When did Jesus actually die?

[PoloPrincess]

Can someone point me in the right direction?
We know that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and he rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Then what happened? When and how did he finally die?

I won’t stick around as am working a lot this week.

My thoughts are that Jesus lived and that he was the son of God (Christian you see, obviously therefore thick as mince apparently).

What’s cool about me though is that I’m not angry about people disagreeing.i certainly don’t want to stamp my digital feet all over the interwebs telling everyone how right I am and how stupidly wrong they are.

I guess that’s why I have a wide social circle and mates though of different opinions and views. I don’t feel the need to tear them down or stamp on their beliefs. I guess I’m nice like that.

Dione

Have you looked up what 'lying by ommission' means?

It might be worth a look.

*Hint - there are two parts to it, it's not just not telling someone something about you.

Interesting how posters who call themselves "Christian" end up being incredibly snide. I'm sure that Jesus (if he has existed) would have said something about that...

Hyena

Never once have I said Christians (or any religious people) are stupid. That's honestly not my position.

I think they are victims, not idiots. (Well some are, but you get my point)

As for 'stamping my feet all over the internet', if by that you mean engaging in a discussion and robustly defending my position, then yes, I suppose that's true.

It's a bit of a perjorative though isn't it?

Jesus had disappointingly little to say about arguments on Mumsnet, Cardinal. I’ve looked and looked. Do quite like the idea of an apocryphal Gospel of AIBU though.

Interesting how posters who call themselves "Christian" end up being incredibly snide. I'm sure that Jesus (if he has existed) would have said something about that...

Snide or amused? I’m genuinelt feeling amused at the breathtaking confidence of PP. that he had solved the question of theology forevermore. Giant academic brains have discussed and debated it for years but no. Here is the actual, final answer, right here on a chat room.

Also, pointing out that I don’t stamp on beliefs and that it’s not nice to do that isn’t ‘snide’ it’s fact. It’s not nice to tell people that they’re basically not as bright as you (which is undoubtedly what PP has done what with all the numerous facepalm emojis and actually snidey ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ rhetoric etc etc)

As for 'stamping my feet all over the internet', if by that you mean engaging in a discussion and robustly defending my position, then yes, I suppose that's true.

Robustly or rashly and insensitively?

Hyena

You might benefit from looking up 'the argument from authority'

You'll find it listed under 'logical fallacies'.

Well I think the Christians and other women on this thread are have been the victims of your face(?) palming all over this thread.

aye, Hyena. Reminds me of a great Terry Eagleton review of one of Dawkins’ books: “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.“

Dione

If you class that as victimhood then, erm, ok...

By that measure, I'm a 'victim' of snide comments.

I'll get over it.

Mostly because I can have my position challenged without getting offended.

You should try it.

You might benefit from looking up 'the argument from authority'

There you go again! Stop being such a know-it-all. I genuinely don’t mean to be unkind however it would massively help your arguement if you weren’t so eager to pick up on every little perceived blip in someone’s post. Honestly, stop. It does you no favours and distracts from you actually being taken seriously.

All the ‘ahem I think you’ll find and facepalming etc makes you look like someone out to just argue...about anything or everything it detracts from some of the more relevant things you have to say.

53rd

Yes it's a common criticism of atheists by the religious.

You'll notice that in most of the criticism of Dawkins and the like, this is the main axis of attack.

Not their actual arguments of course.

They are attacked for their lack of 'authority' to speak on religious matters.

There has been a bit of that on here.

You might want to Google 'the argument from authority' as well.

Mostly because I can have my position challenged without getting offended.

I see nobody offended but I do see quite a few people who are exasperated.

Look, clearly you are very confident on your position.

I am very, very secure on mine.

I have atheist friends, I even play roller derby with a satanist. We like each other. What’s with the need to argue?

Oh. I lost a paragraph there.

Basically it was about, getting along with people different to you and not having to persuade everyone that you’re right all the time.

You and I don’t agree and that’s cool. You may be a top bloke, we may even be mates in real life. There’s no need for all the huffiness (which you’ll deny but is all over your posts). Just chill. It’s ok.

Hyena

I'm honestly glad you're being entertained.

Please don't worry about sparing my feelings btw.

It kind of feels like you want to attack my position and then not be rebutted. That by somehow calling you out on a bad argument I'm being 'out of order' or something?

You have an odd way of discussing things.

They are attacked for their lack of 'authority' to speak on religious matters.

No, he’s ‘attacked’ for his utter ignorance of the subject he’s proclaiming on. (Honestly Eagleton going after Dawkins was a huge thing in Internet atheist-vs-theist circles the last time I was around in them, how do you not know this?) I’ll continue:

“Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster.”

Yes, typical Theist response. Can't argue the facts, so attack the other person.

I believe it's knows as ad hominem...

Hyena

I do see your point if we were talking in real life

I have Christian friends. I'm don't harangue them at every opportunity about the wrongness of their position. It doesn't even come up. I don't think some of them know I'm an atheist.

But in a forum discussion specifically discussing a point on theology of course I'm going to represent my opinion as strongly as I can.

It feels odd that you think that's somehow innapropriate in this context.

53rd

And the 'killer quote' you just dropped on us there literally does exactly what I described.

It doesn't go near any of his actual arguments, just attacks him personally.

Thanks for proving my point.

Jesus of Nazareth was killed at Passover circa AD 33

Attacking him personally would be “he’s less good-looking than he was when he did the Royal Institution Christmas lectures”. It’s true, but it’s irrelevant to the argument.

“He demonstrates a very superficial knowledge of the subject he’s discussing” is entirely relevant to the argument, therefore not a ‘personal attack’ to anyone but the ultra-sensitive.

It kind of feels like you want to attack my position and then not be rebutted. That by somehow calling you out on a bad argument I'm being 'out of order' or something?

If it feels like that then I’m sorry. I’m not explaining myself very well in that case and that’s my bad.

My point is, you believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. I feel bad for you because I think you’re missing out on so much fun and, from my experience, my relationship with God has led into all kinds of amazing situations. No, I’m not going into them all now but think global adventures.

I’m sure you wish I wasn’t a Christian as you feel that I’m a victim. If I thought someone was a victim of something, I’d probably try and talk them out of it too so I see where you’re coming from there.

The thing is, it’s okay that we’re different. Like I said, you might be a great person and we might be great mates if we were to meet. We just differ on this. It doesn’t mean you’re bad, I’m bad, you’re stupid, I’m stupid etc. It just means that we believe something different.

That’s okay, it doesn’t take eleventy million pages of face-palms and ‘I think you’ll benefit from looking up .

It’s okay that we’re different.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
Tacitus on Christ
From Wikipedia,
"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]
The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
Historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[10][11]"

It feels odd that you think that's somehow innapropriate in this context.

Not inappropriate just excessive and a bit...odd that you’re still here days later.