RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

Hey, don't get me wrong, I hardly think that people that believe Christ was resurrected are fools. They may believe differently than me but that does not give me grounds to insult them. The only fools are the people that try to prove the Resurrection as fact instead of just taking it on faith.[This message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 03-25-2004]

SO basically the situation is that all the experts say that the Passovcer was on a Friday in 33 AD (that is *why* 33 AD is often chosen as a possible date for the crucifixion) but Gene Scott says otherwise.Why should we beleive Gene Scott ? What is the *evidence* that Gene Scott is right and that all the experts are wrong ?

How can this be possible? How could King Herod be involved with the Jesus life story when Herod died in 4 BC? Jesus had to have been born either in 4 BC or before that. If he was born in 2 BC then Herod would already have been dead. I am looking forward to seeing this evidence, I could probably already guess exactly what it consists of. Maybe because it actually did not occur on the Wednesday, is that at least a possibility? Although we have yet to be convinced of this, but let us not judge until we see the ‘proof’. Which scriptures have been written ‘thousands of years apart?’ The entire Bible wasn’t even composed over a thousand year period.
The apparent harmony is hardly impressive when you actually realise how the Bible was written. Scribes sitting looking at a past text and copying chunks out of it and adding their own words as well, is hardly a miracle. But virtually none of it has come to pass, Jesus failed, the Jews are not in the Promised Land, there is no peace on Earth. Surely you are not that gullible? April Fools Day has nothing at all to do with Jesus. And you complete objectivity is amazing. Come on WT, it is only your hysterical bias that is stopping you from seeing all the horrendous errors in this claim. And will you try and step back for a second and view this evidence with an open mind?Brian.

Who are the experts that you are citing ?The present issue is what day Jesus was crucified on.I say it was Passover/Wednesday, which contradicts longtime tradition.And if Dr. Scott says something, then it is a source and it is evidence. I have NEVER discovered Dr. Scott to be incorrect about anything.I readily admit that there are plenty of sources that say Passover/Friday. What is there evidence for Friday ?Brian wants to hunt and peck scripture to contort verses for the purpose of evidencing that any part of a day constitutes a day.Since when does a day not mean a 24 hour period ?Brian wants to ignore the fact that Jesus cited Jonah's "three days and three nights". That means 72 hours and any other rendering defies common sense.Jesus said to the established religious community of His day (the Pharisees) " you make void the word of God by your traditions".That statement is eternal and always applies to every established religious community of every era. The Church and its Good Friday and Sunday morning Resurrection are but pagan traditions adopted in the Middle Ages. These traditions are voiding the word of God and its precision/truth.

This is a useful question if you're looking for references and more background information on context and perspectives of the opposing view, but then you follow a few lines later with this: This lends the impression that you intend to line your experts up alongside opposing experts, then reduce the discussion to simply arguing that your experts are best, and in the case of Dr. Scott, infallible even, a quality not often associated with the human condition. He must truly be blessed with God's grace. But this approach involves the fallacy of appeal to authority. I hope the issues get argued on their merits. Brian's posts appear to be providing chapter and verse from scripture, plus pointing out contradictions in Scott's position. For example Scott has Jesus born in 2 BC, but as Brian has pointed out, Herod was already dead in 2 BC. This is only a further expression of your personal skepticism, not a rebuttal. And one need only go to your next paragraph to find when a day is not a 24 hour period: Not only are such strict interpretations ridiculously Talmudic, but obviously here by day you mean only the daylight hours portion of a day.--Percy

This may be just semantics, but the length of a day has been changing gradually since the formation of the earth. We currently use the scientific definition of a "fixed-length day" as 86,400 seconds or 24 hours. However, this is not the same as the usual definition of a day: the rotation of the Earth about its axis.According to http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/lunarcal/accuracy.htm and on wikipedia Solar time - Wikipedia Now, since the ancient Hebrews didn't have atomic clocks, they had to rely on the sun, seeing as how the sun's setting and rising changes throughout the year alone is enough to show how inaccurate this is, but also, the average of "noon to noon" reckoning wasn't the same, it may have been up to 6 hours shorter just 2,000 years ago.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

--Percy

Indeed!

According to your own post 207 So my comment on the experts is derived from your own post. If you want to see actual sources, however, I suggest you check out the links that Asgara provided in post 199 (the first of which points out another problem with a Wednesday crucifixion).I asked you for reasons why we should believe Gene Scott other than the fact that you worship him. Your reply only tells me that you fanatically worship him. Sorry but I don't find that a convincing reason to accept Gene Scott's opinion when according to you, yourself there is a huge amount of scholarship against it on a quite simple matter.You also clearly misrepresent Brian's arguments. Brian does NOT ignore the "three days and three nights" insrtead he disputes your interpretation. Yet another case of dishonesty on your part. Which reminds me you still have not explained why instead of offering evidence concenring the martyrdom of Peter and Paul you claimed to have you instead offered a story about the martyrdom of Polycarp, 90 years later - which itself failed to support your claim that the resurrection was the key issue for the Romans, even then.

I've spent the last couple of days reviewing the teaching Dr. Scott did in identifying which day and year Christ died.Dr. Scott used an overhead projector. The reason he did this is because the data is extremely complicated.Daniel 9 contains the Biblical prophecy of when Messiah would be "cut off"/crucified.There are four possible commands that trigger the clock of Daniel 9.The prophecy was given to Daniel while in Babylonian captivity, which is to say the Persian calendar plays a part. The Persian calendar must be converted to coincide with the Hebrew calendar (lunar) and these two calendars must then be harmonized with our calendar. This is no small task, and even with the aid of an overhead projector it was a challenge for Dr. Scott to communicate.Another complication is Hebrew horology. Two reliable witnesses were required to actually see the new moon and confirm Passover had arrived. This lends confusion to which day Christ was actually crucified on, since it could take three or four days before the witnesses could physically see the moon. Some sources ignore everything but the actual day the witnesses see the moon, which could be days after Passover.Presently, I know my limitations, I cannot communicate this overhead projector teaching. I am stymied. To be perfectly honest I am attempting to coax an associate of mine to give a few hours of their time and present this evidence. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.Brian, I will respond to the actual content of this post of yours ASAP.

Hi WT That's fine WT, take your time as I will not be posting for at least two weeks.Brian.

If you have graphical material you'd like made available on the web, simply email it to me at Admin and I will post it on a webpage at EvC Forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

After so much discussion about the Resurrection, why not read Dr. Scott's Scott's presentation first/finally? The organization and continuity of his teaching demonstrate the singular advantage of getting it straight from the 'Doctor's' mouth on this subject and can only clarify his position; He does speak for himself!As for the other facets: the dating, the witnesses, Jesus' claims, the facts assumed for discussion, et al, the Body of Evidence of the Resurrection is The Prerequisite in the First Book of Xandrezz.As it was asked of me, so I ask any reader now: Ask God, "If you do exist, help me understand." Then you'll be equipped for an informed discussion, in which I would like to join you.Xandrezz The Resurrection by Dr. W. euGene Scott, Ph.D.Long cut-n-paste replaced with link. --Admin[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2004]

Hi xandrezz, welcome to the forum.I just finished reading your link to Scott's sermon on the resurrection. I will say that WillowTree seems to have conveyed Scott's message quite well. The fact is, though, that Scott's message falls apart under scrutiny and that is what this entire thread has been discussing.Scott has people making assumptions in order to have a meaningful discussion of the resurrection. He claims that if you don't believe in these assumptions it is useless to discuss the rest. He claims that proving these assumptions is much easier than proving the resurrection yet he makes no effort to show us this easy proof.The simple facts are that NO, I don't know that he lived, and if he did then NO, I don't know that he was crucified, and if he was then NO, I don't know that he was actually taken down from the cross dead, etc.It seems that most of Scott's body of evidence of the resurrection are these assumptions. One assumption that I have been trying to get information about is the death of the apostles. Willow claimed to have this evidence yet refused to reveal it. I have heard and found nothing except tradition and legend.Scott had this to say about the deaths of the apostles: Yet I have found traditions and legends that say that
1. Bartholemew was either whipped, beheaded, crucifed or speared in either Armenia, Russia or India.2. Thomas either speared or beheaded or shot with arrows in either India or Persia3. Peter crucified by Nero in either 64ce, 66ce or 67ce (when Nero might not even have been in Rome)4. Andrew either crucified or bound to death with possible dates separated by 14 years.5. Luke either hanged in Greece somewhere within a 25 year span, died of old age or even claims that no information is available.6. Mark either dragged to death by horses or torn to pieces by a mob.(my favorite is Simon who was supposedly killed in one of three totally distinct methods, somewhere in the known world at that time)So, one of the big assumptions that Scott wants us to accept has not been verified historically that I can find. I will ask you the same question I have been asking Willowtree since he joined this forum...I am not claiming that they didn't die a horrible martyr's death, alone for their beliefs. I am asking for something other then contradicting traditions and legends showing any of this happened.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

While I'd strongly suggest that doing some more research would be better than praying I note that the link has nothign to do with the idea that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, on Wednesday, April 1 33 AD. Are you suggesting that Gene Scott does not teach that ?I would also ask how you would show that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the Jewish leaders. It is something that is certainly open to question and there is little real evidence - and that is suppsed to be one of the easier points.And finally I would suggest that there is a possiblity that Gene Scott does not consider. That the Empty Tomb story was not part of the teachings of the disciples, but a later addition. This offers a better explanation of why the site was lost (since the place where Jesus was resurrected would surely be important) as well as explaining why Paul makes no mention of the story despite the importance of the resurrection to his beliefs.