Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "RESURRECTION: Was Jesus' tomb really found "empty?"" video.

Part of the weirdness is the appropriation of this 2,000 year old set of ideas and texts, from the other side of the world. Another part is how much has been modified by first the Romans, when Emperor Constantine converted the empire to Christianity, then through the Middle and Dark ages of Bishops and inquisitions. And, finally, the first English translation in the 16th century. And further complicated by literal interpretations of obviously metaphorical ideas, most of which have been lost to either translation, change in cultures, and the various revisions to satisfy the various monarchs. So unless you know all of that, and have researched every step, and know the Greek texts, and are familiar with Jewish culture from 2,000 years ago, your interpretation of the Bible is going to be...problematic.
17
@RockChick63174 They certainly do. I can tell by their diction, phrasing, punctuation, and flow that they have read more books than I have. (And I have 11 bookcases.) They also know more about history around the Bible than I do. And, again, I know a fair amount. I'm intelligent enough to recognize and acknowledge someone who is more knowledgeable.
6
Then it shouldn't claim to have evidence. It should let it be.
4
@lizardtattoo1 You really needed to have provided a warning before writing that. Nearly spit out my drink. "Poultry Jesus" is hilarious. Also, props to the OP for the funny comment.
3
Nope. He would have shown up on a Roman census. No record of him. The most anyone can say is there probably was some sort of prophet-type, who probably taught some of what was attributed to Jesus. How that got turned into Christianity is mind boggling. Indeed, so is how the religion could have started in the first place.
3
@SilouanSea Oh, I didn't realize that was your point.
3
Interesting point. Yes, people were crucified by the Romans only if they were the absolute worst criminals. Roman citizens were never crucified, as a rule. In the story, a member of the Jewish religious ruling authority (the Sanhedrin), who was named Joseph of Arimathea, donated a tomb privately for the burial of Jesus.
3
Actually, they would've had three days to do that, since the story has Jesus rising on the 3rd day. But, yeah, even if you could provide proof that Jesus ever existed (which no one can), or proof that he taught his followers and performed the miracles (which no one can), then this removing of his body by people wanting to perpetuate the fraud of a miracle would kill the whole thing.
3
Unfortunately, we have no proof the apostles existed either. So the legends of what happened to them aren't much proof. Science is not religion. And religion is not science. Experimental science came along 1,600 years after the time of Jesus.
2
@graceomalley4 I seem to recall looking into its real world origins decades ago. I came to the conclusion that reality, science, and facts have no place in religion--and vice versa. And have since forgotten.
2
@DavidVonR I'm afraid not. There is absolutely no proof or record of any kind.
2
@DavidVonR Never believe you can do your own research, unless you're a researcher with a Ph.D., or getting your Ph.D., because you don't know what actual research is.
2
@DavidVonR Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar. He just says there's evidence in the gospels. Not actual proof. Rudolf Bultmann lived from 1884-1976, also a New Testament scholar, said "although a few things could be known about Jesus such a search was pointless for all that matters is following "the call of Jesus" which can only be known through an existential encounter with the word of God." John Dominic Crossan, also a New Testament scholar, said all we know of Jesus is from the gospels.
2
@graceomalley4 Of course he can't. That poor guy. If it was possible to prove Jesus was a real person, who said and did what the scriptures relate, no one would have to ask if he ever existed. It would be known. Religion would, then, no longer require beliefs and faith.
2
I've heard of that, of Jesus going to study Buddhism. There are some notable similarities.
2
Unless there is actual proof, I'm not the slightest bit interested. If we were going down such a rabbit hole, I'd rather David talk to Bigfoot enthusiasts. :)
2
@nikoniortnike Give me some examples. I didn't see any. Also, what they wrote is not at all dependent on their claim of being a librarian. What they wrote is intellectual, and goes beyond any faith-based or anti-faith based arguments I've seen. Would you like me to dismiss what you wrote, based on your errors? There aren't many: mostly run-on sentences, missing a comma here and there. But that's not enough to dismiss you. I doubt you, mostly, because you gave no examples. And you base the veracity of their claims on what they wrote, on the veracity of their claim of being a librarian.
2
@terjoe4729 He absolutely did not, because there is no such record.
2
@Callie7912 Crucifixions were documented by Rome, who kept lots of records.
2
No. There is no proof. "Confirming the claim" is not proof, especially when it was from "those who opposed early Christians." That would be 2,000 years ago. So, no.
2
@DavidVonR No. That's your straw man. I'm saying the scholars don't agree with you. More precisely, there is no agreement with all scholars. That means there's no actual proof which can be demonstrated, and so only some "scholars" can rely on whatever they believe is the truth--having no facts to back it up, which would make everyone agree. So, yes, really.
1
@DavidVonR "Asking me to cite scholars who believe Jesus existed is like asking for scholars who believed Julius Caesar existed." It shouldn't be hard to NAME JUST ONE then. Oh, but they "believe." See, scholars don't believe. Facts require proof, not beliefs: Julius Caesar having lived is a fact.
1
@DavidVonR Those aren't historical scholars. They are New Testament scholars. They have no facts.
1
Actually, each of the three canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have roughly 30% of their material being available only in that book, and 70% being shared material with at least one other. So they don't all give contradictory accounts, but just don't mention some things the others talk about. John is the odd one: It has some things not mentioned in the others, and some things that were; but it does contradict the others sometimes. It has Jesus going to Jerusalem multiple times, instead of only at the end.
1
@swingingvoter4309 "When one gospel says the women arrive before sunrise, and another gospel says after sunrise" First, you're taking it literally, while denying the literal interpretation. That's just silly. Secondly, we're talking about different writers at different times. So, unless you're taking it literally, that this is God's dictation to man, then you should have no problem. Finally, all of this self-imposed distraction keeps you from the writing itself. It's your loss, no skin off my back. Maybe you don't read much anyway.
1
@ctpaul1261 I agree. Don't get me wrong: I spend a great deal of time reading and studying not only the Bible itself, but commentaries as well. But I can't imagine much headway being gained in this crowd. They shun a literal interpretation of the Bible, while simultaneously believing that's all there is to it. And they are as sure of their perspectives as fanatics are of their beliefs--in that they are unlikely to ever change their stance.
1
@nikoniortnike I must applaud you on actually looking through, and critiquing some of their punctuation and syntax. You definitely put your money where your mouth is. I could have done without this ad hominem: "some people aren't as perceptive as others." But so it goes.
1
@noitallmanaz "like to tell tall tales in order to sway others into doing their bidding." We also just love stories, regardless of swaying and bidding. You're so close to actually seeing why religion came about in the first place. But your talk of "sheep" makes me wonder if you're capable of thinking beyond the cliches.
1
@nikoniortnike And thank you! It's a pleasure meeting intelligent people like you online.
1
@alexmolochnikov1034 The problem, then, is focusing on the religious, miraculous aspects. Instead people could accept the writing for what it is, and learn from it, without believing or disbelieving. But such thinking is not for everyone. Alas.
1
@bigwill-gc7su Historians weren't really a thing back then. There were a couple people who wrote about history, here and there. David mentioned Josephus. But "proof" wasn't really a thing back then. Aristotle taught that all you had to do was think about something for it to be real. It wasn't until the 16th century, with Galileo, that proof even entered the picture. Even then the Church denied it, and kept it locked away for another century. So "historians" back then, like Josephus didn't care about proof. And that's not history, as we think of it today. There is no actual proof of Jesus.
1
Saying "it was all contrived" is way too brief of an explanation. But, yes, reading about Constantine, and what Rome did with with Christianity, after he converted his government to it, is a real eye opener.
1