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?

"Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]"

Again from Wikipedia, but this page en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

'Biblical Scholars' will tell you something very different, I'm sure you can work out why.

I don't think you quite understand what 'Biblical scholarship' in the context of academic study is. Many of them are indeed this strange breed known as 'historians'! Many (shocking, I'm sure) aren't Christians, or even religious themselves.

BUT ANYWAY.

OP: as others have said, you're looking for the story of the ascension. But from a Christian theology POV I think it's also really important to say that the crucifixion is indeed when Jesus died - what happened afterwards was resurrection, and it doesn't kind of 'undo' death or make it not really death. There are various Christian groups who sort of dodge death - "oh we don't really die, we're going to get raptured straight to heaven when Jesus comes back!" - and it's a fairly unhealthy way to approach religion and life and death in general, so watch out for that.

Alpha's okay although it wasn't really my thing so don't worry if it's not yours. Very good at being welcoming, though, and Alpha groups are usually extremely friendly - and do good food!

I have obviously studied this far more than you have...

Where did you study this and under what discipline Cardinal? And what do you mean by I know the truth of it?

Dione

It's always a good idea to check the references attached to a Wikipedia quote before you use it to support your case.

They might not be as 'supportive' as you think.

🤦

53rd

Can you point me in the direction of some non religious 'Biblical Scholars'? That's a new one on me.

53rd is right actually. There are non religious historians who study religious and theological history.
Seems odd to not believe that when a lot of Atheists claim to have studied religion in depth even though they don't believe......

Can you point me in the direction of some non religious 'Biblical Scholars'? That's a new one on me.

Every day is a learning experience! Bart D. Ehrman, Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

Biblical scholarship is an actual academic discipline, a thing you can get a PhD in. There will (I'm guessing?) be some institutions that require a statement of religious faith for you to be a student, but generally they do not.

mintich*

You are correct, but show me one that calls themself a 'biblical Scholar'

The point wasn't that no historians ever use the Bible, it was that anyone who refers to themself as a 'Biblical Scholar' is coming from a very specific position to begin with.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)

Ehrman now describes himself as an agnostic atheist, having been a believer when younger. He has written a book on the historicity of Jesus. It is a perfectly rational and historically sound to hold that Jesus was an actual historical figure.

I wish jesus would just butt out of Easter.

It's such a lovely time of new growth, new beginnings, eggs, real and chocolate.
No kid needs tales of human sacrifice, torture and death.

53rd

So in summary, two professors of Theology, neither of whom describe themselves as 'Biblical Scholars', and the only one who has specifically commented on the existence or otherwise of Jesus is now a commited agnostic atheist entirely because of his studies of the Bible.

Oh dear...

🤦

There have been a few atheist MNetters who have said that their atheist children have studied/are studying Theology at university. So I would assume that not all Biblical Scholars are Christian or Jewish.

Even Richard Dawkins believes Jesus existed as a historical figure.

So in summary, two professors of Theology, neither of whom describe themselves as 'Biblical Scholars'

Two professors of theology you had never heard of, whose works you are entirely unfamiliar with. Both work in the field of Biblical scholarship, another field you're entirely unfamiliar with. You are, however, convinced enough of your own expertise here that you're convinced you know a) how they describe their own field of study, and b) that 'Biblical scholarship' is obviously some made up thing by Bible bashers trying to do 'real' history. Oh dear indeed!

(It's interesting that I haven't once tried to convince you that Jesus was a historical figure, and yet you have so clearly read this into my words. See, if you were a Biblical scholar, approaching the text with a predetermined idea of what you want it to say would be referred to as 'eisegesis', as opposed to 'exegesis'. Another learning experience!)

The question of whether Jesus existed is a perfect example of Russell's Teapot.

Bertrand Russell said if he were to claim that a tiny teapot orbits the sun, too small to be seen with telescopes, then nobody could prove he was wrong. But just because we can't prove he was wrong doesn't mean we should believe that the teapot exists! He went on to say that this is exactly why the burden of proof should lie with the person making the claim, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

In terms of Jesus - it's up to the person claiming that Jesus exists to prove it. It isn't up to anyone else to disprove it. In fact it's virtually impossible to prove that he didn't exist - but that doesn't mean he did exist.

Anyone is welcome to believe it, just not to insist that there is any contemporary evidence for it.

Interesting Guardian article

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

53rd

Nice try, but biblical scholarship stands distinct from the field of biblical criticism, which is the study of the Bible and associated texts while treating them as ordinary literature.

But of course you knew that. I'm sure your attempt to conflate the two very different fields was purely accidental.

The case for Christ is a good book. It was written by an atheist lawyer who decided to write a book disproving Jesus. Through his studying, he became convinced of the truth of the gospels the book turned from ‘the case against christ’ into ‘the case for Christ.’

May be worth a read if you’re looking for evidence.

Educating

I'm not entirely clear on Dawkins actual position. I expect when he refers to Jesus he is doing so in the same way that Christopher Hitchens used to refer to Socrates. He would talk at length on the value of Socrates teachings, while making it very clear that Socrates was probably not a real person, but that did not really matter.

If Dawkins actually, literally believes that there is good evidence that Jesus was a real person, then he is wrong.

I can't prove Jesus didn't exist, but then as a pp has said, the burden of proof isn't on me. It's on the people making the claim.

I'll note that nobody on this thread has actually supplied any evidence yet, just given appeals to authority. (And in one case actually referenced something that refuted their own position 🤦)

I'm sure your attempt to conflate the two very different fields was purely accidental.

I'm not trying to conflate them at all. 'Bible as literature' is a sub-field within literary studies. Biblical scholarship belongs more within theology. Bible-as-literature does not do history, or translation studies, or archaeology, or much in-depth theology at all. Biblical studies is much much broader.

Seriously, I don't care whether or not you believe Jesus was a historical figure, but it's kind of insulting to a lot of academics that you think I'm making Biblical scholarship up. Here is Princeton Theological Seminary's overview of its PhD programme, for example: www.ptsem.edu/academics/biblical-studies/phd-program Look at what they need to learn: theology, history, archaeology, and an assortment of languages including Hebrew, Greek and one or two other ancient languages.

(I am loving the 'Nice try' and the implication that I'm deceitfully trying to trick you into thinking that Biblical scholarship is an actual thing, in order to advance my nefarious theological agenda. You got me, I'm a secret Vatican assassin, don't tell the boss you blew my cover...)

Patriarchy, what "position" is it that you think I hold?

Cardinal, you said "I know the truth", what did you mean?

Patriarchy
It's quite clear in the clip I posted that Dawkins has admitted that Jesus existed. If you're still not sure, try this one?

I had not heard of Russells Teapot before.
Thank you, Bellamuerte

Cardinal, you said "I know the truth", what did you mean?

I think it means that Cardinal is far more intellectual than anyone of differing opinion or belief than her. They are all wrong as she knows the truth. The 30ish% of the entire world that are Christians, including all the doctors, scientists, layers, mathematicians etc? Nope, she’s figured it out. They’re all wrong. Cardinal knows.