Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

yup- that is a better explanation, especially since Jesus was on the cross for 3, excruciating, hours but it takes 3 days for someone to die in that position and the Romans really wanted this headache to go away (they thought of jews the way we think of Muslims, crazy religious nut jobs). so would be amenable to bribery.

one theory is that he left Israel and went looking for the lost tribes. there is a town in what is now Pakistan that claims that Mary is buried there. It's a pretty accepted "fact' which is really weird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus

What happened to the Apostles?

James, brother of John: Beheaded by King Herod around A.D. 44.
Peter: Crucified upside down in Rome, a death he requested as he didn't feel worthy to die the same way as Jesus.
Paul: Beheaded in Rome during the persecution under Emperor Nero.
Andrew: Crucified on a diagonal cross in Greece after preaching for two days.
Thomas: Martyred in India, reportedly speared to death.
Bartholomew: Flayed alive and then beheaded in Armenia.
James the Lesser: Thrown from the temple in Jerusalem, stoned, and clubbed.
Jude (Thaddaeus): Killed with arrows or an axe in Armenia or Lebanon.
Simon the Zealot: Sawed in half while preaching in Persia, according to tradition.
Matthew: Executed with a sword in Ethiopia for condemning the king.
Philip: May have been crucified or suffered other forms of martyrdom.

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html

People don’t die for lies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Does religion even have to have any truth? If I believe my God will protect and help me and feel calmer and more able to go about my day does it matter if that's true? If my God exists for others? What others believe or not? The whole delusion/sky fairy rant theme for atheism seems to hinge on organized religion. I haven't been in a church since 6th grade.

Atheism is not just about religion. It’s about not believing in a supreme being who lets you live forever.

Ok but the paragraph you responded to didn't have any of that. Not every believer has the same bag of ideas.

No, but eternal life is a pretty big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Does religion even have to have any truth? If I believe my God will protect and help me and feel calmer and more able to go about my day does it matter if that's true? If my God exists for others? What others believe or not? The whole delusion/sky fairy rant theme for atheism seems to hinge on organized religion. I haven't been in a church since 6th grade.

Atheism is not just about religion. It’s about not believing in a supreme being who lets you live forever.

Ok but the paragraph you responded to didn't have any of that. Not every believer has the same bag of ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Community, teaching morals to kids, having something to lean on when things are uncontrollable. None of that means that Biblical stories are completely accurate. That’s not to say there isn’t truth behind them, but it was mostly people’s way of explaining what was then unexplainable.

One wonders then Who put the urge into humans to “explain[] what was then unexplainable.” Seems that humanity yearns for an ultimate cause in much the same way it seeks out other essential needs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Does religion even have to have any truth? If I believe my God will protect and help me and feel calmer and more able to go about my day does it matter if that's true? If my God exists for others? What others believe or not? The whole delusion/sky fairy rant theme for atheism seems to hinge on organized religion. I haven't been in a church since 6th grade.

Atheism is not just about religion. It’s about not believing in a supreme being who lets you live forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Does religion even have to have any truth? If I believe my God will protect and help me and feel calmer and more able to go about my day does it matter if that's true? If my God exists for others? What others believe or not? The whole delusion/sky fairy rant theme for atheism seems to hinge on organized religion. I haven't been in a church since 6th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Community, teaching morals to kids, having something to lean on when things are uncontrollable. None of that means that Biblical stories are completely accurate. That’s not to say there isn’t truth behind them, but it was mostly people’s way of explaining what was then unexplainable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

What’s the value of religion beyond its truth?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

You can choose to believe what you want or need to believe and there is value to religion beyond whether it’s real or not…

But much of what was thought of as miracles back in the day now have scientific explanations. The PP gave you one for what could have happened. Do we know? Nope. No cell phones those days.

Then again, we have cell phones now. Lots of ways to prove what happened. And people still choose to believe what they want to….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

OP here. This is a nice illustration of my point. To deny the Resurrection is to wade into conjecture; there’s not some obvious rival explanation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

This question is akin to suggesting that the page in Esptein’s birthday book is a forgery that somebody thought to fabricate and include in the book years before the person alleged to have created it decided to run for highest office.

Jesus wasn’t widely considered supernatural at the time of his death. That widespread belief was sown years later.

I’m OP. I agree with the bolded though I’m surprised you do. The implication of your statement is that something changed between ~33 AD (when Jesus was crucified) and the 50s AD when the earliest written sources appear about Jesus and portray him as a literal divinity. Christians have a pretty clear answer as to what changed: Jesus appeared to people and announced that he had been resurrected. Non-Christians do not have a single cohesive answer except to suggest that it’s entirely possible that people could claim he appeared to them when he did not (something that is of course entirely true but isn’t much of an explanation).

Jesus' alleged resurrection was 2 days after he died, and lasted 40 days.

Not 17 years..

OP here. 17 years is the approximate amount between the crucifixion and the first written sources about Jesus, not the duration of the Resurrection. I’m not sure how you consider it contrary to anything that I’ve said that the oldest written source modestly postdates the Resurrection.

Anonymous wrote:Remember Romeo and Juliet. People can think you’re dead and you’re not actually back in the day.

Very true. There must have been some emotionally-charged impetus for the explosion of Christianity. He could have woken up from a coma, been in acceptable health for a while, and died suddenly from a clot to his brain or lungs, from the strain his body had been subjected to when on the cross. The resurrection was interpreted as a miracle, and the second death as the ascension of Christ to Heaven.

If you are interested in medical mysteries, you can find an explanation.

I pray you find peace, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?

This question is akin to suggesting that the page in Esptein’s birthday book is a forgery that somebody thought to fabricate and include in the book years before the person alleged to have created it decided to run for highest office.

Jesus wasn’t widely considered supernatural at the time of his death. That widespread belief was sown years later.

I’m OP. I agree with the bolded though I’m surprised you do. The implication of your statement is that something changed between ~33 AD (when Jesus was crucified) and the 50s AD when the earliest written sources appear about Jesus and portray him as a literal divinity. Christians have a pretty clear answer as to what changed: Jesus appeared to people and announced that he had been resurrected. Non-Christians do not have a single cohesive answer except to suggest that it’s entirely possible that people could claim he appeared to them when he did not (something that is of course entirely true but isn’t much of an explanation).

Jesus' alleged resurrection was 2 days after he died, and lasted 40 days.

Not 17 years..