So if Christ wasn't resurrected, what happened?

>ascended bodily to heaven.
no

>So if Christ wasn't resurrected, what happened?

He wasn't.

Then why are there so many accounts of him being resurrected?

There aren't. There are writings from people generations after the fact.

enjoy hell

Rude.

Why do the accounts of his resurrection disagree with each other? Sounds like they were just made up. Some early Christian groups didn't even believe his physical body resurrected.

So 40 years is now generations?

Atheism is a meme.

You mean two?

One of which was written 70 years after it supposedly happened.

>So 40 years is now generations?

Yes...

The same reason so many people say they see bigfoot in their toast.

bethinking.org/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead/q-dont-the-resurrection-accounts-contradict-each-other

Back in that time that would have been maybe/roughly 1 generation.

Denying the gospel for reasons of "span of time" or "not first person source" would be like denying the holocaust.

It's retarded, you're retarded, atheism is a meme.

Memories are bad and easily altered.

Just as an exercise, compare the Wikipedia article on L. Ron Hubbard with the official Church of Scientology bio on him:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

scientology.org/faq/scientology-founder/who-was-lronhubbard.html

And bear in mind this us about a famous person in the age of television, and realize Jesus was the leader of an obscure cult in an ancient backwater.

It would have been 2-3 generations, considering that women got pregnant back then when they were like 12-13.

Someone must have stolen the body, I guess.

Why are there so many accounts of the Grail Legend?

It must have happened right?

>Denying the gospel for reasons of "span of time" or "not first person source" would be like denying the holocaust.
>Saying that it's possible that the Gospel is not entirely accurate considering that the only accounts of Jesus' resurrection we have a handful of accounts that are thousands of years old, written by essentially anonymous individuals, and that contradict each other in places is exactly like denying a genocide that is well documented, supported with primary military and government documents from several nations, with thousands of witness testimonies (including hundreds of testimonies under oath), photographs and supported by archaeological and demographic evidence.
Ok. Thanks for trying.

Most modern historians have a healthy (typically large) amount of doubt towards virtually all ancient historians. That's why Herodotus is often called "the Father of Lies." To think the Gospel would be any different is delusional.

yeah, but what does it say?

changed his name to caesar and moved to rome.

>Denying the gospel for reasons of "span of time" or "not first person source" would be like denying the holocaust.

In what way? It's not anything like denying a recent, well-documented event.

In Latin, A Roman Army(Legion) Officer(Centurion) with (a) Pila (it says pilus, but there only appears to be one).

However, I don't know Greek, so I will have to work on that one.

He was though

But the holocaust never happened, and I'm not some /pol/fecker.

>People wouldn't have believed Hong Xiuquan was the brother of Jesus Christ if he wasn't the real deal!

After spending a lot of time on this, I have made a rough translation of the Greek.

The original translation was "Hellenism is the forearm of Lacedaemon"

Given the context of the image and what the Cenutrion was saying about pila, I think the context would make it something like:
"Hellenism (the Romans) are the extension of Lacedaemon (Sparta)."

Pila, like the Spartan Dory, was used both as a thrust and thrown weapon, and the phalanx of Sparta is somewhat similar to the Testudo formation of Rome and it's Legions.

The main argument of that page is basically that the narratives of the resurrection are all different because they tell different parts of the story, like they're a puzzle that fits together to form the whole account. And that's obviously fallacious, considering that each gospel account was written separately to be its own telling of Jesus's story. The author's weren't writing parts of a cannon book, they were writing distinct stories about Jesus. Plus, the way it reconciles those differences are based on crude reaching at best. "There were actually multiple sets of angels talking to different people; see? no contradiction."

It's just sloppy apologetics written by an American Evangelical who doesn't know anything about the history of the New Testament.

It's not fallacious to point out that different perspectives of the same event will include and omit different details.

The point is that the different gospel accounts do not contradict each other they merely exclude and emphasize different things.

Also to call the multiple angel explanation "crude" is nothing more than your own subjective value judgment and does nothing to undermine its validity in accounting for the differences in the resurrection narratives.

Have you ever considered that Christ was just a Holy man among many Holy men trampling up and down Judea at the time, and probably was no more special that any other?

He's obviously different because we're still debating about him 2k years later.

wew, they include and exclude stuff from the same scene. check out the different "last words" of Jesus on the cross. that's completely different than different people seeing and not seeing certain events.

Exactly there's nothing fallacious about that. For example imagine several people witness a car crash and then are individually interviewed about what they saw. A 20 year old male witness recounts that he remembers seeing an attractive girl in a miniskirt cross the street right before the crash happened. However when a 65 year old female witness is interviews she doesn't mention anything about a girl in a miniskirt. Does this mean the witnesses are contradicting each other? No, it just means they were noticing different things. The same dynamic is at play in the different Gospel accounts.

Regarding the various "last words" of Jesus, it's clear that he said all of them and the different Gospel authors excluded them based on either their knowledge or to cater to their specific audiences. Furthermore, only "Father into your hands I commend my spirit" is specifically identified as the literal "last words" of Christ, all the other sayings are things that he said during the process of dying on the cross.

that's not a good example. you're talking about something peripheral to the scene. this is center stage for all of them and they all report their words as THE last words.

There are a lot of accounts of people getting abducted by aliens too, anonymous.

that won't work for him. he probably thinks the "aliens" are actually demons. yes this is a real thing

>He's obviously different because we're still debating about him 2k years later.

Not obviously. The difference could be in the way it spread after he was already dead, i.e. Paul is actually the extraordinary one. Or it could be mere historical accident, i.e. if he never existed than some other cult would have spread and taken over Rome instead.

No, there are seven sayings of Christ on the cross and only Luke 23:46 is identified as being his literal last words:

>Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

- Luke 23:46

However, John 19:30 does come in as a close second

>When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

But in both instances the movement of Jesus' "spirit" is his final act. Luke includes that Jesus literally says "into your hands I commend my spirit" whereas John only mentions that he gives up his spirit.

Paul says that he met Jesus though and that Jesus told him to do what he did.

sometimes you come across doublethink so blatant that you wonder if you should even respond or if you should give up all hope on humanity and end it all.

Both verses are clearly saying that they are the last words of Jesus. I don't know how you can rationalize this in your head... I mean I'm already aware you people managed to come to the conclusion Judas hung himself and then had his guts spill out and that the siege of Tyre in Ezekiel somehow refers to two sieges 200 years apart at the same time but somehow this left me dumbfounded.

Both verses say the last thing Jesus did was give up his spirit. Luke includes that Jesus actually said the words whereas John only recounts the act itself.

If we were to reconstruct the last moments of Jesus using both sources his final words would be "It is finished. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

To further drive home the point that Luke includes the literal last words of Jesus, notice how it begins with "Jesus called out with a loud voice." In Mark and Matthew, Jesus' final moment is described as follows:

>But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last.

- Mark 15:37

>And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

- Matthew 27:50

Luke includes the specific words that were uttered in that "loud cry" but all agree that a "loud cry" was the last thing to leave Jesus' mouth before he died.

There's no doublethink only willing disbelief.

The four dudes who actually wrote about his life are probably just as important imo.

looking back at all four accounts they are a lot closer than I had remembered, but there are a few issues still here:

first off you have to assume that the other versions are saying Jesus "gave up his spirit" verbally when the more natural reading is a euphemistic way up saying that he died, but willingly. the mention that he cried out does not imply this is the same action. Mark 15 has it as
>37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
notice the "and" here.

Next we have an issue with the drink. in John 19 Jesus asks for the drink,
>28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
however in Luke 23 there is a completely different reason that they give Jesus something to drink:
>46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
The clear implication that they gave him drink because he said that leaves no room for any of your semantics. A similar passage is also in Mark 15:
>34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias. 36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

No you do not have to assume that's what it means. "Giving up the spirit" is both an act and a phrase. Luke includes Jesus saying the phrase while performing the act. The other three Gospels only record the act itself.

Regarding the drink, he said both. Something along the lines of "Elias! ...........I thirst" perhaps. Of course we don't know His exact wording but again it's the dynamic of different witnesses viewing the same event. For instance after a political speech, if you were to ask a union member about what he remembered was said his response would be much different than if you asked the same question to a small business owner. They can both be correct and give you completely different answers because they're listening for different things.

>"Giving up the spirit" is both an act and a phrase
correction, it can be interpreted to mean an act, something spoken, or both. however there is nothing within the text to say that speaking is implied with his "giving up of the spirit". in other words it's the "best fit" but I won't claim it's definitive.

>Regarding the drink, he said both. Something along the lines of "Elias! ...........I thirst" perhaps
you are just assuming this. moreover this doesn't make since. in each version they respond to the words specific to the passage, giving him water because he asks or to see if Elias will save him. it can't be both.

>but again it's the dynamic of different witnesses viewing the same event. For instance after a political speech, if you were to ask a union member about what he remembered was said his response would be much different than if you asked the same question to a small business owner.
again you have a terrible example. you are talking about an entire speech, which no one would remember completely, not a few spoken words which can be easily remembered, especially since our memories work much better when we are remembering a traumatic event, like a friend/teacher slowly dying on a cross. but in regards to the speech, I certainly could summarize what the person had said and I wouldn't have a cut-in-paste memory where I only remember half of two different reasonings simultaneously being given and two different responses simultaneously being given. you don't have a real justification. here's the heart of the matter: you assume that the bible is completely true. in order for the bible to be completely true you have to come up with these ad hoc justifications for differing passages, even when the simplest, most likely answer is that at least one of the passages is simply wrong.

The Christ is resurrected every time a person is born. "Those with ears to hear..." etc.

Obviously if Christ wasn't resurrected Christianity is a big joke. Why didn't anyone else answer the OP's question?

Paul even says it:

>But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.

>For if the dead are not raised, then not even has Christ been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.

If Christ isn't risen, Christianity is worthless. It's a waste of time.

that's so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated

You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it needs repeating over and over against atheists who try to salvage the "moral" value of Christianity.

There is no divorcing Christianity's supernatural elements from its philosophical and ethical elements. They are all of a piece.

secular attempts at an "objective morality" are rather pathetic but don't pretend that morality is solely caused by religion or that morality in the West is entirely based upon Christianity. morality evolves just like culture.

A bullshit story was fabricated.

I'm not assuming anything; I'm relying on John's testimony and the report of the witnesses in Luke and Mark. It is worth noting that Christ is not directly quoted as calling out to Elijah only that is what the people who were watching His death thought He said.

As to your other point, the editing of a few words is intentional because each evangelist was writing with a specific audience is mind. Furthermore, the evangelists didn't have access to the same source material so the omission of certain details is also accounted for by the fact that they didn't have access to the same quotes.

*Elias

>I'm not assuming anything; I'm relying on John's testimony and the report of the witnesses in Luke and Mark
So am I, I am just not assuming that they are an infallible authority by being divinely inspired.

>As to your other point, the editing of a few words is intentional because each evangelist was writing with a specific audience is mind
If you consider this a possibility then we shouldn't rule out that they also added false information. manipulation by omitting information is on the same level as fabricating new information. neither of these are particularly unusual for writers in this time period.

Furthermore, the evangelists didn't have access to the same source material so the omission of certain details is also accounted for by the fact that they didn't have access to the same quotes.
this shouldn't be the case with John and Matthew who were supposedly eyewitnesses.

*>Furthermore, the evangelists didn't have access to the same source material so the omission of certain details is also accounted for by the fact that they didn't have access to the same quotes

If you're going to assume the evangelists are liars then you're willfully disbelieving and that's on you but the sheep know our Shepherd's voice when we hear it.

Judas becomes Venom Christ, and carries on his memes

I'm not assuming they are liars, I'm just not assuming they have to be telling the truth 100% of the time. In order to tell if someone is telling the truth, telling something false or perhaps lying you have to be willing to consider each of these possibilities

What are they telling if they aren't telling the truth?

something false or a lie. I'm sure there is some true information in the gospels but I'm not going to assume all of it is true without a good reason. I'm sure you don't assume someone is correct 100% of the time with any other group of documents, especially other holy texts.

...

assume =/= considering the possibility that they are wrong or lying

Fair enough but at the end of the day you have to make a choice: are they true or false?

false on the main important details such as the resurrection. these inconsistencies show that they aren't a reliable source of information in general

...

Actually, it means Greek Spartan Hoplite. Hoplite refers to Hopla, which means arms or weapons.

Well, I guess that is what I get for trying to translate a language I don't know.

Thanks user.

He evolved

A life-changing book about truth

Have you read the short book "The Present" yet? It's available free here. Just go to the website: www.truthcontest.com

Click on the entry called The Present. What it says will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.

The book is about knowledge of life and death!