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?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Josephus on Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The extant manuscripts of the writings of the first-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3] Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] broad consensus exists as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.[17][18][19] The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[20] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[17][21] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[17][22][21]"

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

Seriously, where are these attacks?

Hyena

I think your coming from a slightly biased position. You think it's odd that I've been on this thread from the start,yet you don't criticise any of your Christian colleagues for doing the same thing.

Im interested in the discussion, I find it stimulating to have my opinions challenged and have to defend them. I dont see the problem...

53rd

Yes but stating that someone has a superficial knowledge of the subject as a direct attack on their position, while in no way evidencing that claim is an ad hominem.

Think about it, if I spent the entire thread not engaging with your points in any way, just repeating that '53rd is wrong becuase her knowledge of religion is virtually nil', (I don't actually think that btw)

That would be a shitty way to carry on wouldn't it?

So Miles, when were these writers born?

And that's before we go in to Josephus in any detail...

I think your coming from a slightly biased position. You think it's odd that I've been on this thread from the start,yet you don't criticise any of your Christian colleagues for doing the same thing.

I guess I feel like that about you more than others, not just Christians but Cardinal etc as you have been so prolific throughout. Also that you’ve been quite so patronising about it all. (Couldn’t think of a nicer way of saying that and to be fair, your posts have been patronising, especially to Dione). Like I said, with all the falmpalms, going off tangents with ‘I think you’ll find etc’ and so on. It just seems like you’re very invested in arguing, much more than everyone else, Christian, atheist or whatever.

Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think that I’d be alone I’m that assumption. I doubt you see it that way though.

To be fair Hyena, I do like a good emoji. A picture paints a thousand words and all that...

I'd happily take a correction if there was a particular post that I 🤦 where you feel that a facepalm wasn't the best description of the situation at the time.

I can have my position challenged without getting offended.

I haven't "challenged* your position. You believe that a Jesus did not exist. That's ok. Different people have different beliefs about Jesus. I have simply clarified that you hold it despite the actual experts in the field disagreeing with you.

And while you may believe Christians to be victims, they're no more victims than any other women. And some are formidable. You should challenge this misperception.

Your presence here is not about releasing or saving anyone from victimhood. It's about you enjoying your face palming and arguing with women on the Internet insisting that they are wrong, despite the evidence. That you provided.

Yes but stating that someone has a superficial knowledge of the subject as a direct attack on their position, while in no way evidencing that claim

He... spends an entire lengthy LRB review evidencing that claim? That’s how reviews work?

Sorry, perhaps should have explained more there and not assumed a knowledge base. LRB is the London Review of Books. Reviews tend to be lengthy essays on a particular subject, often grouping several works together, although not in this case; it’s one book. Terry Eagleton is an academic, a literary critic and Marxist scholar. ‘Quoting’ is extracting a shorter extract from a greater text for a particular purpose, in this case me sharing with Hyena a sentence which echoed a point she was making rather nicely.

You can review the whole thing here should you be interested: www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

I do love a 🤦‍♀️ Too (see, we agree on something).

I do think it’s a tad patronising to use it at someone else though.

I have to go to sleep as I have a super early start in the morning so I’m out. I do think you have some interesting points though PP and I certainly dont think that you’re stupid or uneducated at all. I do however think that perhaps you could consider how your posts come across though.

Biggest way I am victimised by the Church at the moment is that they put the hymn numbers for Mass really low down, so short people like me can’t see them properly when everyone else is standing up and we have to just mumble along for the first bit until we clock on to which one it is.

53rd

But you see he doesn't.

Read that review again.

He attacks some of Dawkins positions (rather superficially) and presents a few counterarguments. He also spends a lot of time generally slagging Dawkins off as well.

But he doesn't evidence his claim that Dawkins doesn't know anything about religion.

There is a difference between saying 'Richard Dawkins thinks X, I think Y and here are all the ways that he is wrong'

And saying 'Richard Dawkins knows nothing about this entire field, and he's an atheist cretin' (I'm paraphrasing)

You can see the difference there, right?

Can we go through that review in detail tommorow btw. It's like an atheists wet dream of weak theistic arguments.

Thank you for that link to the Terry Eagleton review of Dawkins, 53

You haven’t read it yourself, Patriarchy. You’ve briefly skimmed it until you’ve established to your own satisfaction what you think it’s saying, and proceeded to proclaim in detail on how it is deeply flawed; you don’t think what it’s actually saying warrants paying any more detailed attention than that. That’s exactly what Dawkins and the New Atheists* are doing with theology.

*(whatever they’re calling themselves these days? I’m a bit out of the loop. I do hope they gave up on ‘brights’, that was just embarrassing.)

And you’re welcome to go through it in detail tomorrow yourself if you want to (I think it’s good reading! I disagree with Eagleton on a lot of things, religious and otherwise, but he’s a great writer).

You’ll notice though that I was quoting it to Hyena, not to you. As I mentioned previously, I’m really not interested in debate that’s all about you getting to win win win!, along around accusations of lying and disingenuousness and sockpuppeting, sneery comments to the lurkers who I’m sure are supporting you in email, as we used to say back in my younger days. I appreciate you get a lot of pleasure out of this, but why should I be arsed?

53rd

On the contrary, I comprehended it perfectly well, unless you think what I'm saying is wrong?

I'd happily go though it in detail and not 'dismiss' it.

If it was aimed at Hyena and not me, why did you quote me in bold at the start of the post with the link in it?

53rd

And you don't have to be arsed, you really don't.

You can stop posting @ me any time you want to.

To quote myself: “aye, Hyena. Reminds me of a great Terry Eagleton review...”

I addressed the follow-up post to you because you had some questions about it and seemed to not understand how reviews work, and I felt a bit mean not explaining myself more thoroughly in case others were also in your position.

But not everything is about you, I'm afraid.

This book "God is No Thing" by Rupert Stortt seems to counter the Dawkins approach well.
Here is a review by Rowan Williams
www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/24/god-no-thing-rupert-shortt-review-response-new-atheism

Miles - any answer to my questions above?

Toomanymiles

I had a look at your link.

The good Bishop seems to just restate the 'argument from first cause' as if it answers the question.

His argument hinges on the assumption that everything in the universe must have a cause, and that intimate regress is impossible. He then sets God apart from that and states that he doesn't need a cause, therefore he is the uncaused cause.

It's special pleading in the extreme.

*infinite regress.

Bloody autocorrect

It's another of those dreadful arguments that only a theist could support;

"Everything must have a cause. Except God."

You can't insist that everything has a cause if you're going to give exemptions as part of your argument. It's sheer drivel.

I think that appeals to posters to listen to the words of someone whose existence you deny, to be an example of special pleading in the extreme.

Dione

Can you say that again, in English?