicero (106 ? 43 BCE), a contemporary received letters from him and wrote about him to others. Cornelius Nepos (100 ? 24 BCE) mentions Caesar in his biographies. Catullus, another contemporary writes about Caesar in his poetry. Paterculus (19 BCE ? 31 CE) wrote about Caesar in his Historia Romana. Furthermore, the archaeological evidence for the Battle of Alesia or the numerous accounts from friends, enemies, political satirists, etc.

We know what Caesar looked like from contemporary depictions of him in the form of statues and coins.

Jesus is not mentioned in any contemporary texts or documented in any contemporary artifacts, at all. No contemporary historians write about Jesus, no Roman records of his death, and no graffiti about Jesus, nothing.

I'm not sure what your 300 "contemporary" sources are. Do you mean contemporary to Jesus' life or contemporary to the writing of the gospels?

But that's kind of understandable as Caesar was the leader of the Roman Republic and Jesus was apparently just a humble carpenter's son in a backwater of the empire. I just don't understand why the comparison is continually made. The claim seems ridiculous to me.