Matthew 28 versus John 20.

Huh?In hoc signo vinces

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Give me a break. I'll repreat what I said to subbie in message 39.Say I was having a disagreement with cavediver concerning cosmology. (Which incidentally I wouldn't be stupid enough to do. ) Who do you think has the most credibility? Will it be cavediver who has spent his years studying and teaching it, or will it be me based on the fact that I read a Brian Greene book.We are all going to come to our own conclusions about the message but obviously the credibility of the source plays a big part in that, just as it does in a court of law.

quote:

---

My view is that Jesus was saying that if the Jews were to try and oust the Romans militarily then the Romans would do what they always do

---

Again you fail to address the point.

quote:

---

It is quite possible that it was written after 70 AD but that doesn’t mean that what was written wasn’t faithful to what had originally been said by Jesus and each of the gospels contain different parts of the entire message that Jesus gave.

---

Well the evidence for the date of authorship was really the point, although it seems that your view also can't deal with the differences between the version found in Mark and Matthew and the version found in Luke (as well as failing to understand that the Gospel texts may have very little to do with what Jesus really said).

quote:

---

Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.

---

But he never appealed to Jesus' authority as he would if he were repeating Jesus' teachings. And it seems odd that you would think that the resurrection was unimportant to Paul when you yourself said that it was of central importance. So why say so little about it or the post-resurrection appearances ?Remember that you were the one who argued that if something is not mentioned it is because the author did not know it.

quote:

---

Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.

---

But it ISN'T implicit, because to have an empty tomb you need an occupied tomb first. If Jesus was buried in a common grave - as was typical for the victims of crucifixion - then there would be no tomb. Thus since Paul mentions the crucifixion it seems more reasonable to say that Paul implies that there was no empty tomb.

Do you know anything about Roman history? Could you point out some of this peace and love in Rome?Similar to the peace and love in Tsarist Russia?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well then if you don't agree that, then tell me what conclusions you would draw. I can't see where you get the idea that I felt that the resurrection of Paul was unimportant. I quoted from 1st Cor. where Paul says that if the resurrection isn't fact then he and all of them were wasting their time. I guess we'll just disagree. The resurrection of Jesus was what spurred the early church into existence and implicit in that was that it was a bodily resurrection which included as part of that narrative the empty tomb, IMHO.(Incidentally, according to Crossan the most common thing that happened to the bodies after crusifixion is that they were eaten by wild animals.)

Under Constantine Rome became a quasi-christian empire although I have to agree that peace and love were not the most dominant features. However the situation was improved and continued to improve from the days that the killing of Christians was a Sunday afternoons entertainment for the wife and kids.

quote:

---

Well then if you don't agree that, then tell me what conclusions you would draw.

---

THe obvious conclusion is that you have some problem understanding rational argumentation. If I say that you fail to address the point I do not necessarily mean that your assertions are false, I mean that they are irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

quote:

---

I can't see where you get the idea that I felt that the resurrection of Paul was unimportant.

---

Because you don't think it important enough for Paul to give more details, if he had them. You simply assume that he would know them and leave them out. Yet you also argue that the Gospel authors would be expected to make explicit reference to the destruction of Jerusalem even though it does not occur in the timeframe they were writing about.

quote:

---

I guess we'll just disagree. The resurrection of Jesus was what spurred the early church into existence and implicit in that was that it was a bodily resurrection which included as part of that narrative the empty tomb, IMHO.

---

That's your assumption but it's one that has no significant supporting evidence. We have no mention of the tomb story prior to Mark, and Mark even seems to hint that the story was unknown earlier - Mark ends with the women leaving the tomb and telling nobody what they had seen.

But alas, you have no evidence for this do you? And no evidence that the Romans were more followers of peace and love after Christianity became the state religion, than before they were do you?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Or even that "killing of Christians was a Sunday afternoons entertainment for the wife and kids" I imagine.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Maybe he has evidence for that? We will see. It seems that GDR does not know the difference between actual history and tradition. The christian tradition is rife with propaganda. Maybe he has some evidence to back up this propaganda of "killing of Christians was a Sunday afternoons entertainment for the wife and kids".If he does I would love to see it.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well, there were periods when Christians like many other minorities were persecuted, and when state religions were imposed, but for each such example there are examples of Christians doing the persecution.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Here is one historical site.A quote from that site.

quote:

---

There was no shortage of other shows which nowadays we would clearly regard as horrific: wild beasts of different types tied together to maul each other to death or a single animal of one type eg a Lion versus a pack of dogs.

​

The Roman love for naturalistic sadism didn't stop here and it was also employed as part of capital punishments during public shows. For example the myth of Prometheus would be portrayed by some hapless criminal tied up for animals to have a go at feeding on his liver.

​

The death of many Christians has been handed down through time although doubtless many non-Christians also dies of similarly atrocious deaths: convicted persons might be tied up to a stake so that enraged hungry beasts might have a go at them.

​

A particularly gruelling account is given by Roman historians who report the horror of parts of the Roman population when Nero had the Christians rounded up as culprits for the great fire in Rome. He had them sown up in animal skins and thrown to the dogs to be mauled apart.

---

Here is a quote from Tertullian in "Apology".

quote:

---

Those, too, who at the gladiator shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows fresh from the wound, and then rush offto whom do they belong? those, also, who make meals on the flesh of wild beasts at the place of combatwho have keen appetites for bear and stag? That bear in the struggle was bedewed with the blood of the man whom it lacerated: that stag rolled itself in the gladiator’s gore. The entrails of the very bears, loaded with as yet undigested human viscera, are in great request. And you have men rifting up man-fed flesh?

---

Here is a quote from this site

quote:

---

To add excitement to the spectacles, trap doors were strategically hidden locations in the wooden floor. Suddenly, one would spring open, releasing a charging lion or other savage animal, ready to attack anyone who happened to be in the Coliseum of Rome arena. The crowds loved this gimmick.

---

Another quote from here.

quote:

---

After the venationes, a typical spectacle would include a lunch interlude during which humiliores (Romans of non-elite status - execution by sword was a privilege reserved for the elite) who had been convicted of capital crimes were executed. Typically, the convicted were killed by burning at the stake or crucifixtion (forms of capital punishment that the Romans appeared to have adopted from the Carthaginians) or ad bestias (in which the convict would be left alone in the arena with one or more wild - and hungry - animals). Romans had a somewhat contradictory attitude towards these executions. On the one hand, like the venationes, the executions were welcome examples of the power of society, law and order, to restrain and suppress forces that threatened it. Public executions were popular. On the other hand, writers of elite status, seem to suggest that gentlemen and women didn't indulge themselves too much in this spectacle. The decent thing to do was go get lunch. Some writers, for example, criticized the Emperor Claudius because he routinely stayed in the stadium and observed the executions. To ordinary Romans, however, Claudius' presence indicated that the Emperor took his responsibility for preserving law and order seriously. The people executed were, by definition, wicked and dangerous. Their deaths were something to rejoice in. During the Principate they become something to revel in. Under Nero, the practice arose of writing plays adapted from myths in which people died and assigning the role of a character who would die to a condemned man. The audience would watch the play, and the actual killing of the condemned man in character's role (an ancient variant on a snuff film).

​

It was at these lunch time spectacles that Romans executed Christians when local or national officials were in a persecuting mode. Public response to these executions could vary dramatically. On the one hand, Christians who refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods, flagrantly rejected the norms of the society in which they lived. There are plenty of examples of communities demanding that their leaders send Christians to the arena for public execution (cf. accounts of Jews demanding that Pilate order the execution of Jesus). On the other hand, the "crime" of Christianity was quite different than the crimes of others executed in the arena (murder, temple theft, etc.). Christian sources, at least, report that the dignity of Christians in facing a spectacle intended to degrade and humiliate them, often inspired respect among the crowds in the stadium.

---

ABE Also of course public crusifixion was the norm although I wouldn't know what kind of entertainment value it would have had.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Gday, Would have been?
That's IF you assume there WERE eye-witnesses.But really - how many :
* identifiable people
* claimed to have met Jesus
* in authentic writing.
? Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person. the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical. G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book. G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it. G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul. G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus. Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus. Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touchedthis we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all. James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus. Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus. the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus. Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did. Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels. Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did. Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book. There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Christians - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.Just later books and claims, and claims about books.Kapyong

So nothing to support this. And lets get back to your original assertion that Romans got more peaceful and loving after christianity became the state religion. Still waiting for evidence of this.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Gday, Minor details ?In fact -
there are huge contradictions that cannot be reconciled - have a look at Dan Barker's Easter Challenge :
Page Not Found - Freedom From Religion FoundationWill YOU please try to answer those contradictions, GDR ?
Here are two examples :Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)K.