Finestwheat
09-21-2009, 02:30 AM
Not that I'm willing to defend this explanation...but some people believe that Jesus went to some area in Asia and studied Buddhism (accounting for no information about part of his life in the Bible). If he had become very good at meditation he could have slowed his heart beat to where he appeared dead but was not. Then he took a nice nap for 3 days then left the tomb.
A more likely explanation is that it's a tall tale that kept getting taller every time someone sat down to write it. No one bothered to write anything about Jesus till at least 30 years after his death leaving a lot of time for real memories to become a bit blurry. I'm not an expert on who wrote the books of the bible but I know they weren't all written by the person on the title of each book.
Btw, lots of people die for lies, they just have deluded themselves into believing the lie is true.
Since you don't think your argument is valid, then don't submit it. That's how the court of law works. It would be silly to submit an argument then say to the judge and jury you don't believe it is a valid argument. Lots of people allege lots of things, but primary sources are the only thing to consider for the most part, since these sources are setting forth the proof. Latter claims centuries later have little if any weight when they don't address the primary data.
Studies are done which show there is nothing a person can do. Within about 12 minutes they die on the cross. They asphyxiate. No amount of slow breathing can prevent this. If Jesus didn't really die, then how could he get past the guards in such a mangled state? He couldn't even walk, let alone present himself to the disciples as completely healed and resurrected. It takes more than 3 days to heal up. His back was scourged down to the bone. His chest captivity was emptied of water. He was accounted as dead by the guards. Roman guards are particularly capable of ensuring a man is dead. That was their job and if they made a mistake, they themselves were to be executed. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea put spices on the deceased body and provided the tomb to be buried with rich men as the King of the Jews. Jesus presented himself as resurrected to the disciples, so he would be a liar if your claim was true. Are you claiming Jesus lied?
What evidence do you have people started writing no earlier than the year 63 AD which as you said is the earliest 30 years after Jesus died? Paul was put to death with many other Christians in the Neronian persecutions in 65 AD, blamed for burning down Rome. Luke wrote a biography about Paul in Acts, but it made no mention of Paul's death. Death is an important factor in a biography. So Acts had to have been written before 65 AD. Perhaps around 55 AD. But Luke said Acts is part 2 of his former work, Luke. So Luke may have been written about 45 AD. Luke though took from Mark as a source. So Mark may have been written about 35 AD, just 2 years after the cross.
Mark knew Peter personally so he took from Peter. Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter which is right on top of the events. Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 in which he said he met the original eyewitness Apostles, naming some of them by name, that the gospel and creed he preached he received from them. Paul was converted 2 years after Jesus and met the apostles "3 years" after his conversion. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and met other pillars of the Church James and John. Again, this is right on top of the events. Many of the authors of the NT though may have a final version we know today a decade or two after their events there is no reason to think they didn't start writing portions immediately. I don't think all their memories can change from remembering Jesus died to remembering he resurrected. Memory doesn't work that way. Plus, they died for their claim seeing Jesus resurrected like James and Stephen did soon after the cross as recorded in Acts. What are they dying for? Just because Jesus died? No, of course not. The Church was founded on their eyewitness testimony of seeing Jesus alive from the dead, talking with Him, touching Him, eating with Him. Up close and personal!
Therefore, there is no room for tales and legends to develop. The legends and tales are the story you make up and the other books in later centuries. The Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. So the challenge and placed squarely on your shoulders is, how do you account for the Apostles truly claiming they saw Jesus alive from the dead? No viable theories have been but forth yet that fit the data after two millennia. This isn't rocket science, but simple human psychology. You ought to be able to come up with something. For example, I can suggest an explanation why someone doesn't show up for their appointment, because of extenuating circumstances.
How do you know all the writers of the NT are not written by the authors commonly accepted and attributed to each book (Matthew is the only one in question). Most of them identify their authorship. Matthew's writing style is that of an accountant, tax collector. Mark alludes to himself in his writings as a "young man" (Mark 14.51). Luke was a doctor and writes very intelligently. John is very loving. His writings emphasize that. He is the disciple whom Jesus loved most. They identify themselves in several ways.
A more likely explanation is that it's a tall tale that kept getting taller every time someone sat down to write it. No one bothered to write anything about Jesus till at least 30 years after his death leaving a lot of time for real memories to become a bit blurry. I'm not an expert on who wrote the books of the bible but I know they weren't all written by the person on the title of each book.
Btw, lots of people die for lies, they just have deluded themselves into believing the lie is true.
Since you don't think your argument is valid, then don't submit it. That's how the court of law works. It would be silly to submit an argument then say to the judge and jury you don't believe it is a valid argument. Lots of people allege lots of things, but primary sources are the only thing to consider for the most part, since these sources are setting forth the proof. Latter claims centuries later have little if any weight when they don't address the primary data.
Studies are done which show there is nothing a person can do. Within about 12 minutes they die on the cross. They asphyxiate. No amount of slow breathing can prevent this. If Jesus didn't really die, then how could he get past the guards in such a mangled state? He couldn't even walk, let alone present himself to the disciples as completely healed and resurrected. It takes more than 3 days to heal up. His back was scourged down to the bone. His chest captivity was emptied of water. He was accounted as dead by the guards. Roman guards are particularly capable of ensuring a man is dead. That was their job and if they made a mistake, they themselves were to be executed. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea put spices on the deceased body and provided the tomb to be buried with rich men as the King of the Jews. Jesus presented himself as resurrected to the disciples, so he would be a liar if your claim was true. Are you claiming Jesus lied?
What evidence do you have people started writing no earlier than the year 63 AD which as you said is the earliest 30 years after Jesus died? Paul was put to death with many other Christians in the Neronian persecutions in 65 AD, blamed for burning down Rome. Luke wrote a biography about Paul in Acts, but it made no mention of Paul's death. Death is an important factor in a biography. So Acts had to have been written before 65 AD. Perhaps around 55 AD. But Luke said Acts is part 2 of his former work, Luke. So Luke may have been written about 45 AD. Luke though took from Mark as a source. So Mark may have been written about 35 AD, just 2 years after the cross.
Mark knew Peter personally so he took from Peter. Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter which is right on top of the events. Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 in which he said he met the original eyewitness Apostles, naming some of them by name, that the gospel and creed he preached he received from them. Paul was converted 2 years after Jesus and met the apostles "3 years" after his conversion. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and met other pillars of the Church James and John. Again, this is right on top of the events. Many of the authors of the NT though may have a final version we know today a decade or two after their events there is no reason to think they didn't start writing portions immediately. I don't think all their memories can change from remembering Jesus died to remembering he resurrected. Memory doesn't work that way. Plus, they died for their claim seeing Jesus resurrected like James and Stephen did soon after the cross as recorded in Acts. What are they dying for? Just because Jesus died? No, of course not. The Church was founded on their eyewitness testimony of seeing Jesus alive from the dead, talking with Him, touching Him, eating with Him. Up close and personal!
Therefore, there is no room for tales and legends to develop. The legends and tales are the story you make up and the other books in later centuries. The Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. So the challenge and placed squarely on your shoulders is, how do you account for the Apostles truly claiming they saw Jesus alive from the dead? No viable theories have been but forth yet that fit the data after two millennia. This isn't rocket science, but simple human psychology. You ought to be able to come up with something. For example, I can suggest an explanation why someone doesn't show up for their appointment, because of extenuating circumstances.
How do you know all the writers of the NT are not written by the authors commonly accepted and attributed to each book (Matthew is the only one in question). Most of them identify their authorship. Matthew's writing style is that of an accountant, tax collector. Mark alludes to himself in his writings as a "young man" (Mark 14.51). Luke was a doctor and writes very intelligently. John is very loving. His writings emphasize that. He is the disciple whom Jesus loved most. They identify themselves in several ways.