Are we talking about the same “I personally met Jesus” that Paul never bothers to mention in his own texts in any clear or direct way, and we have Acts to give us 3 variations of a story, one where Jesus is quoting lines from Dionysus character in a popular Greek play at the time called Bacchae? Or is is his nebulous 14 Arabian years or wherever where he never gives any specifics just that he’s encountered Jesus at some point. I love how Dr. Tabor is a wiz at laying out the facts and leaving his own bias out of it so you’re forced to decide what to think about the info. It’s why I’m sure he was a great professor. But let’s be really clear on this… Paul’s only cited encounter- aside from the prayers for deliverance which were vetoed by Jesus, a first in his ministry up to this point, but I digress - but Paul’s only encounter we know about was Jesus knocking him off a horse to blind him and then being really vague about why he did that… that is, If you’re reading the 1st two versions of the story Paul himself never even told anyone about, but Luke tells us in Acts. The 3rd variation of the story has Jesus saying a lot (some of which has been shown to exist in Greek literature). So the playing fields of the experience from James/Peter/John has to be taken into acct. in a nutshell, Paul is claiming his experience is genuine, but he doesn’t give any actual account of the experience himself, nor any details. We just have to take his word for it, and the word of his homeboy that changes three times on the matter in three different chapters in Acts.
And didn't Jesus tell folks not to believe it if someone said "Lo he's in the DESERT"? or lo, he's in the secret chamber? That blows two of his "after resurrection" sightings out of the water immediately. The reason he was able to sit and eat fish with his brethren was because resurrection in the NT is not talking about physical resurrection of a physical body made of flesh, but is talking about the miracle NEW BIRTH. As clearly noted in Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:11. And the virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth with her firstborn was not referring to a woman named Mary and the firstborn was not defined as a man named Jesus but was clearly defined as Ephraim in the OT. "And your SONS will marry you" The son of God was not defined as one person in the OT just as the virgin bride was not defined as one person. Even in the NT. "To WHOMEVER overcomes he will inherit ALL THINGS, I will be his Elohiem and he will be MY SON" revelation 21:7.
Excellent discussion. What's interesting to me is that while both @HolyKoolaid and Tabor are non-believers, Tabor finds the bizarre notions held by the ancients to be fascinating while Thomas finds them unsettling (perhaps because he's seen the real world impact of such bizarre notions in his life)
I was baptized full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38 KJVS Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I then,shortly after, received the baptism of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, which was a very powerful experience. That’s all the proof I need for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 8:9,15-16 KJVS But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. [15] For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. [16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Not only James, Coptic and Orthodox churches have traditions that Pontius Pilate's wife was a saint, Pilate may have accepted Christianity, and that Caiaphas became Christian.
And 2000 pig in a pig herd ran off a cliff and drowned even though pigs can swim. Pilate was sent back to Rome by trying to exterminate a group of Samaritans and was sent back to Tiberius, likely to be executed, Tiberius died and Pilate quietly disappeared into the background. Very saintly he was🤣
Prof, if you meet someone who had passed away in a thinking way, you'll ask yourself how he did that? He has a sort of power no one has...and that's what misleaded him thinking Jesus now is immortal and so powerful
Love this excellent discussion. I have a question about whether first-hand or even anecdotal accounts of people such as but not limited to monks for example experiencing intense spiritual insight that, under such circumstances that the Apostles found themselves post Crucifixion, might manifest as visual phenomena, whether these accounts support a particular direction for this dialogue? Put another way, could the experiences of monks (etc) in heightened spiritual states be used to support the discussion (and perhaps fork a new line of thinking)?
I thoroughly enjoy the scholarship of Dr. Tabor and I have learned a great deal from his discussions on this channel. However. I am seeking a few clarifications: 1. If the body doesn't leave the grave why does Paul use the term "raised"? 2. If the body isn't raised, what is the purpose of Jesus' ressurection? 3. Dr. Tabor, you used mentioned the term metamorphosis - and used a butterfly example to explain Paul's view. But...the caterpillar body doesn't remain in the cocoon. It becomes the butterfly. So, using the same analogy...isn't the physical body itself transformed into the "spiritual body," and therefore, there is no body in the tomb after resurrection? I have been really restling with this. Thank you.
If the tomb was empty Easter morning, when was the last time anybody checked on him? This question presupposes the story of the guards was a response to accusations the disciples or followers stole the body themselves or the family took it back to Nazareth without telling the disciples. In other words, the story uses 3 days because it ties into a number of sources and reports of Jesus' own claim, but what confidence can anyone have that the tomb was only empty Sunday morning and not earlier?
Why would Pilate or theRoman authorities spend the money on soldiers to guard the tomb of a convicted, executed criminal? And where is the story/testimony of these guards? And why didn’t the guards convert after either witnessing or learning of this “miracle”?
@@theunknownatheist3815 Exactly. It seems like a response to accusations that somebody had taken the body, "Oh well, they can't have because of the guards." This is supported by the scene where the chief priests demand Pilate provide guards in case they steal they body and Pilate thells them that they have guards and to do as they see fit. It's another of those scenes the author can't possibly have had access to and the probability any eyewitnesses to that were sympathetic to the Christian movement would have told them are practically zero. But it is very common in fiction writing to let the reader know what's happening beyond the sphere of the protagonist.
1. There was a big rock blocking the tomb thus no need to continually check it 2. The Roman guards would have paid with their lives for allowing the tomb to become empty
@@japexican007 And we have no corroboration that either of these were reported at the time - only in the Gospels written decades later, and seemingly including responses to critics apparently accusing the disciples of having stolen the body when they claimed Jesus had been resurrected. One of the difficult issues to contend with is that in Jewish culture, executed criminals were not buried in ordinary graves. There was a second allocation of land for them. A second difficult issue to contend with is that it was not Roman practice to allow bodies to be taken down off the crosses when the victim died. The display of their corpse was part of the punishment - part of the humiliation and a warning to other would-be insurrectionists (in this case). The idea Pilate made an exception for Jesus runs contrary to the reputation of Pilate.
Paul's letters give no clear evidence the appearances were even veridical. The nature of appearances in the earliest sources is ambiguous due to two reasons: 1. Paul equates his vision of Jesus to the others "appearances" with the same verb (ophthe). 2. It's unclear whether the appearances occurred before or after the Ascension. This is major because the apologists don't have a case if there is no evidence the appearances were veridical. Also, if they appeal to the gospels and Acts then they are tacitly conceding what Paul says is ambiguous.
@@sp1ke0kill3r Paul was literally a Heikahlot (Chariot) Mystic, who was raised in the Orphic Tradition, and a Trained Qabbalist. (Frequently references the Merkavah) Yes, Paul thought _very_ different, and disagreed with Peter in every case. Paul is the _descent_ through the Spheres, to God. Either way, Paul is the Wide Road to damnation, and James is the one to follow.
What ascension? Paul believes Jesus died as a sacrifice, the sacrifice was accepted in heaven and then his Jesus Christ is free to come back and play poker and be a messiah.😎
> because the apologists don't have a case if there is no evidence the appearances were veridical. You can tighten this up a little by losing "were veridical"
I think when desciples fled, it mean they found that it was not Jesus someone else on the cross, but others think it was Jesus. And His disciples all left Him and fled. (Mark 14:50). NASB.
Paul didn't have the conceptual language we have. I think he was getting at the phenomenon of evolutionary catalyst in Jesus. Jesus was talking about having a conscience; a level of development that is still sadly lacking in our species.
_"Jesus was talking about having a conscience; a level of development that is still sadly lacking in our species."_ “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26-27) “No one can become my disciple unless you give up all of your possessions." (Luke 14:33) "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37)
I like James Tabor's hypothesis but it raises additional questions for me The main question I have is why the disciples, family members, female followers or others in the movement were not aware that Joseph of Arimathea had moved the body, had plans to move the body and had no idea where he had moved it. Joseph of Arimathea is presented and identified as someone who was very sympathetic to the Jesus movement and he was likely intimate or in communication with its followers and key members. Yet in James Tabor's hypothesis he appears to moves the body to a new location after passover out of concert, and out of communication, with any of the movements key members or family members. I dont think this is plausible. The members were aware Joseph initially put Jesus in a tomb and knew where the tomb was. It makes sense they would have likewise been aware or informed if Joseph moved the body early on. The members (especially the women or family members) would have likely been involved in moving the body cleaning, and giving respect to the body as it was moved. Even if they hadnt...once they realized the body was gone, the first person who would have been contacted for information would have been Joseph of Arimathea. If he had in fact moved the body he would have told Jesus' followers and the resurrection narrative would not have gained traction. As I've said I appreciate James Tabor's analysis is intriguing, but not completely satisfying.
Why? Because (I suggest) immediately following the execution of their leader they were justifiably in fear of their lives, in hiding from from the Sadducees and the Roman authorities, both of whom their (momentarily popular) 'movement' aimed to overthrow, along with the non-Davidic Tetrarchs. Joseph of Arimathea had more freedom, being a (wealthy) member of the Sanhedrin, not openly associated with Jesus, and able to make requests directly of Pilate, perhaps advising him how best to avoid further civil unrest which leaving the body unburied over the Sabbaths (plural) might provoke. Jesus died not long before dusk on Thursday, the beginning of the first (Passover) Sabbath (in 30 CE), by which deadline the body needed to be interred _somewhere_. With Pilate's permission, Joseph had the authority to temporarily commandeer a nearby empty tomb and place the body in it, where it remained during the Friday Passover Sabbath and the Saturday Weekly Sabbath. After dusk on Saturday, Joseph and his servants (who as a band of men could safely operate at night) could (by Jewish religious law) remove the body to a more permanent tomb (perhaps the one at Talpiot, 2 miles away). The women, specifically Mary of Magdala, would likely have been unaware of Joseph's plans (in the circumstances, no-one was free to wander about and update each other), so when Mary (and others?) audaciously returned early on Sunday morning (despite the dangers for women walking in the dark around an execution site and graveyard outside the City walls) she would naturally have been surprised that the body was already gone. Doubtless during the following week of the Passover festival (if not later) Joseph was able to confer with Jesus' family and other followers. The 'Gospel' accounts we have were written several decades later (in the period 70-100 CE), by anonymous writers (the Gospels' titles were only added to them around 185 CE) who were _not_ original Disciples, may never have met any of the Disciples and Family (who had mostly fled to Syria due to Jerusalem's long seige and final destruction in 70 CE), and were already convinced of a bodily (as opposed to spiritual) resurrection (which is something that neither Jesus nor Paul believed in, as Prof. Tabor explains in detail in Part 2 of this interview). They therefore cherry-picked the various stories of varying authenticity (some of them were really wild) by then in oral circulation to support their views. If the Talpiot tomb _is_ that of Jesus, then his followers who were family members certainly knew of it in due course, because several (9) of them were also interred in it. NB: I don't assert that any of the above is "true", merely that it plausibly fits, without any miraculous or supernatural happenings, those circumstances and facts we know or can reasonably assume.
The hypothesis that is supported by archaeological evidence is that Jesus' corpse dematerialized before the tomb was opened and was no longer present in this Universe.
I'm fascinated by the "special race", especially after reading a few chapters of Hidden Intercourse. Do you know when the earliest use of the phrase "children of light" is? Do you think it's plausible that Valentinus received a tradition of sacred union from the Pauline apostles?
I think that Paul had some kind of medical emergency ( hence his being blind for some time, some kind of stroke?) This medical event resulted in him having a near death experience and thus encountering Jesus rather than meetung the risen Christ.
Well, he says Gosples eveolved out of preceding ones. They must have taught earleir accounts were either in accurate or incomplete, or missing somethings. So the last one must be the most reliable. I don't think that is what Nicea council thought. Paul may have met Jesus while he was alive. That is what he may be referring to, not to his resurrection. I think Paul is using 'cross' rather than crucifixion. Cross was the symbol of his church.
I worship the Zombie Jesus, He's alive from the dead, I worship the Zombie Jesus, l drink His blood & l eat His flesh. I worship the Zombie Jesus, He's alive forevermore! I've given Him my heart and my brains and now I live with my sweet LORD! (From my Christian Halloween album-which, somehow, goes unpublished
Who was the Teacher of Righteousness? Was he crucified? What became of his followers? Why did Josephus describe the Essenes in detail, but the only mention of Christians was an obvious forgery inserted into a later chapter?
I understand why Christians cite Habermas, but as a historian he offends me. No source that we have today says they personally saw Jesus in the flesh after his death other than Paul. All religions begin with a small band of followers insisting in a confused way on what happened to their leaders. Then orthodoxy created a storyline and the rest as they say is history.
Habermas' argument basically boils down to the fallacy which assumes that what the Bible says is true and that there is no room for possible embellishment or contradiction in details
Very few religions began "with a small band of followers insisting in a confused way on what happened to their leaders". Admittedly we don't have any real idea how old pagan religions began, but it's hard to even think of any that applies to except Christianity. Certainly not Islam. Maybe, if you stretch the point, Buddhism?
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Not sure what you mean since Islam teaches Muhammed ascended to heaven on a flying horse, though he came back. It's one of the pivotal events in his rise and why Jerusalem is considered the 3rd holiest city in Islam.
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. ( Qur'an 4:157).
It was a reaction to science and the concrete scientific method. Christians had to have a definitive counter, something concrete. They chose the Bible as an inerrant word of God. Christians for the first 1500, while considering the Bible sacred, had no presupposition of inerrancy.
"Crucifixion never happened"? Um...it was virtually a spectator sport in parts of the Roman Empire, almost the UFC of its day but with a twisted element of justice to add spice...
Paul is unique in that, unlike those who claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus, Paul saw or experienced (supposedly) him after Jesus had ascended to heaven.
Jesus was crucified and died in the cross and reisen from the death in physical body(Just as Lazarus) , but after 40 days he was taken to have as prophet Elijiah (transformasjon) when Apostle Paul saw Jesus in his spiritual glorify Christ.
Alternatively, he wasn't really dead the first time but he was the second time, and the language is flowery rhetoric because nobody likes saying, "they've died," quite that bluntly to people who were fond of them or more.
Glorify me Father as you did in the beginning if the messengers angles spirits can come down and look like us what do you think Yahusha Jesus is telling you .He is in his spiritual body after he died and was lifted up as he was in the beginning just as the messages angles spiritual flesh like human bodies . Our Father said he would do a new thing what we're the watcher doing they wanted to be human and they couldn't be but with human women they tried through the children didn't work well for them but with Our Father nothing is impossible The First spirit Yahusha the word of Our Father Jesus made human who was crucified died and was lifted up is now again spirit .My kingdom is not of this earth . remember today artificial insemination is done every day by human what do you think Our Father the Creator and maker of all in heaven and on earth can do
Selected saints of Jesus (who sleep in Jesus) will be resuscitated to experience tribulation. After that, Jesus will come down and join the party. Resurrection with a glorious body will happen after the messianic era, after the destruction of the universe, and the creation of a new one.
The expression of 'The new heaven and new earth,' prophesied by Jesus, is a Geographical polar shift if the context is the Tribulation. If the context is God's great judgment, it could refer to the new universe.
Complete nonsense; where or from who did the prophets of the Tanakh (old testament) say the Messiah will come from?....David's bloodline right?...Now, who's bloodline is jesus from, is it David's bloodline or god’s bloodline?
@@MrBadway_636 As Jesus said, the messiah is not from David's bloodline. If the messiah were from David's bloodline, David would not call the messiah 'my master' but 'my son.' Since your brain has been washed for many years, it is clean and filled with nonsense. Do not trust nonsense translations of the Hebrew text. I do not know why it was like this; is this deliberate or what. but I am sure of one thing, the Hebrew translation of the text to English is very, very, very bad. Mr Tabor tried to correct some of them. But İt could not be achievable by one man. If you will use your brain, I can give you some hints. In Hebrew texts, David is sometimes david. Let's assume Jesus asked "where my david disciple is?" If you translate it as Jesus had a disciple named David, you corrupt the text. Go and find me a clear Hebrew text that tells the messiah will be from David's bloodline.
There was no literal crucifixion as verified within the scriptures themselves. Hebrews 5:7, Psalms 18, 41, 91 (plus others) and the passover has absolutely nothing to do with a sacrifice for sins. If Jesus was literally crucified then that means every believer must also be literally crucified because he told us to pick up OUR CROSS and follow after him. And resurrection in the NT is not talking about literal flesh rising from a literal grave. Resurrection happens after the death and burial of our carnal flesh not physical flesh. The gospel stories were written as spiritual allegory later literalized by the blind guides within the church of Rome. Scriptural editing is also easily discernible that lead people into believing a deception of the truth. People refuse to believe they have believed in lies even though they were specifically warned in scripture about such a thing which was called a STRONG DELUSION that the Father himself said he would send because they chose to believe the lie. What lie? The lie that contradicts over 6k verses in the OT that refutes the trinity doctrine outright. Worshipping a man that sat in the temple claiming to be God, John 8. One of many lies by lying scribes. Jer 8.8. The true messiah would NEVER claim to be God Almighty Deut. 13.
Jesus didn't die on the cross. He was taken off after a few hours only. This wasn't long enough to die. He was then taken to a nearby tomb, attended to, resuscitated, and at night, under the cover of darkness, he was spirited away to a hiding place, likely in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem, where he recovered from his ordeal over a month or two following. How did this come about? The answer is Joseph of Arimathea. He was rich, had contacts, and was sympathetic towards Jesus. He bribed the Roman soldiers in charge of the crucifixion, perhaps Pontius Pilatus himself, and pulled off the rescue operation. Afterwards, when the fuss blew over, and Jesus was able to stand up, he showed himself to a selected few, and the myth was born.
That is the swoon theory, it fit every posible variant of the New Testament... and explain the "resurrection"... If you prefer a Miracle. You could always go to the standard versions... what we have about this is no more than that...
Thank you for this brilliant diiscussion, James. These are important historical readings of the texts.
Ok ok - I'll stop referring to Paul as a platonist. Once again, I've been learned. Particularly in regards to Habermas. Thanks for sharing!
Fascinating and full of further information I was unfamiliar with as well. Thanks.
Are we talking about the same “I personally met Jesus” that Paul never bothers to mention in his own texts in any clear or direct way, and we have Acts to give us 3 variations of a story, one where Jesus is quoting lines from Dionysus character in a popular Greek play at the time called Bacchae? Or is is his nebulous 14 Arabian years or wherever where he never gives any specifics just that he’s encountered Jesus at some point.
I love how Dr. Tabor is a wiz at laying out the facts and leaving his own bias out of it so you’re forced to decide what to think about the info. It’s why I’m sure he was a great professor. But let’s be really clear on this… Paul’s only cited encounter- aside from the prayers for deliverance which were vetoed by Jesus, a first in his ministry up to this point, but I digress - but Paul’s only encounter we know about was Jesus knocking him off a horse to blind him and then being really vague about why he did that… that is, If you’re reading the 1st two versions of the story Paul himself never even told anyone about, but Luke tells us in Acts. The 3rd variation of the story has Jesus saying a lot (some of which has been shown to exist in Greek literature).
So the playing fields of the experience from James/Peter/John has to be taken into acct. in a nutshell, Paul is claiming his experience is genuine, but he doesn’t give any actual account of the experience himself, nor any details. We just have to take his word for it, and the word of his homeboy that changes three times on the matter in three different chapters in Acts.
And didn't Jesus tell folks not to believe it if someone said "Lo he's in the DESERT"? or lo, he's in the secret chamber? That blows two of his "after resurrection" sightings out of the water immediately.
The reason he was able to sit and eat fish with his brethren was because resurrection in the NT is not talking about physical resurrection of a physical body made of flesh, but is talking about the miracle NEW BIRTH. As clearly noted in Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:11.
And the virgin daughter of Zion that travails in childbirth with her firstborn was not referring to a woman named Mary and the firstborn was not defined as a man named Jesus but was clearly defined as Ephraim in the OT.
"And your SONS will marry you"
The son of God was not defined as one person in the OT just as the virgin bride was not defined as one person.
Even in the NT. "To WHOMEVER overcomes he will inherit ALL THINGS, I will be his Elohiem and he will be MY SON" revelation 21:7.
Thank you 👍
Excellent discussion. What's interesting to me is that while both @HolyKoolaid and Tabor are non-believers, Tabor finds the bizarre notions held by the ancients to be fascinating while Thomas finds them unsettling (perhaps because he's seen the real world impact of such bizarre notions in his life)
I was baptized full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:38 KJVS
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I then,shortly after, received the baptism of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, which was a very powerful experience. That’s all the proof I need for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:9,15-16 KJVS
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. [15] For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. [16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Not only James, Coptic and Orthodox churches have traditions that Pontius Pilate's wife was a saint, Pilate may have accepted Christianity, and that Caiaphas became Christian.
And 2000 pig in a pig herd ran off a cliff and drowned even though pigs can swim.
Pilate was sent back to Rome by trying to exterminate a group of Samaritans and was sent back to Tiberius, likely to be executed, Tiberius died and Pilate quietly disappeared into the background. Very saintly he was🤣
@@Darisiabgal7573 I never said Pilate was recognized as a saint by anyone.
Prof, if you meet someone who had passed away in a thinking way, you'll ask yourself how he did that? He has a sort of power no one has...and that's what misleaded him thinking Jesus now is immortal and so powerful
Love this excellent discussion. I have a question about whether first-hand or even anecdotal accounts of people such as but not limited to monks for example experiencing intense spiritual insight that, under such circumstances that the Apostles found themselves post Crucifixion, might manifest as visual phenomena, whether these accounts support a particular direction for this dialogue?
Put another way, could the experiences of monks (etc) in heightened spiritual states be used to support the discussion (and perhaps fork a new line of thinking)?
I thoroughly enjoy the scholarship of Dr. Tabor and I have learned a great deal from his discussions on this channel.
However. I am seeking a few clarifications:
1. If the body doesn't leave the grave why does Paul use the term "raised"?
2. If the body isn't raised, what is the purpose of Jesus' ressurection?
3. Dr. Tabor, you used mentioned the term metamorphosis - and used a butterfly example to explain Paul's view. But...the caterpillar body doesn't remain in the cocoon. It becomes the butterfly. So, using the same analogy...isn't the physical body itself transformed into the "spiritual body," and therefore, there is no body in the tomb after resurrection?
I have been really restling with this.
Thank you.
If the tomb was empty Easter morning, when was the last time anybody checked on him?
This question presupposes the story of the guards was a response to accusations the disciples or followers stole the body themselves or the family took it back to Nazareth without telling the disciples.
In other words, the story uses 3 days because it ties into a number of sources and reports of Jesus' own claim, but what confidence can anyone have that the tomb was only empty Sunday morning and not earlier?
Why would Pilate or theRoman authorities spend the money on soldiers to guard the tomb of a convicted, executed criminal? And where is the story/testimony of these guards? And why didn’t the guards convert after either witnessing or learning of this “miracle”?
@@theunknownatheist3815 The guard seems to be Jewish Temple police, not Romans. But the story was invented anyway.
@@theunknownatheist3815 Exactly. It seems like a response to accusations that somebody had taken the body, "Oh well, they can't have because of the guards."
This is supported by the scene where the chief priests demand Pilate provide guards in case they steal they body and Pilate thells them that they have guards and to do as they see fit. It's another of those scenes the author can't possibly have had access to and the probability any eyewitnesses to that were sympathetic to the Christian movement would have told them are practically zero.
But it is very common in fiction writing to let the reader know what's happening beyond the sphere of the protagonist.
1. There was a big rock blocking the tomb thus no need to continually check it
2. The Roman guards would have paid with their lives for allowing the tomb to become empty
@@japexican007 And we have no corroboration that either of these were reported at the time - only in the Gospels written decades later, and seemingly including responses to critics apparently accusing the disciples of having stolen the body when they claimed Jesus had been resurrected.
One of the difficult issues to contend with is that in Jewish culture, executed criminals were not buried in ordinary graves. There was a second allocation of land for them.
A second difficult issue to contend with is that it was not Roman practice to allow bodies to be taken down off the crosses when the victim died. The display of their corpse was part of the punishment - part of the humiliation and a warning to other would-be insurrectionists (in this case).
The idea Pilate made an exception for Jesus runs contrary to the reputation of Pilate.
Paul very much mimics many of Philo's conceptions, which is middle Platonism as a lens through which to understand Moses.
Paul's letters give no clear evidence the appearances were even veridical.
The nature of appearances in the earliest sources is ambiguous due to two reasons:
1. Paul equates his vision of Jesus to the others "appearances" with the same verb (ophthe).
2. It's unclear whether the appearances occurred before or after the Ascension.
This is major because the apologists don't have a case if there is no evidence the appearances were veridical. Also, if they appeal to the gospels and Acts then they are tacitly conceding what Paul says is ambiguous.
Yet would Paul either think they were different or accept that his experience was less than theirs?
@@sp1ke0kill3r Paul was literally a Heikahlot (Chariot) Mystic, who was raised in the Orphic Tradition, and a Trained Qabbalist. (Frequently references the Merkavah)
Yes, Paul thought _very_ different, and disagreed with Peter in every case. Paul is the _descent_ through the Spheres, to God.
Either way, Paul is the Wide Road to damnation, and James is the one to follow.
@@bobSeigar Sounds like risky business to me Bob
What ascension?
Paul believes Jesus died as a sacrifice, the sacrifice was accepted in heaven and then his Jesus Christ is free to come back and play poker and be a messiah.😎
> because the apologists don't have a case if there is no evidence the appearances were veridical.
You can tighten this up a little by losing "were veridical"
👍👍
I think when desciples fled, it mean they found that it was not Jesus someone else on the cross, but others think it was Jesus.
And His disciples all left Him and fled.
(Mark 14:50).
NASB.
Paul didn't have the conceptual language we have. I think he was getting at the phenomenon of evolutionary catalyst in Jesus. Jesus was talking about having a conscience; a level of development that is still sadly lacking in our species.
_"Jesus was talking about having a conscience; a level of development that is still sadly lacking in our species."_
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple."
(Luke 14:26-27)
“No one can become my disciple unless you give up all of your possessions."
(Luke 14:33)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."
(Matthew 10:34-37)
I like James Tabor's hypothesis but it raises additional questions for me The main question I have is why the disciples, family members, female followers or others in the movement were not aware that Joseph of Arimathea had moved the body, had plans to move the body and had no idea where he had moved it. Joseph of Arimathea is presented and identified as someone who was very sympathetic to the Jesus movement and he was likely intimate or in communication with its followers and key members. Yet in James Tabor's hypothesis he appears to moves the body to a new location after passover out of concert, and out of communication, with any of the movements key members or family members. I dont think this is plausible. The members were aware Joseph initially put Jesus in a tomb and knew where the tomb was. It makes sense they would have likewise been aware or informed if Joseph moved the body early on. The members (especially the women or family members) would have likely been involved in moving the body cleaning, and giving respect to the body as it was moved. Even if they hadnt...once they realized the body was gone, the first person who would have been contacted for information would have been Joseph of Arimathea. If he had in fact moved the body he would have told Jesus' followers and the resurrection narrative would not have gained traction. As I've said I appreciate James Tabor's analysis is intriguing, but not completely satisfying.
Why? Because (I suggest) immediately following the execution of their leader they were justifiably in fear of their lives, in hiding from from the Sadducees and the Roman authorities, both of whom their (momentarily popular) 'movement' aimed to overthrow, along with the non-Davidic Tetrarchs.
Joseph of Arimathea had more freedom, being a (wealthy) member of the Sanhedrin, not openly associated with Jesus, and able to make requests directly of Pilate, perhaps advising him how best to avoid further civil unrest which leaving the body unburied over the Sabbaths (plural) might provoke.
Jesus died not long before dusk on Thursday, the beginning of the first (Passover) Sabbath (in 30 CE), by which deadline the body needed to be interred _somewhere_. With Pilate's permission, Joseph had the authority to temporarily commandeer a nearby empty tomb and place the body in it, where it remained during the Friday Passover Sabbath and the Saturday Weekly Sabbath. After dusk on Saturday, Joseph and his servants (who as a band of men could safely operate at night) could (by Jewish religious law) remove the body to a more permanent tomb (perhaps the one at Talpiot, 2 miles away).
The women, specifically Mary of Magdala, would likely have been unaware of Joseph's plans (in the circumstances, no-one was free to wander about and update each other), so when Mary (and others?) audaciously returned early on Sunday morning (despite the dangers for women walking in the dark around an execution site and graveyard outside the City walls) she would naturally have been surprised that the body was already gone.
Doubtless during the following week of the Passover festival (if not later) Joseph was able to confer with Jesus' family and other followers. The 'Gospel' accounts we have were written several decades later (in the period 70-100 CE), by anonymous writers (the Gospels' titles were only added to them around 185 CE) who were _not_ original Disciples, may never have met any of the Disciples and Family (who had mostly fled to Syria due to Jerusalem's long seige and final destruction in 70 CE), and were already convinced of a bodily (as opposed to spiritual) resurrection (which is something that neither Jesus nor Paul believed in, as Prof. Tabor explains in detail in Part 2 of this interview). They therefore cherry-picked the various stories of varying authenticity (some of them were really wild) by then in oral circulation to support their views.
If the Talpiot tomb _is_ that of Jesus, then his followers who were family members certainly knew of it in due course, because several (9) of them were also interred in it.
NB: I don't assert that any of the above is "true", merely that it plausibly fits, without any miraculous or supernatural happenings, those circumstances and facts we know or can reasonably assume.
The hypothesis that is supported by archaeological evidence is that Jesus' corpse dematerialized before the tomb was opened and was no longer present in this Universe.
When will the second part come?
I'm fascinated by the "special race", especially after reading a few chapters of Hidden Intercourse. Do you know when the earliest use of the phrase "children of light" is? Do you think it's plausible that Valentinus received a tradition of sacred union from the Pauline apostles?
Isn't that the DSS?
I think that Paul had some kind of medical emergency ( hence his being blind for some time, some kind of stroke?) This medical event resulted in him having a near death experience and thus encountering Jesus rather than meetung the risen Christ.
Well, he says Gosples eveolved out of preceding ones. They must have taught earleir accounts were either in accurate or incomplete, or missing somethings. So the last one must be the most reliable. I don't think that is what Nicea council thought. Paul may have met Jesus while he was alive. That is what he may be referring to, not to his resurrection. I think
Paul is using 'cross' rather than crucifixion. Cross was the symbol of his church.
I worship the Zombie Jesus, He's alive from the dead, I worship the Zombie Jesus, l drink His blood & l eat His flesh. I worship the Zombie Jesus, He's alive forevermore! I've given Him my heart and my brains and now I live with my sweet LORD! (From my Christian Halloween album-which, somehow, goes unpublished
The Almagest & MUL.APIN are the best versions of Her Word.
Who was the Teacher of Righteousness? Was he crucified? What became of his followers? Why did Josephus describe the Essenes in detail, but the only mention of Christians was an obvious forgery inserted into a later chapter?
I understand why Christians cite Habermas, but as a historian he offends me.
No source that we have today says they personally saw Jesus in the flesh after his death other than Paul. All religions begin with a small band of followers insisting in a confused way on what happened to their leaders. Then orthodoxy created a storyline and the rest as they say is history.
Paul saw a heavenly vision not an ‘in the flesh’ experience.
Habermas' argument basically boils down to the fallacy which assumes that what the Bible says is true and that there is no room for possible embellishment or contradiction in details
Very few religions began "with a small band of followers insisting in a confused way on what happened to their leaders".
Admittedly we don't have any real idea how old pagan religions began, but it's hard to even think of any that applies to except Christianity. Certainly not Islam. Maybe, if you stretch the point, Buddhism?
@@andrewbuswell6010 He gives various and sundry remarks about Jesus depending on the source, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Not sure what you mean since Islam teaches Muhammed ascended to heaven on a flying horse, though he came back. It's one of the pivotal events in his rise and why Jerusalem is considered the 3rd holiest city in Islam.
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
( Qur'an 4:157).
Lies, from the father of lies. Jesus' death from crucifixion is as certain as anything in history.
Why do the Christian claim the Bible is the WORD OF GOD ALMIGHTY??
It was a reaction to science and the concrete scientific method. Christians had to have a definitive counter, something concrete. They chose the Bible as an inerrant word of God. Christians for the first 1500, while considering the Bible sacred, had no presupposition of inerrancy.
First of all, Jesus was not crucified. There has never been any evidence that crucifixion ever happened. He was put on a stake and impaled.
"Crucifixion never happened"? Um...it was virtually a spectator sport in parts of the Roman Empire, almost the UFC of its day but with a twisted element of justice to add spice...
Paul is unique in that, unlike those who claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus, Paul saw or experienced (supposedly) him after Jesus had ascended to heaven.
Jesus was crucified and died in the cross and reisen from the death in physical body(Just as Lazarus) , but after 40 days he was taken to have as prophet Elijiah (transformasjon) when Apostle Paul saw Jesus in his spiritual glorify Christ.
Exactly, he was reisen, mainly because he's a fictional character
Alternatively, he wasn't really dead the first time but he was the second time, and the language is flowery rhetoric because nobody likes saying, "they've died," quite that bluntly to people who were fond of them or more.
Glorify me Father as you did in the beginning if the messengers angles spirits can come down and look like us what do you think Yahusha Jesus is telling you .He is in his spiritual body after he died and was lifted up as he was in the beginning just as the messages angles spiritual flesh like human bodies . Our Father said he would do a new thing what we're the watcher doing they wanted to be human and they couldn't be but with human women they tried through the children didn't work well for them but with Our Father nothing is impossible The First spirit Yahusha the word of Our Father Jesus made human who was crucified died and was lifted up is now again spirit .My kingdom is not of this earth . remember today artificial insemination is done every day by human what do you think Our Father the Creator and maker of all in heaven and on earth can do
Selected saints of Jesus (who sleep in Jesus) will be resuscitated to experience tribulation. After that, Jesus will come down and join the party. Resurrection with a glorious body will happen after the messianic era, after the destruction of the universe, and the creation of a new one.
The expression of 'The new heaven and new earth,' prophesied by Jesus, is a Geographical polar shift if the context is the Tribulation. If the context is God's great judgment, it could refer to the new universe.
Complete nonsense;
where or from who did the prophets of the Tanakh (old testament) say the Messiah will come from?....David's bloodline right?...Now, who's bloodline is jesus from, is it David's bloodline or god’s bloodline?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. 😂
@@MrBadway_636 As Jesus said, the messiah is not from David's bloodline. If the messiah were from David's bloodline, David would not call the messiah 'my master' but 'my son.' Since your brain has been washed for many years, it is clean and filled with nonsense. Do not trust nonsense translations of the Hebrew text. I do not know why it was like this; is this deliberate or what. but I am sure of one thing, the Hebrew translation of the text to English is very, very, very bad. Mr Tabor tried to correct some of them. But İt could not be achievable by one man.
If you will use your brain, I can give you some hints. In Hebrew texts, David is sometimes david. Let's assume Jesus asked "where my david disciple is?" If you translate it as Jesus had a disciple named David, you corrupt the text.
Go and find me a clear Hebrew text that tells the messiah will be from David's bloodline.
I legitimately have no idea why anyone takes Paul seriously at all.
Because they WANT TO
Paul's theology _is_ interesting. Regardless if it's true or not.
@@KendraAndTheLaw I find his theology and cosmology historically interesting, I suppose?
Orphic ritual
Luke contradicted Paul by his the Broiled fish story.
The reality is no one has ever come back....ever...so, there's that.
So true, except for the ones that did come back.... that was awesome.
😆
There was no literal crucifixion as verified within the scriptures themselves. Hebrews 5:7, Psalms 18, 41, 91 (plus others) and the passover has absolutely nothing to do with a sacrifice for sins. If Jesus was literally crucified then that means every believer must also be literally crucified because he told us to pick up OUR CROSS and follow after him. And resurrection in the NT is not talking about literal flesh rising from a literal grave. Resurrection happens after the death and burial of our carnal flesh not physical flesh. The gospel stories were written as spiritual allegory later literalized by the blind guides within the church of Rome. Scriptural editing is also easily discernible that lead people into believing a deception of the truth. People refuse to believe they have believed in lies even though they were specifically warned in scripture about such a thing which was called a STRONG DELUSION that the Father himself said he would send because they chose to believe the lie. What lie? The lie that contradicts over 6k verses in the OT that refutes the trinity doctrine outright. Worshipping a man that sat in the temple claiming to be God, John 8. One of many lies by lying scribes. Jer 8.8. The true messiah would NEVER claim to be God Almighty Deut. 13.
Baha'i propaganda.
And prove that Paul wasn’t Batshit Crazy!
Jesus didn't die on the cross. He was taken off after a few hours only. This wasn't long enough to die. He was then taken to a nearby tomb, attended to, resuscitated, and at night, under the cover of darkness, he was spirited away to a hiding place, likely in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem, where he recovered from his ordeal over a month or two following. How did this come about? The answer is Joseph of Arimathea. He was rich, had contacts, and was sympathetic towards Jesus. He bribed the Roman soldiers in charge of the crucifixion, perhaps Pontius Pilatus himself, and pulled off the rescue operation. Afterwards, when the fuss blew over, and Jesus was able to stand up, he showed himself to a selected few, and the myth was born.
You are just saying stuff. Where’s your evidence?
cool story bro, now where is the evidence? lmao another big hat and no cattle
That is the swoon theory, it fit every posible variant of the New Testament... and explain the "resurrection"... If you prefer a Miracle. You could always go to the standard versions... what we have about this is no more than that...
@@AR-tb9hq My dear Watson, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
@@whereisjoe3697 My evidence? It's all in the Gospels, clearly written for all to see.