FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-11-2001, 11:59 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Claims of proof of resurrection (from a post by MAS)

In the thread A Euthrypho type dilemma for atheists? (Page 8) in the "Secular Morality" forum. MAS wrote:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">9. Jesus did rise from the dead.
http://www.webcom.com/ctt/stil0108.html ;
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...resources.html
</font>
Since this claim is more on-topic here in the "Biblical Criticism and Archeology" forum, I'm re-posting it here. Let the fun begin....
 
Old 03-11-2001, 02:15 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The first article MAS linked to is an article by Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank in response to an article here on infidels.org, Critique of New Testament Reliability and "Bias" in NT Development by James Still, who subsequently replied to Glenn Miller in the following two articles:

There are also lots of other articles on this site dealing with the alleged historicity of the Resurrection, including the following:

I would be interested to see comments on these article by Christians, especically MAS.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited March 11, 2001).]
 
Old 03-12-2001, 01:17 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I went to the quoted link to the article written by Glen.

I am not very well-versed in History so I can't comment on much, but I know a couple things he said were just plain ridiculous:
1.He says Barabbas was put up for, and eventually, released, because he was a "political dissident", and Romans sometimes did this with convinctions that were made on a purely political stance.
This is absurd. The Romans may have practiced a custom of releasing political dissidents, but Barabbas was not a political dissident. He was merely a common theif and murderer.
2.He shows evidence that Pilate would actually be nice because, he had been nice to Jews befofe this, and learned this was the correct thing to do.
But Pilate was supposed to please the Jews. Obviously, the Jews in charge at that time were all Jesus' enemies. According to the Gospels, they even threatened to tell on Pilate if he did not crucify Jesus. The logical thing for Pilate to do would be the exact opposite of what he did - Pilate, in order to please the Jewish leaders and not have them squealing to the higher-ups in Rome, would have had Jesus killed! Yet he just says he "washes his hands" of the whole thing, which is completely contrary to the smart course of action to take (killing Jesus).
3.We see from the article that Cruxifiction was reseved for the crime of sedition. But Jesus was put to death merely for blasphemy (a non-Roman "crime"). Glen goes on to say that Jesus was indeed accused of sedition and therefore, cruxified. But this is completely contrary to his former assertion that Pilate "washed his hands" of the whole thing - if Pilate did that, then why would Jesus be assisted by Roman authority and killed in a way that is used for punishment for a crime against Rome, if Pilate did not convict him of anything!?
 
Old 03-28-2001, 01:33 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

The Jews. "Squealing" to the higher ups in Rome...?
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.