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.

GeneHuntsMistress "please - this is the holiest day of holy days for all Christians. please just respect that for one day and have your debates over this another day"

That part was okay and I personally had no plans to post today on religion.

but then you spoilt it by saying this.

Please - if this OP was riding roughshod over Islamic beliefs it would not be tolerated.

Islam, Christianity and all the other religions are equally ridiculous and I'm happy to say so. I will always say so when people make that claim (sometimes it's the muslims saying "ohh you'd never say that about a Christian"

The whole "Ohhhh You pick on me, but you never pick on him" thing is straight out of the playground.

Which is where religion belongs too - along with bugs bunny and co.

Notjust - not all scholars agree on the whole Isa thing, it's not cut and dried, but as I said I've come to conclusions (studied Isaiah in depth at degree) that the now and not yet thing works in many places, but again it's not always something that can be rationally explained, a bit like ermmmm....God. I'm quite aware it doesn't always make sense, but somewhere with me the rational and spiritual came together and got on OK somehow :)

And as Astrophe mentioned - the oral tradition was as good as - in many cases better than - the written down records, as it was something handed down in every last detail, memorised for hours each day, within the Jewish tradition. 20 years after was no time at all, especially as some of the gospel writings were written from first hand accounts of Jesus' contemporaries.

LOla there were contemporary sources; in truth i an;t remember the exact names and have no idea where my files are but there were, Roman IIRC and pretty certainly Jewish.

I can see my Western faiths lecturer from here (neighbour) and could ask him. I won;t though.

Why?

Coz it makes no difference. that's not what faith is. Faith is exactly that: faith.

And we have the right to believe what we wish, and the oP has the right to question as she wishes too. We are individuals.

The romans were good record keepers. There is no evidence of jesus as a human - let alone the son of 'god', just as there is no evidence of cinderella and goldilocks and the three bears.

Now you see the Theologian Agnostic Professor next door definitely does dispute that.

Interesting.

FFS Peachy, go and knock on his door and make him sign up to mumsnet!!

yeh go on peachy get him to come on.

I believe there definitely was a man called Jesus. Its an interesting theory OP to say he didn't die. If he didn't an came round I am certain he could not have moved the stone himself, he would have been weak.

Hahaha sorry that's so funny you'd have to know him

Actually someone else on here is one of his students... wonder where she is?
Elderly-ish (65) staunch yorkshire type recnetly to be seen on patio with stunningly beautiful 30-ish blonde girlfriend- good on 'im! DH is like this ->

Think he's more flatcapsnet than mumsnet LOL

There is evidence alistron - Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus - all c1/2 Jewish/Roman/Greek historians and all mention Jesus and some events in his life and mention early Christian groups. Depends what you mean by evidence? These are early written records.

onagar
I am looking forward to your thread about Mohamed being a man who liked young girls and was a murdering thug who told his followers they would be killed if they left his cult on his birthday
See how far you get

"That man's not dead! He's merely resting... "

You know the rest

"all c1/2 Jewish/Roman/Greek historians"

you mean in the same way that I might write about Napoleon? Never met him, he died before I was born, but I've heard stories handed down by people who say their grandfathers heard about him, but they couldn't write so I'm relying on second-hand memories?

Just asking.

200 years is somewhat different to the time these historians were around after Jesus' death, but even so, as described earlier in the thread, the oral tradition was in no way comparable to 'second hand memories'. Also worth noting that it can't be compared - an unknown carpenter as opposed to the most famous French emperor and revolutionary. That there is so much about Jesus from various sources is interesting in itself.

If historians can't agree about whether or not Richard 111 killed the Princes in the Tower in 1483, how on earth can Jesus' existence be proved 1483 years earlier?

There is (as has been stated) plenty of contemporary evidence for the life of Jesus.

Contemporary has different meanings in different times. Nowadays what classes as news today is old news by tomorrow. Years, centuries, millenia ago news was newsworthy for a long time. Think of how long Henry VIII waited for his divorce. Nowadays, waiting for 2 years is beyond many people.

Whether or not you believe what Christians say happened is up to you. I know I do.

But, I do believe that it is a little crass to rubbish it (as some comments have been) during an accepted time of Christian worship. In the same way it would be crass to rubbish Islamic beliefs during Ramadan, Hindu during Divali or pagan during the Midsummer festival.

Seeker the point is that historians can't agree on what happened over the deaths of the princes. No contemporary writers state that Jesus did not exist.

Rita - Muslims have been on this very thread saying nice things about Jesus (pbuh) as we're rather fond of him too, so it's a shame you have to stoop to insulting Mohammed (pbuh), to make a rather tired point.

Also, there are threads on MN which insult Islam, have you never read a Burka thread, the statements that are made by some on there about Islam and Muslims are downright defamatory and there used one a month at one point.

What does pbuh meAn pls?

Peace be upon him. A respecttful thing to say whenever you mention the name of Mohammed.

I think it fair to assume that he was dead when they put him in the tomb. He had sustained a little more than a few scratches and flesh wounds, after all.
Easter is an ideal time to examine these myths. The real suspension fo belief comes when you are asked to believe that he flew off into the sky, Mary Poppins style, afterwards.
Shame there was no youtube in those days.

Tyr

seeker I don't think Rita was insulting Mohammed.

'Murdering thug' not an insult? I've heard far worse, but still, it didn't thrill my heart to read it, especially as the Muslims on this thread have pointed out, we like Jesus (pbuh) too!

Faith is a beautiful thing. I find I have it despite all odds. And I do deplore anti Christian rhetoric.

i'm a christian and not particularly offended by this trhread as i'd rather people were talking about Jesus than not at all.
i read a book ages ago called who moved the stone which was written by a guy trying to disrprove the ressurection with all this kind of thing - j wasn't actually dead, disciples stole the body etc - he looks at each one in turn i think (was about 20 years since i read it) and ends up believing it all in the end actually. i think that was very interesting.

hiposgoberserk, IIRC "who moved the stone" was writen by a journalist and skeptic, who set out to prove Jesus was a myth, but ended up being convinced otherwise by his own investigations. Its very thorough and carefully writen.

The thing is, for someone to go around claiming to be the Son of God, promising that he will fulfill thousands of years of prophesy (documented in the Jewish Scrpitures/Old Testament) and rise from the dead to be a new kind of king - well he must be unhinged, or some sort of megalomaniac. Not really a 'nice' guy. Unless of course what he claimed was true.

Which is why I said there is no middle gound of the 'nice teacher' kind. It surprises me that so many people are happy with that. I think Jesus claims are so extreme and so significant that he's like marmite: Love, or hate.

lola - the point of the claim ('300+ references to Jesus etc) is just that Jesus of Nazareth lived, and that the events of his life (birth, his claims, his death) do correlate with the biblical record. Now you can, of course, do with that what you will, but to claim 'Jesus was a mythological figure' as your reason for not believing, is not a sensible reason (although of course you are free to do it).

Obviously there will be historians who will argue that he didn't live, as there are historians who claim Caesar didn't, and who claim that the Haulocaust didn't happen, but the facts all suggest otherwise, and the vast majority of scholars (agnostic, atheist, Christian and people of other faiths) agree on this.

"the oral tradition was in no way comparable to 'second hand memories'. "

I challenge that assertion.

In what way do you think it is different? A story told by someone who wasn't there, which has been passed on from person to person, each with his own opinions, beliefs and faith? A story which has passed through several generation?

Hands up anyone who thinks that is equivalent to a contemperaneous witness statement.