Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[Hypatia415]

Yes, I am. I believe that because Paul had nothing to gain and everything to lose. I believe that because Paul gave a detailed description of the risen Christ that did not match the prevailing Jewish beliefs of the day. I believe that because Paul made the resurrection the cornerstone of Christian theology. I believe that because there's no other credible explanation that can explain the sheer magnitude of testimony by Paul and the gospels making a concerted effort to show the resurrection of Christ an historical event. I believe that because the sheer magnitude and tenor of the testimony in the epistles and gospels can't be written off as an accident or error. I believe that because there is no evidence for a conspiracy. I believe that because there are no competing accounts.

So what? Justus of Tiberias (in Galilee) a Jewish historian contemporary with Josephus (c.37-c.100) wrote a Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II. This work along with all the other writings of Justus are now lost. However, in the 9th century, Photius (c.810-c.895) the Patriarch of Constantinople read the Chronicle of Justus and recorded, in his still extant Bibliotheca, a summary of its contents. He states, “suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he (Justus) does not mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by him.”

This small Jewish sect was completely unimportant in its contemporary setting.

I believe that because the Babylonian Talmud confirms the accounts of the gospels.

And as I pointed out:

And the references in those later texts are a mere handful of scattered and somewhat ambiguous passages that some have suggested indicate a hostile and/or polemical allusions to early Christians and the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. However, scholars disagree as to whether those various passages are reliably describing a historical figure or are merely reflecting later Jewish responses to a burgeoning and rival religion.

Today some people think the universe has always existed and that in no way negates that the universe had a beginning. You are making an argument of supposition without any concrete evidence. You are working backwards from your belief that nothing supernatural can exist.

Nothing supernatural has ever been proven.

You aren't objectively looking at the evidence. I am.

No you are not. You are unable to take off those Christian blinkers.

So as crazy as it may seem, Christ rising from the dead is more believable than a conspiracy to commit fraud which has zero evidence.

The resurrection is not verifiable as a historical event. It really is that simple.

I did. You have yet to offer an explanation that can explain the sheer magnitude of testimony by Paul and the gospels making a concerted effort to show the resurrection as an historical event. If it is not true the sheer magnitude and tenor of the testimony in the epistles and gospels can't be written off as an accident or error.

See above.

How many of them go on to found a religion that became the largest religion in the world? But putting that aside, that's supposition. That's you subjectively rewriting the account with zero evidence.

Jesus didn't. Paul is another matter. And after 70 CE the Pauline ideas along with various others had the field to themselves.

That's a major copout that should give you pause for concern. Your answer for why Paul wrote his epistles is because he hallucinated meeting Jesus.

He believed he did. Just like Mohammed believed he had visits from the angel Gabriel.

My response to that was to show you that Paul wasn't alone in his beliefs.

His initial beliefs were entirely his own. He tells us that.

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

How do explain the great commission if it never happened? Because saying tradition isn't going to cut it.

That is from a later chapter in Matthew. And why did Jesus change his mind? In chapter ten he tells the twelve.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

That suggests that those later verses particularly:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Were later interpolated into the text.

 

[Hypatia415]

That's horrible logic.

No it is a fact. Many NT scholars do not accept the gospels as verbatim and historically reliable.

By that logic we shouldn't believe the universe was created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter because not all scientists commented on it.

That doesn't matter. It was recorded after the fact just like the gospels were recorded after the fact. All that matters is that it confirms the account of the gospels that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and leading Israel into apostasy.

Your above reply doesn't say when Jesus was first worshipped as God.

I gave a brief comment on the various different ideas that were percolating from the second century.

You have yet to put forth any explanation for how Jesus came to worshipped, when and why there is such a massive amount of testimony that states the first Christians - who were Jews - began worshipping Jesus as God immediately after he rose from the dead.

You are assuming the gospels - all written decades after the events they purport to relate - are reliable historical records. They are not.

It doesn't matter. Claiming my beliefs are subjective is ridiculous.

Of course they are. You are immersed in your faith and cannot set it aside.

are the one making interpretations. I'm just reading what was recorded.

In the original Greek?

It doesn't matter. You have no credible explanation for the existence of the massive amount of testimony in the NT that makes a concerted effort to show the resurrection as an historical event.

I repeat the resurrection cannot be considered as an attested historical fact.

You can't explain when and why Christ was first worshipped as God.

I have, on several occasions.

Your above reply doesn't address the fact that you arbitrarily and subjectively interpreted that Paul must have been hallucinating or having a spiritual experience when he claims to have met the risen Christ.

Why should he not have been? Do you believe Mohammed's visions were equally divinely inspired? If not, why not?

I read the details of his description and the fact that his description did not conform to the existing beliefs of the day and see him as a credible witness. I'm not interpreting anything he wrote. You are. You interpreted that he was tripping on acid.

I made no mention of psychedelic drugs. However schizophrenia is a recognised psychological disorder.

That does not matter. This is what matters.

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

I have no idea why you feel the need to repeat previous posts. Are you attempting to batter me into submission with swathes of text?

 

[Hypatia415]

Perhaps investigate historical facts before challenging them.

What historical facts might those be?

 

[Hypatia415]

Care to do your own research....

Concerning the persecutions of the disciples these are not historically attested. We have no idea what happened to these men and women.

 

[BreezeWood]

It's not subjective. It's based upon the testimony of the NT which is corroborated by non-Christian historians, the Babylonian Talmud and when the first Christians began worshipping Jesus as God.

were the above true the subject matter, jesus being god without corroborating evidence remains purely subjective irregardless and no more than a wish to be true as believing those who they chose to believe over others they chose to disregard.

- example, the phony madeup moses commandments worshiped by desert dwellers all three religions never seen by anyone and destroyed for some unknown reason by moses himself.

believing one person, abraham does not make them any different than believing any other person or not when none have verifiable proof for what they claim. in short they are all subjective.

 

[Meriweather]

What historical facts might those be?

Facts found in history books. ding has kindly presented many of them. I prefer/mostly insist people to do their own research. And by that, I refer to researching primary sources, not thoughts and opinions of a thousand years (or more) later.

 

[ding]

So what? Justus of Tiberias (in Galilee) a Jewish historian contemporary with Josephus (c.37-c.100) wrote a Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II. This work along with all the other writings of Justus are now lost. However, in the 9th century, Photius (c.810-c.895) the Patriarch of Constantinople read the Chronicle of Justus and recorded, in his still extant Bibliotheca, a summary of its contents. He states, “suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he (Justus) does not mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by him.”

This small Jewish sect was completely unimportant in its contemporary setting.

Still so what.

Justus of Tiberias omitted Jesus from his Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews for three main reasons: the specific royal focus of his text, the brevity of his account, and the political/religious context of the 1st-century Jewish establishment. [1, 2, 3]

The reasons for this historical omission include:

• Scope of the Work: The Chronicle was a streamlined, genealogical record focusing primarily on political rulers, monarchs, and state affairs from Moses to Agrippa II. Since Jesus was a religious figure rather than a recognized political king during his lifetime, he did not fit the primary genealogical focus of this specific work. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Brevity of the Account: According to the 9th-century patriarch Photius—the primary surviving source who read the original text—Justus wrote a highly condensed and curtailed chronicle. Justus skipped over numerous critical historical and cultural events, preferring an extremely concise summary of the Jewish royal lineage. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Political Disregard: In the eyes of the Hellenized Jewish elite, Jesus was an itinerant preacher and leader of an apocalyptic sect who was quickly executed by Roman authorities. To a secular political historian like Justus, this movement was relatively insignificant compared to the sweeping reigns of the Hasmoneans and Herodians. [1, 2]

The work by Justus is now lost, and Photius famously noted this omission as a failure on the part of Jewish historians to acknowledge Christ.

And as I pointed out:

And the references in those later texts are a mere handful of scattered and somewhat ambiguous passages that some have suggested indicate a hostile and/or polemical allusions to early Christians and the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. However, scholars disagree as to whether those various passages are reliably describing a historical figure or are merely reflecting later Jewish responses to a burgeoning and rival religion.

Given that it mentions several of instances of his disciples healing others in the name of Christ and one instance of a prominent Jew being congratulated for letting one of his relatives die rather than let a disciple of Christ heal him, I disagree.

Yeshua in the Talmud | Netivyah % %

-By Joseph Shulam- Introduction: I would have difficulty believing in the truthfulness of the story of Yeshua (Jesus) if He were not mentioned anywhere in Jewish literature. What if a fantastic story like the story of Yeshua (from his birth to his resurrection from the dead to his ascension to...

netivyah.org

Nothing supernatural has ever been proven.

There it is. Your entire basis for rejecting the miracles performed by Christ.

No you are not. You are unable to take off those Christian blinkers.

Are you really going to make me post this again?

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

The resurrection is not verifiable as a historical event. It really is that simple.

Because you dismiss the supernatural accounts in the NT? Why don't you provide a narrative for when and why Christians began worshipping Jesus as God and then explain why the NT makes a concerted effort to portray the miracles performed by Jesus, his resurrection, his ascension, and the great commission as historical events? It should look something like this: "The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead." But obviously using what you think happened instead of what I think happened.

See above.

You're really dodging this. Why don't you provide a narrative for when and why Christians began worshipping Jesus as God and then explain why the NT makes a concerted effort to portray the miracles performed by Jesus, his resurrection, his ascension, and the great commission as historical events? It should look something like this: "The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead." But obviously using what you think happened instead of what I think happened.

Jesus didn't. Paul is another matter. And after 70 CE the Pauline ideas along with various others had the field to themselves.

You were talking about people who spouted crazy ideas. None of which founded a major world religion. And Jesus is the foundation of Christianity and his resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian theology for good reason. The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

He believed he did. Just like Mohammed believed he had visits from the angel Gabriel.

You dismissed a massive amount of information with no credible explanation for doing so. Feel free to explain how all of this didn't happen.

Based on biblical accounts and historical tradition, Peter’s ministry was centered in Jerusalem in the early 30s AD, before expanding to regional missions in Judea and Samaria, and finally to Antioch and Rome. Key dates for his missionary actions include:

• 30 AD (Pentecost): Peter begins his ministry in Jerusalem, preaching to thousands.
• c. 34–35 AD (Samaria and Coastal Plain): Peter journeys to Samaria to confirm new believers (Acts 8) and later preaches in Lydda and Joppa, where he raises Tabitha from the dead.
• c. 35–40 AD (Caesarea): Peter visits the Roman centurion Cornelius in Caesarea, leading to the baptism of the first Gentile converts.
• c. 44 AD: Peter is imprisoned by Herod Agrippa in Jerusalem but escapes.
• c. 48–49 AD (Antioch): Peter travels to Antioch, where he interacts with Paul (referred to in Galatians 2).
• 49–50 AD (Jerusalem Council): Peter plays a key role in the Council of Jerusalem, affirming the Gentile mission.
• Late 50s–60s AD (Missionary Travels): Evidence suggests Peter traveled to regions in Asia Minor (mentioned in 1 Peter 1:1, such as Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia).
• c. 60–64 AD (Rome): Peter travels to Rome, where he leads the church, writes his epistles, and is eventually martyred, likely in 64–68 AD.

Paul's missionary actions spanned roughly from the mid-40s AD to the mid-60s AD, encompassing three major journeys: the first around 45-47 AD (Asia Minor/Cyprus), the second from 49-52 AD (Macedonia/Greece), and the third from 53-58 AD (Ephesus/Asia Minor), followed by imprisonments in Judea and Rome, and further post-release travels before his martyrdom around 67 AD.
Here's a breakdown of his key missionary periods:

• Conversion & Early Ministry: Around 32-37 AD, Paul converted on the Damascus Road, followed by time in Arabia and Tarsus.
• First Missionary Journey: ~45-47 AD, with Barnabas, to Cyprus and Asia Minor (Acts 13-14).
• Second Missionary Journey: ~49-52 AD, with Silas, through Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece (Acts 15-18).
• Third Missionary Journey: ~53-58 AD, focusing heavily on Ephesus and then revisiting Greek churches (Acts 18-21).
• Imprisonment & Final Travels: Arrested in Jerusalem (~58 AD), held in Caesarea (58-60 AD), shipwrecked to Rome (61 AD), house arrest in Rome (61-63 AD), followed by possible travels to Spain and Crete before a final Roman imprisonment and martyrdom (~67 AD).

John the Apostle (son of Zebedee) had a long, multi-stage ministry timeline:

• Initial Ministry: Called to discipleship around AD 26-27.
• Post-Ascension: Active in Jerusalem and Samaria (e.g., with Peter, Acts 8) around AD 35.
• Council of Jerusalem: Present in AD 49/50.
• Ministry in Asia Minor: Based in Ephesus, supervising churches from approximately AD 66 onwards.
• Exile to Patmos: Exiled by Emperor Domitian, generally placed around AD 94–96.
• Return & Death: Returned to Ephesus in AD 96, dying around AD 98–100.

James the Greater (son of Zebedee) conducted his main missionary actions between the death/resurrection of Jesus (c. 30–33 AD) and his martyrdom in 44 AD.
Key details regarding the timeline of his actions:

• Active Ministry: Following Christ's resurrection, it is believed he was sent out to spread the message, specifically traveling to Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula/modern-day Spain).
• Leadership in Jerusalem: He was a, if not the, chief leader in the early Jerusalem church.
• Death: He was beheaded by order of King Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD.

James led the Jerusalem church from around A.D. 44 until his martyrdom in 62 CE, with his missionary actions focusing heavily on Jewish Christians and overseeing the crucial Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) around A.D. 49, affirming the inclusion of Gentiles, and writing his letter (c. 45-48) emphasizing practical faith.

Key Periods & Actions:

• Post-Resurrection (c. 30s-40s AD): Initially skeptical, James converted after seeing the resurrected Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7) and became a key leader in Jerusalem by A.D. 44, taking prominence after Peter's departure.
• Jerusalem Council (c. A.D. 49): He presided and affirmed that Gentile converts didn't need full adherence to Mosaic Law, a pivotal missionary decision (Acts 15).
• Epistle of James (c. 45-48 AD): Wrote his letter, focusing on Jewish Christians, stressing faith demonstrated through works, likely before the Council, notes Insight for Living.
• Leadership in Jerusalem (40s-60s AD): He ministered primarily to Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, serving as a unifying figure.
• Martyrdom (62 CE): Martyred by Jewish authorities during the high priesthood of Ananus, as recorded by Josephus.

Focus of Ministry:

• James's missionary work centered on guiding the nascent Christian community in Jerusalem, bridging Jewish and Gentile believers while maintaining strong ties to Jewish tradition

Matthew's missionary dates aren't precise, but tradition says he preached in Palestine after Pentecost, then left for lands like Syria, Persia, and Ethiopia, dying as a martyr (around 60s-70s AD, possibly in Ethiopia). His Gospel was likely written in the late 50s to 80s AD, either before or after leaving Palestine, to preserve Jesus's teachings, with many scholars favoring a post-70 AD date.

Key Periods & Traditions:

• Early Ministry (Post-Pentecost): Tradition holds Matthew first preached in Jerusalem and Palestine to Jewish converts before departing.
• Departure to Other Lands: He traveled to Syria, Media, Persia, Parthia, and Ethiopia, but the exact date of this departure is unknown.
• Gospel Writing:
  • Earlier View (c. 55-65 AD): Some suggest he wrote his Gospel in Aramaic in Palestine for Jewish Christians, possibly around the time of Paul's ministry in Rome.
  • Later View (c. 80-90 AD): Most scholars date the Greek Gospel later, after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70 AD), as it reflects a Jewish-Gentile Christian community's needs.
• Martyrdom: Believed to have died a martyr, possibly in Ethiopia, but the date is unknown.

In summary, Matthew's missionary activities spanned from the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem outward, with his Gospel serving as a crucial record for scattered Christians, likely written in the latter half of the 1st century.

St. Thomas' missionary dates center around his legendary journey to India, traditionally beginning around 52 AD in Kerala and culminating in his martyrdom near Chennai (Mylapore) in 72 AD, after spreading Christianity to India and Persia, though exact dates are debated by historians. He established seven churches in Kerala and converted many before his death, marking the beginning of the St. Thomas Christians tradition.

Key Timeline Points (Traditional):

• c. 52 AD: Arrives in Muziris (Cranganore), Kerala, India, beginning his missionary work in India.
• c. 68 AD: Travels to Eastern India (near modern Chennai).
• c. 72 AD: Martyred (speared) at Mylapore, near Chennai.

Details of his Mission:

• Regions: Tradition suggests he traveled through Parthia (Persia) and India, establishing communities.
• Kerala: Credited with founding seven churches in Kerala, India, and converting families, including upper castes.
• Chennai: Preached and established churches, eventually martyred for converting royalty.

Historical Context:

• While traditions are strong, the historical visit of St. Thomas is debated by scholars, but the enduring St. Thomas Christian communities in India preserve this history.

The Church of the apostolic period experienced explosive numerical growth. Within a short time of its founding, the number of men who believed in Christ "reached nearly five thousand" (Acts 4:4). Green (1970, 13) states that ten years after Christ's resurrection and ascension there were churches not only in Jerusalem but also in Alexandria and Antioch. According to Bokkenkotter (2004, 18), by the end of the first century AD there were at least 40 churches in North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia and Greece.

His initial beliefs were entirely his own. He tells us that.

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Not according to the great commission ^^^^. Do you really want me to post that again?

That is from a later chapter in Matthew.

Nope. The "Great Commission"—Jesus' final command to his followers to spread his teachings globally—is recorded in all four canonical Gospels, as well as in the Book of Acts. Each Gospel provides a unique perspective on this mission: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Matthew 28:18–20: The most famous version, where Jesus commands the disciples to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Read the full account at Bible Gateway's Matthew 28. [1]
• Mark 16:15: Emphasizes evangelism and urgency, instructing them to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." [1]
• Luke 24:46–49: Focuses on fulfilled prophecy, commanding that "repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." [1, 2, 3, 4]
• John 20 - 21 Highlights the origin of the mission, with Jesus saying, "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you."

The mission is further expanded in Acts 1:8, where Jesus tells the disciples they will be his witnesses "in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

And why did Jesus change his mind? In chapter ten he tells the twelve.

He didn't change his mind. He did it for the same reason he sometimes said, "go and tell what you have seen" and sometimes said, "don't tell what you have see," the timing of his mission. It wasn't time to spread the good news. He hadn't completed his task.

Jesus’s instructions to share or conceal His miracles depend on His strategy for the timing of His mission, avoiding political misunderstandings, and addressing specific cultural audiences. [1, 2, 3]

Why He Said "Don't Tell" (The Messianic Secret)
Often referred to by scholars as the "Messianic Secret" (particularly in the Gospel of Mark), Jesus strictly told people to keep quiet for three main reasons: [1, 2]

• Preventing Political Uprising: Many people in first-century Judea expected the Messiah to be a military or political leader who would overthrow the Roman Empire. Jesus wanted to avoid massive mob enthusiasm that could force a premature, violent confrontation with the authorities. [1, 2]
• Controlling the Message: Jesus did not want to be known simply as a "miracle worker" or a celebrity healer. He wanted people to focus on His spiritual teachings and the overarching message of the Kingdom of God. [1, 2]
• Managing His Timeline: His ultimate mission—the cross and resurrection—had to happen at a specific time and place (such as Passover in Jerusalem) in accordance with The Gospel Coalition. [1, 2, 3]

Why He Said "Go and Tell"
Conversely, Jesus actively commanded some people to share their miraculous transformations. This usually happened in specific scenarios: [1]

• Outside Jewish Territory: In the Decapolis or other Gentile (non-Jewish) regions, the locals were not waiting for the traditional Jewish Messiah. Because there was no risk of them crowning him as an earthly king, Jesus could allow the news to spread freely. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Clearing His Name: After healing a leper in Jewish territory, Jesus commanded the man to show himself to the priests as prescribed by the Law of Moses. This served as an official verification of the healing and a legal testimony to the religious authorities. [1, 2]
• Establishing Local Witnesses: When casting out demons in the region of the Gerasenes, Jesus told the freed man to go home and tell his family what God had done. He did this to leave behind a faithful witness in an area where He was not staying to preach.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

That suggests that those later verses particularly:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Were later interpolated into the text.

Wiping (or shaking) the dust off the sandals was a symbolic gesture of moving on from a rejected message. It showed that the disciples were not personally responsible for a town's spiritual fate and allowed them to focus on those who would listen. The Great Commission commanded them to keep pursuing this relentless mission universally. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The two concepts actually work together to create a sustainable strategy for spreading the gospel: [1]

• Handling Rejection (Shaking off the dust): In places like Jewish towns that actively rejected their message, this act served as a prophetic warning of coming judgment. It was a visual way to say, "We have delivered God's truth, you refused it, and now we leave you to God". It protected the disciples from carrying the heavy burden and discouragement of rejection so they wouldn't burn out. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• The Global Mandate (The Great Commission): While the dust-wiping taught them how to handle specific rejections, the Great Commission (found in Matthew 28:19-20) provided the ultimate, global vision. It told them not to let localized rejection stop them, but rather to continue taking the "Good News" to all nations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Ultimately, these two teachings ensured that the disciples did not waste valuable time and energy trying to force their message on those who actively refused to hear it, while keeping them moving forward to find the people who were ready to receive it. [1]

 

[ding]

It's based upon the testimony of the NT which is corroborated by non-Christian historians

Not all of them

That's horrible logic. By that logic we shouldn't believe the universe was created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter because not all scientists commented on it.

No it is a fact. Many NT scholars do not accept the gospels as verbatim and historically reliable.

We weren't talking about NT scholars. We were talking about non-Christian historians.

Your above reply doesn't say when Jesus was first worshipped as God. You have yet to put forth any explanation for how Jesus came to worshipped, when and why there is such a massive amount of testimony that states the first Christians - who were Jews - began worshipping Jesus as God immediately after he rose from the dead.

I gave a brief comment on the various different ideas that were percolating from the second century.

You need to make a compelling narrative like I have that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. You need to explain when it began and why it began. And then you need to explain why almost the entirety of the NT is in error. Because I don't see how you are going to be able to do that without calling it a conspiracy to commit fraud. Good luck with that.

You are assuming the gospels - all written decades after the events they purport to relate - are reliable historical records. They are not.

But they are. All of the evidence points to the gospels being true. They didn't begin worshipping Jesus as God after the gospels were written. They began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead. Which is why you can't explain when and why Jesus was first worshipped as God and how the gospels got it all wrong. You don't have a good reason for people to worship Jesus as God. I do. They witnessed his death and resurrection.

Of course they are. You are immersed in your faith and cannot set it aside.

No. I have evidence. It's you who has no evidence. It's you who is taking it on faith that nothing supernatural is possible.

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

In the original Greek?

No. Are you really going to resort to this? Are you really that desperate? Would reading it in Greek make it so Paul didn't claim he met Jesus. Or that Paul didn't make the resurrection the cornerstone of Christianity? Or doesn't show the gospels made a concerted effort to portray the resurrection as an historical event? Or that the NT didn't go to great detail in describing the lengths the apostles went to in the great commission? Or that churches didn't form before the gospels were written? Or that there aren't 24,000 written manuscripts that documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed? Or that the Babylonian Talmud didn't confirms that Jesus to was put to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy? Or that there are opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts? Or that there are opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy? Or that there are opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected? Or that there are opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts? Or that there are opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God? Or that there are accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic? Or that the tomb wasn't empty. Or that there are accounts of his body being found. Or that there wasn't a dramatic change in behavior of the apostles behaviors? Or that the apostles weren't hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day? Or that they didn't go out into the world boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord? Or that they weren't persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it?

Pray tell, what critical piece of information am I missing that would change my mind because I didn't read the gospels in Greek?

I repeat the resurrection cannot be considered as an attested historical fact.

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to put together a short narrative of why Jesus was worshipped as God. when Jesus was first worshipped as God and an explanation for why the gospels make a concerted effort to portray the resurrection as an historical event. This is like only the 12th time I've asked you for it.

I have, on several occasions.

No you haven't. If you had I wouldn't still be asking.

Let's start simple. Why was Jesus worshipped as God? When did they first start worshipping Jesus as God?

you arbitrarily and subjectively interpreted that Paul must have been hallucinating or having a spiritual experience when he claims to have met the risen Christ. I read the details of his description and the fact that his description did not conform to the existing beliefs of the day and see him as a credible witness. I'm not interpreting anything he wrote. You are. You interpreted that he was tripping on acid.

Why should he not have been? Do you believe Mohammed's visions were equally divinely inspired? If not, why not?

Because you are making it up. Because it is supposition. Because you are working backwards from your belief that nothing supernatural can ever happen. Because it's arbitrary. Because it's subjective. Because it's not evidence. Because it is self serving. Because it is anti-intellectual.

I made no mention of psychedelic drugs. However schizophrenia is a recognised psychological disorder.

Same difference. It's still you inserting your beliefs as fact. There is absolutely no basis for that. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY... PAUL WAS NOT ALONE. So your suggestion is ridiculous.

I have no idea why you feel the need to repeat previous posts. Are you attempting to batter me into submission with swathes of text?

No. I've already done that. I'm doing it because winning hands get played.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm doing it because winning hands get played.

- only for bing when subjectivity has become for them their rational thought.

 

[Ace Nova]

We weren't talking about NT scholars. We were talking about non-Christian historians.



You need to make a compelling narrative like I have that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory. You need to explain when it began and why it began. And then you need to explain why almost the entirety of the NT is in error. Because I don't see how you are going to be able to do that without calling it a conspiracy to commit fraud. Good luck with that.

But they are. All of the evidence points to the gospels being true. They didn't begin worshipping Jesus as God after the gospels were written. They began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead. Which is why you can't explain when and why Jesus was first worshipped as God and how the gospels got it all wrong. You don't have a good reason for people to worship Jesus as God. I do. They witnessed his death and resurrection.

No. I have evidence. It's you who has no evidence. It's you who is taking it on faith that nothing supernatural is possible.

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

No. Are you really going to resort to this? Are you really that desperate? Would reading it in Greek make it so Paul didn't claim he met Jesus. Or that Paul didn't make the resurrection the cornerstone of Christianity? Or doesn't show the gospels made a concerted effort to portray the resurrection as an historical event? Or that the NT didn't go to great detail in describing the lengths the apostles went to in the great commission? Or that churches didn't form before the gospels were written? Or that there aren't 24,000 written manuscripts that documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed? Or that the Babylonian Talmud didn't confirms that Jesus to was put to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy? Or that there are opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts? Or that there are opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy? Or that there are opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected? Or that there are opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts? Or that there are opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God? Or that there are accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic? Or that the tomb wasn't empty. Or that there are accounts of his body being found. Or that there wasn't a dramatic change in behavior of the apostles behaviors? Or that the apostles weren't hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day? Or that they didn't go out into the world boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord? Or that they weren't persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it?

Pray tell, what critical piece of information am I missing that would change my mind because I didn't read the gospels in Greek?

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to put together a short narrative of why Jesus was worshipped as God. when Jesus was first worshipped as God and an explanation for why the gospels make a concerted effort to portray the resurrection as an historical event. This is like only the 12th time I've asked you for it.

No you haven't. If you had I wouldn't still be asking.

Let's start simple. Why was Jesus worshipped as God? When did they first start worshipping Jesus as God?


Because you are making it up. Because it is supposition. Because you are working backwards from your belief that nothing supernatural can ever happen. Because it's arbitrary. Because it's subjective. Because it's not evidence. Because it is self serving. Because it is anti-intellectual.

Same difference. It's still you inserting your beliefs as fact. There is absolutely no basis for that. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY... PAUL WAS NOT ALONE. So your suggestion is ridiculous.

No. I've already done that. I'm doing it because winning hands get played.

In fairness, it seems as if you two are arguing over semantics.



To begin - people should be aware that the term "god" in those days did not mean what the term "God" means to us now.

The term "Lord" in those days did not mean what the term "Lord" means to us now.

The term "god" in those days could have meant someone of "godly stature" - a king or leader that had divine qualities or someone who was considered "divine" - or from "divine" origins.

The confusion/conflation comes because all Abrahamic religions believe there is only one "God Most High" They had names and variation of names that could be understood in Hebrew, Aramaic, etc - but out of respect, they did not allow themselves to call "God" by name. So when translated over the centuries, it is simply "God" to us and the majority of the world.

The term "Lord" in those days simply meant "Master". And it has meant that word in almost every language and every translation throughout history.

The confusion/conflation comes from the English translation of Yahweh meaning "I AM". This translates as the LORD (all capitals) in almost all English versions of the Bible. Again, this was done out of respect and reverence.

When Roman historians from that time stated that he was worshiped as "god" among his followers they were simply stating he was worshiped as a "divine being" or from being from a "divine source". Because Rome had many divine beings worshiped or honored as "gods".

When his followers acknowledged he was "The Christ" and "The Son of God" to his followers and anyone who believed in him - it would have been considered the highest honor possible. To the religious leaders of the time, it would have been considered blasphemy. There would not have been a distinction in terms of "offense". Because "God" to them was the omnipresent, omnipotent LORD of the Universe - and their Messiah (Christ) would have been an invincible, conquering force - not a poor carpenter made of flesh.

His followers routinely called him "Lord" throughout the Gospels - and that was an acceptable term for any leader at the time. It wasn't until his witnesses began to declare him "The Christ" that eventually led to him being judged and condemned.


In the book of John - which was written in a Gnostic form in order to dispel Gnostic sects that were challenging Jesus' teachings - John describes Jesus' teachings in a very enlightened and Spiritual way.

When Jesus stated "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" he was stating that his physical body was in complete communion with God the Father in heaven. So whatever comes from him - in terms of words, teachings, works and miracles comes from God - NOT from his physical self. It would have been said in Reverence and honor to God.

When one pays close attention to what was written and how it was taught - remember these phrases:

Mark 10:

18. Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

Mark 5:

He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your affliction.”


Jesus taught over and over again that if a person was to truly understand his teachings, works and miracles they would need to truly believe that what he was teaching was true. If they loved God with all their minds, hearts, bodies and strength - then they would know in their very being that what Jesus was doing came from God.

Although Jesus referred to "My Father in Heaven" regularly - so people would understand the separation of his physical self and his spiritual self - Jesus did not have a need to call himself "Christ" or "God" - the witness of his followers proclaimed it (Many times, against his wishes).


To conclude - there is no reason to argue over semantics - millions of people have been doing it for close to 2000 years.

Jesus is a wise man to historians,

To Jewish people, Jesus was a teacher and a healer but was responsible for one of the worst divides in its history.

To Muslims - Jesus was a great prophet who will come again in the end times.

To Roman/Greek pagans - Jesus was their version of the god Baccus/Dionysius. (among other Roman gods)



To Christians he is the Christ.

 

[ding]

In fairness, it seems as if you two are arguing over semantics.

I don't think so. He's arguing supernatural events are impossible and that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing the evidence shows he did.

 

[Ace Nova]

That is from a later chapter in Matthew. And why did Jesus change his mind? In chapter ten he tells the twelve.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

That suggests that those later verses particularly:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Were later interpolated into the text.

That was stated as one of the first instructions to the original 12 Apostles while Jesus was still alive, teaching and performing miracles.

At that time, Jesus' teachings were relatively "new". His Apostles would not have an overly difficult time teaching to "The Lost Sheep of Israel" because those would have been Jewish people that may have "lost their way" - so neither the Apostles nor the people they were teaching to had to be overly concerned of the teachers of the law persecuting them since the people they were teaching were already considered "outcasts" of sorts.

Since their ministry was based on the teachings of the Jewish Prophets and Jewish Law and how to "fulfill it" it would have been much easier for them to teach to Jewish people first VS Samaritans who despised them and Gentiles who were likely loyal to Rome and Paganism.

Within a few years, their teachings and works gained enough attention that they became well known. When Jesus was eventually charged, judged and condemned, his followers would have been persecuted more within the Jewish areas that knew them than anywhere else.

During his judgement in front of Pilate, Jesus stated:

John 18:

33. Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34. “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35. “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Jesus had wanted his ministry to be included (or at the very least accepted) within the Jewish religion and culture. "I did not come to Abolish the Law but to fulfill it"

When the Jewish leaders rejected his teachings and eventually judged and had him put to death it showed that Jesus' Kingdom "was not of this world"."

Hence why he said if his Kingdom "was of this world" his followers would have been 'here fighting for him' (This is after he rebuked Peter for attempting to fight off a guard by cutting off his ear - Jesus already knew then that "Now his Kingdom is from another place"


That is why we see Jesus telling his followers to "Go to all nations - Gentiles alike" after his death and resurrection.

 

[Ace Nova]

I don't think so. He's arguing supernatural events are impossible and that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing the evidence shows he did.

Fair enough - I did not see the myriad of the back and forth - I was just responding to that specific point. Carry on.

 

[Hypatia415]

Facts found in history books. ding has kindly presented many of them. I prefer/mostly insist people to do their own research. And by that, I refer to researching primary sources, not thoughts and opinions of a thousand years (or more) later.

Our friend has not presented any facts. He has relied on Christian apologetic websites. As for primary sources on this figure and his disciples we do not have any originals. We have copies of copies of copies. We also have various pseudepigraphical texts in the NT but again these are not original MSS.

 

[Hypatia415]

That was stated as one of the first instructions to the original 12 Apostles while Jesus was still alive, teaching and performing miracles.

At that time, Jesus' teachings were relatively "new". His Apostles would not have an overly difficult time teaching to "The Lost Sheep of Israel" because those would have been Jewish people that may have "lost their way" - so neither the Apostles nor the people they were teaching to had to be overly concerned of the teachers of the law persecuting them since the people they were teaching were already considered "outcasts" of sorts.

Since their ministry was based on the teachings of the Jewish Prophets and Jewish Law and how to "fulfill it" it would have been much easier for them to teach to Jewish people first VS Samaritans who despised them and Gentiles who were likely loyal to Rome and Paganism.

Within a few years, their teachings and works gained enough attention that they became well known. When Jesus was eventually charged, judged and condemned, his followers would have been persecuted more within the Jewish areas that knew them than anywhere else.

During his judgement in front of Pilate, Jesus stated:

John 18:

33. Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34. “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35. “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Jesus had wanted his ministry to be included (or at the very least accepted) within the Jewish religion and culture. "I did not come to Abolish the Law but to fulfill it"

When the Jewish leaders rejected his teachings and eventually judged and had him put to death it showed that Jesus' Kingdom "was not of this world"."

Hence why he said if his Kingdom "was of this world" his followers would have been 'here fighting for him' (This is after he rebuked Peter for attempting to fight off a guard by cutting off his ear - Jesus already knew then that "Now his Kingdom is from another place"


That is why we see Jesus telling his followers to "Go to all nations - Gentiles alike" after his death and resurrection.

An interesting opinion but that is all it is. And why John's gospel? Why not any of the Synoptics?

 

[Hypatia415]

I don't think so. He's arguing supernatural events are impossible and that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing the evidence shows he did.

Point of information if that is reference to me I am a woman, not a man.

 

[Hypatia415]

Still so what.

The sect was totally unimportant.

Justus of Tiberias omitted Jesus from his Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews for three main reasons: the specific royal focus of his text, the brevity of his account, and the political/religious context of the 1st-century Jewish establishment. [1, 2, 3]

The reasons for this historical omission include:

• Scope of the Work: The Chronicle was a streamlined, genealogical record focusing primarily on political rulers, monarchs, and state affairs from Moses to Agrippa II. Since Jesus was a religious figure rather than a recognized political king during his lifetime, he did not fit the primary genealogical focus of this specific work. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Brevity of the Account: According to the 9th-century patriarch Photius—the primary surviving source who read the original text—Justus wrote a highly condensed and curtailed chronicle. Justus skipped over numerous critical historical and cultural events, preferring an extremely concise summary of the Jewish royal lineage. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Political Disregard: In the eyes of the Hellenized Jewish elite, Jesus was an itinerant preacher and leader of an apocalyptic sect who was quickly executed by Roman authorities. To a secular political historian like Justus, this movement was relatively insignificant compared to the sweeping reigns of the Hasmoneans and Herodians. [1, 2]

The work by Justus is now lost, and Photius famously noted this omission as a failure on the part of Jewish historians to acknowledge Christ.

Why are you repeating what I already know?

Given that it mentions several of instances of his disciples healing others in the name of Christ and one instance of a prominent Jew being congratulated for letting one of his relatives die rather than let a disciple of Christ heal him, I disagree.

It does not such thing.

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus

And as noted a belief in magic underscored the ancient world. Jews in particular saw demons everywhere.

- which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

Because you dismiss the supernatural accounts in the NT? Why don't you provide a narrative for when and why Christians began worshipping Jesus as God and then explain why the NT makes a concerted effort to portray the miracles performed by Jesus, his resurrection, his ascension, and the great commission as historical events? It should look something like this: "The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead." But obviously using what you think happened instead of what I think happened.


You're really dodging this. Why don't you provide a narrative for when and why Christians began worshipping Jesus as God and then explain why the NT makes a concerted effort to portray the miracles performed by Jesus, his resurrection, his ascension, and the great commission as historical events?

I have given a brief overview. However, the history of Christianity is the topic of entire texts. And it is a very complex history. If you really want to learn more about how your religion developed and how a Galilean Jewish preacher became regarded as a divinity there are various books on that subject.
I have ignored the swathe of text you produced because it is pointless repetition.

 

[ding]

The sect was totally unimportant.

Maybe to Jews but not to Christians.

Why are you repeating what I already know?

Because you didn't post any of that. You are being disingenuous.

It does not such thing.

Then you didn't read it. Because it does.

And as noted a belief in magic underscored the ancient world. Jews in particular saw demons everywhere.

Sounds like a great reason for you to not be objective.

I have given a brief overview. However, the history of Christianity is the topic of entire texts. And it is a very complex history. If you really want to learn more about how your religion developed and how a Galilean Jewish preacher became regarded as a divinity there are various books on that subject.

You have provided no credible explanation for when and why Jesus was worshipped as God. None, nada, zip.

I have ignored the swathe of text you produced because it is pointless repetition.

That's because you can't address my points.

 

[ding]

Point of information if that is reference to me I am a woman, not a man.

Yes, it was. My bad. I apologize.

 

[JoeB131]

What are the reasons you deny its truth?

Well, the fact that the NT contradicts itself on issues like who Jesus' ancestors were, when he was born, why he was in Bethlehem at the time of his birth, who was the first person to discover the supposed empty tomb. Not to mention the sillier parts like Matthew saying that they had a Zombie Outbreak when Jesus died. Matthew 27:51-53.

The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."