Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

[polonius]

Christianity is based on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Let's look at the history we have.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans in the 30-33 AD time frame. (Outside of the New Testament we have reports by Josephus and Tacitus, both non-christian historians.

When was it first written that Jesus had risen from the dead and by whom?

[polonius]

Please ignore, I misread your post. I supposed you were placing the events in Luke in the "holy week" which it seems you are not.

All four Gospels have Jesus anointed by a woman. Was that just a woman, a sinful women (prostitute), or the sister of Lazarus?

I agree with your conclusion, Luke's gopspel was not reporting the same event as the other three gospel writers. Two different events, two different women.

4. If one assumes that Luke intends his chronology here to be accurate, then this could not be the same incident as that given by Matthew and Mark, or that given by John. Other details are also different. Thus I would think that it refers to a different incident."

JW

RESPONSE: However, note that this account was written 50 years after the fact by a non-witness who wasn't even an Apostle.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 50 by polonius.advice]

Why? What has that got to do with whether there were two different women?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 50 by polonius.advice]

Why? What has that got to do with whether there were two different women?

RESPONSE: What is your "that" referring to?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 44 by polonius.advice]

1. The account in Matthew and Mark takes place in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, right around the time of the crucifixion, "two days before the passover" it seems. The issue of spending money on the poor instead comes up. The woman who anointed Jesus and cried here is not identified, but she's said to be a sinner, clearly a notorious sinner.

2. The account in John also takes place in Bethany, and the woman there is clearly identified as Mary the sister of Martha and of Lazarus, and that whole family is there. The house is not identified, and Judas is the one who objects to the ointment being used this way rather than sold and given to the poor.

3. The account in Luke is not clearly identified as to place, is in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and appears almost certainly to be much earlier than the week before the crucifixion. In this case, the objection made is by the host, although silently, and the basis for it is that he thinks Jesus ought to have known the woman's sinfulness, and, presumably, rebuked her. The objection about wasting money that might have been given to the poor is not mentioned. And Jesus tells a parable to Simon, the host, by way of explanation and, in a sense, mild rebuke.

4. If one assumes that Luke intends his chronology here to be accurate, then this could not be the same incident as that given by Matthew and Mark, or that given by John. Other details are also different. Thus I would think that it refers to a different incident."

None of this is an indication of a different event. They can all happen in Bethany and chronology during the time of the New Testament writers was not as important as conveying the message they desired. Totally a non issue was not intended to be chronological.

The Greek word "autos" here can be singular or plural. The King James version is probably the best translation of this "and they set him there on."

But regardless you can only sit on one animal at a time. There is no contradiction here. And then Isaiah was quoted if there was any doubt.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 44 by polonius.advice]

1. The account in Matthew and Mark takes place in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, right around the time of the crucifixion, "two days before the passover" it seems. The issue of spending money on the poor instead comes up. The woman who anointed Jesus and cried here is not identified, but she's said to be a sinner, clearly a notorious sinner.

2. The account in John also takes place in Bethany, and the woman there is clearly identified as Mary the sister of Martha and of Lazarus, and that whole family is there. The house is not identified, and Judas is the one who objects to the ointment being used this way rather than sold and given to the poor.

3. The account in Luke is not clearly identified as to place, is in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and appears almost certainly to be much earlier than the week before the crucifixion. In this case, the objection made is by the host, although silently, and the basis for it is that he thinks Jesus ought to have known the woman's sinfulness, and, presumably, rebuked her. The objection about wasting money that might have been given to the poor is not mentioned. And Jesus tells a parable to Simon, the host, by way of explanation and, in a sense, mild rebuke.

4. If one assumes that Luke intends his chronology here to be accurate, then this could not be the same incident as that given by Matthew and Mark, or that given by John. Other details are also different. Thus I would think that it refers to a different incident."

None of this is an indication of a different event. They can all happen in Bethany and chronology during the time of the New Testament writers was not as important as conveying the message they desired. Totally a non issue was not intended to be chronological.

The Greek word "autos" here can be singular or plural. The King James version is probably the best translation of this "and they set him there on."

But regardless you can only sit on one animal at a time. There is no contradiction here. And then Isaiah was quoted if there was any doubt.

RESPONSE: Matthew 21-22 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

21 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.[a]� 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,

5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.�

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,

Of course the problem is that to "fulfill" a prophecy Matthew misquotes it. There is no word "and" in the prophecy, There is only one animal.

New American Bible Revised Edition
* [21:4–5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Is 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zec 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

COMMENT: Matthew misquotes a number of "prophecies" so Jesus can be claimed to have fulfilled them.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 54 by polonius.advice]

Dude get some better examples.

Matthew was translating from Hebrew to Greek. The idea is the same in both passages.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 54 by polonius.advice]

Another poor KJ translation that has stuck. Here's the JPS Tanakh Zech 9:9:

IMG_1078 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

IMG_1079 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[polonius]

[Replying to post 50 by polonius.advice]

Why? What has that got to do with whether there were two different women?

RESPONSE: However, note that this account was written 50 years after the fact by a non-witness who wasn't even an Apostle.

Are your trying to claim that there were four different women that anointed Jesus or the same woman anointed him at four different times?

[JehovahsWitness]

Are your trying to claim that there were four different women that anointed Jesus or the same woman anointed him at four different times?

Did you not read my answer in post #49 ?


Is that not what you yourself were suggesting when you said ...

4. If one assumes that Luke intends his chronology here to be accurate, then this could not be the same incident as that given by Matthew and Mark, or that given by John. Other details are also different. Thus I would think that it refers to a different incident."

[polonius]

[Replying to post 54 by polonius.advice]

Another poor KJ translation that has stuck. Here's the JPS Tanakh Zech 9:9:

IMG_1078 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

IMG_1079 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

RESPONSE: Perhaps you sould quote the whole sentence and not cut off the essential ending of the last sentence in each.

9Be exceedingly happy, O daughter of Zion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold! Your king shall come to you. He is just and victorious; humble, and riding a donkey and a foal, the offspring of [one of] she-donkeys.