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?

Dione

Nobody has to change their opinion based on what I say. That's what debate is all about.

I'm interested to hear what I have said so far that is incorrect?

For someone who isn't a Christian, you certainly seem to have a dog in this fight. Isn't Jesus supposed to have had a lot to say about honesty?

This is not about changing an opinion, you talked about changing a belief. All the stuff you said about me being a Christian is incorrect. I am not. You also didn't seem to know that non Christians are biblical scholars. And you have stated that Christian apologists always talk about AtG without providing any evidence.

Isn't Jesus supposed to have had a lot to say about honesty?
I don't know. What does he say and how is it relevant to your arguments or this thread?

Dione

Oh dear. I'd suggest you re-read all my posts if you think that. I'd also suggest you look up the difference between biblical scholarship and biblical criticism. I outlined it earlier actually.

Cardinalsin Thank you for the book recommendation. I have read widely, both books trying to disprove Jesus and his claims and also books that aim to show evidence of his existence and that his claims are true...so have read books similar to the one you recommended. When I was looking into all this for myself some years ago when I was an agnostic, there was something so compelling about the arguments FOR Jesus being who he says he is. As a scientist it was important to me not to just get swept away with the 'feeling' but examine the evidence critically and make a decision based on that.

I have had a wee loak at Biblical criticism as you recommended Patriarchy, and it appears that some of the experts in this field also believe in a historic Jesus.

Dione

I know. Please re-read what I actually said.

🤦

You wrote the name for the type of people who would give you an unbiased opinion is 'historians'. And I have pointed out that some historians, as opposed to biblical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical person.

Seriously try researching your arguments before you use them.

lol.

See, this is pretty interesting. Without even realising it you’e giving a great example of the theology concept d eisegesis - that is, reading what you want to see into a text because of your own preconceptions about theology, and being entirely unable to separate out your own personal concepts and values from what’s in the text in front of you.

So here you have a text - this thread, with other people talking to you. And you have your own preconceptions - that you are better educated and informed on all matter of theology than anyone religious, that Christians must want to convince you personally of what you think they believe, that there is no serious scholarship done on the Bible because only uneducated Bible-bashers would bother.

So you read into the text what you want to see. You demand evidence that Biblical scholarship is a thing, or that Biblical scholars can be non-theists, then awkwardly avoid said evidence when it’s provided. You’re convinced Dione must be a Christian and that I must be trying to convince you that Jesus really existed, and when we tell you that we’re not, you accuse us of underhandedly lying. You won’t change your preconceptions, so you distort what you see in the text to fit around them.

It’s pretty obvious that you lack even a basic understanding of issues you’re proclaiming expertise on, but because accepting this would mean challenging your own worldview, you prefer instead to stamp your worldview more firmly onto the text. With... emojis. I mean, nothing against emojis personally, but it’s not exactly the intellectual heritage of David Hume you’re demonstrating here.

However it’s pretty impressive that in a thread where you’re arguing against even the existence of Biblical scholarship as an academic discipline, you’re providing such a great example of one of its basic principles. Almost like the Holy Spirit is working through you! 😇

Dione

Many historians and scientists are religious, however they (generally) try to give as unbiased an account of their work as possible.

The point has always been that self described 'Biblical Scholars' are inevitably coming from a very narrow position to begin with.

(I now await a primary-school level explanation of how actually, atheists don’t even believe in spirits ‘holy’ or otherwise, oh dear 🤦‍♂️)

53rd

Welcome back. How quickly we have moved on from the revelation that your 'mike drop, haha gotcha' example that I asked for was actually a biblical critic who was convinced into atheism as a direct result of his bible studies. You've got to admit, that is a bit facepalming surely?

So here you have a text - this thread, with other people talking to you. And you have your own preconceptions - that you are better educated and informed on all matter of theology than anyone religious

I have never once said that.

that Christians must want to convince you personally of what you think they believe

ditto

that there is no serious scholarship done on the Bible because only uneducated Bible-bashers would bother

I've actually said the exact opposite. What I have done is draw a distinction between Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Criticism, I even defined the difference a few pages back for everybody.

You demand evidence that Biblical scholarship is a thing, or that Biblical scholars can be non-theists, then awkwardly avoid said evidence when it’s provided

Again, you have provided me with evidence of biblical criticism by atheists, which is kind of my point.

It’s pretty obvious that you lack even a basic understanding of issues you’re proclaiming expertise on

Is it? How so?

As for using emojis, they do say a picture paints a thousands words. for example when a poster angrily jumps on my use of the word 'apologist', despite it describing exactly the type of people that poster is trying to side with, I could have written a sentence or two about how embaressing that is, but i felt that a [facepalm] probably summed it up better...

However it’s pretty impressive that in a thread where you’re arguing against even the existence of Biblical scholarship as an academic discipline

and again, I have never made that argument, not once.

What were you saying about reading things into texts that aren't there?

Christ, a symbol of self - Carl Jung.

To expand on that point a little.

A self described 'Biblical Scholar' automatically raises my hackles a little bit right off the bat. A lot more than someone who is say a Professor of Theology who happens to have written a book on the Bible for example.

The very deliberate choice to label yourself a 'Biblical Scholar' as opposed to any number of other labels (Biblical critic, Theologian, Biblical Historian even) that you could choose says an awful lot about the individual.

I don’t need to show you the evidence Cardinal - I just needed to point you in the direction of the massive nob head Dawkins

Compelling argument, there

Interesting answers. well some of them

What I have done is draw a distinction between Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Criticism, I even defined the difference a few pages back for everybody.

You don’t know what either of those terms mean in an academic context, and the definition you’re going with (treating the Bible as a literary document) is separate again (that’s a new-ish field of literary studies). I appreciate that you firmly believe you do and that your belief is important to your sense of self as the informed one here, but that belief is unfounded.

The thing with eisegetical arguements is, it’s pointless arguing against them because they’re debating feelings, not facts. I appreciate that you think you’re a world apart from the Christians who do this, but... nope. Look at how you’re arguing here: you want gotchas, you want to catch people out at sneakily lying, you want to loudly proclaim your victories and show off your knowledge (whether you have it or not!), you want to point-score, you want to win. It’s really important to you to win.

And you know, that’s fine if that’s your thing, I’m just not really interested. I find Biblical scholarship interesting in the same way much history of the ancient world is interesting - it is! It’s fascinating! Whether you’re religious or not! So if you want to talk about, I don’t know, who added what to that Josephus text or what the infancy gospels say about the early religious development of the Church or what kind of myths grow up around kings like Alexander, that’s great fun. Emojis and gotchas? Meh.

What a fabulous thread. I'm a Biblical scholar, and can assure you that in my field within mainstream academia (I'm in a RG university) there is a wonderful mix of both atheists and those who have a personal faith.

Within Historical Jesus studies - a field in its own right - there is very little support for the idea that Jesus didn't exist. My own view is that the crucifixion/resurrection narrative did very little to support the cause of the early Christians but would rather have been something of an embarrassment, so there must be some grounds for the vehement defence made for this in the early church. It would have been a lot easier for the Jesus movement to be taken seriously if they hadn't made the outrageous claims they did about Jesus, and just carried on as a breakaway Jewish sect.

Happy to argue this stuff for hours though!

I mean, we can discuss Bart D Ehrman’s work if you like - he’s a really interesting scholar. But you don’t want to discuss his work, you want to use him as an example of someone who became an atheist as a “so there!” gotcha because of the evangelical position you think I’m coming from. Which is nice if you like that sort of thing, I suppose, it all just seems all a bit trivial to me.

... Not just a biblical scholar...also, theologian, biblical critic etc. My field of Theology and religion carries lots of labels!

53rd

You’re convinced Dione must be a Christian and that I must be trying to convince you that Jesus really existed, and when we tell you that we’re not, you accuse us of underhandedly lying

I was convinced Dione was lying to try and prove a point from her general manner and passive aggressive 'naive' questioning. So I did a quick advanced search over my lunch break. Imagine my surprise when her name crops up regularly in threads discussing Christianity, including telling people how she regularly attends church and discussing the pros and cons of different approaches from ministers and priests. As if I need a 'gotcha' but:

I'm a Christian. I regularly blaspheme. I sometimes like to mix blasphemy with profanity. I get that some people don't like it, but I don't live my life according to what some people don't like.

Bonting

If you don't mind me asking, what is your faith position?

It also seems odd to me that a brand new poster, who has no previous history on this site, suddenly pipes up in a niche religious discussion area to back up the exact position another poster is making.

I mean, its not impossible the Bonting is a long time lurker who just happened to see a thread about their exact field of academic study, but I know what my opinion is.

If what I'm implying is correct then oh dear 53rd...

There is an emoji that suits this situation, I'm trying to think of what it is. Can you help me out?

Like I said earlier on, I want to frame this thread and keep it forever...

You’re accusing me of sockpuppeting because it’s that unthinkable to you that an actual Biblical scholar would be on here? Seriously?

53rd

Any thoughts on your ardent defence of Diones integrity?