Conundrums

If the tomb of Jesus was not empty, those in Jerusalem would have sought to exume the body and prove the accusations that Jesus had arisen were false.

If the tomb was empty because the disciples of Jesus removed him, then why did they continue the sham for which they gave their lives?

Originally posted by whodey
If the tomb of Jesus was not empty, those in Jerusalem would have sought to exume the body and prove the accusations that Jesus had arisen were false.

If the tomb was empty because the disciples of Jesus removed him, then why did they continue the sham for which they gave their lives?

There is no way of knowing what happened. The Gospel accounts were written many years after the events they purport to describe by people trying to establish a breakaway religion.

Originally posted by whodey
If the tomb of Jesus was not empty, those in Jerusalem would have sought to exume the body and prove the accusations that Jesus had arisen were false.

If the tomb was empty because the disciples of Jesus removed him, then why did they continue the sham for which they gave their lives?

Conundrums. Now there is a word i haven't heard in a while.

Here is something to wonder. Why did Jesus need to have the stone moved at all. Was it to let Him out, or was it to let us in?

Originally posted by FMF
There is no way of knowing what happened. The Gospel accounts were written many years after the events they purport to describe by people trying to establish a breakaway religion.

They were not written that long after the fact. They would have known where Jesus' tomb was located.

Additionally, the 12 disciples spread the gospels and all but one gave their life for their faith.

Originally posted by whodey
They were not written that long after the fact. They would have known where Jesus' tomb was located.

Additionally, the 12 disciples spread the gospels and all but one gave their life for their faith.

Whatever you happen to believe notwithstanding, I have offered you a possible answer to your OP. There is no reason to think that the supposed fate of Jesus' corpse was an issue to anyone except the writers of the Gospels. And no other 'evidence' exists. You cannot raise question marks over the explanation for what certain other persons did and didn't do based on an account that doesn't explain what certain other persons did and didn't do.

Originally posted by FMF
Whatever you happen to believe notwithstanding, I have offered you a possible answer to your OP. There is no reason to think that the supposed fate of Jesus' corpse was an issue to anyone except the writers of the Gospels. And no other 'evidence' exists. You cannot raise question marks over the explanation for what certain other persons did and didn't do based on an account that doesn't explain what certain other persons did and didn't do.

The fact remains that there were a wide range of other messiah like movements in that region, and all ended rather badly for their leaders.

Then the followers simply disbanded in defeat. What made these followers different?

Originally posted by whodey
The fact remains that there were a wide range of other messiah like movements in that region, and all ended rather badly for their leaders.

Then the followers simply disbanded in defeat. What made these followers different?

Well they kept going. And their writings caught the imagination of huge numbers of people ~ many of whom thought that the writings were literally true, and still do, even 2,000 years later.

Originally posted by FMF
Well they kept going. And their writings caught the imagination of huge numbers of people ~ many of whom thought that the writings were literally true, and still do, even 2,000 years later.

But what made them keep going? If it was a lie, then why continue this sham? Was it worth their lives?

When many historiagraphical tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

Bibiographical writngs about Julius Caesar
Lived 100-44 BC.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D
Intervening Time Span - 1,000 years.
Number of copies - 10

Plato (Tetralogies)
Lived, wrote 427 - 347 B.C.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D.
Intervening Time span - 1,200 years
Number of copies - 7

Tacitus (Annuls) - also minor works
Written - 100 A.D.
Earliest copy - 1,100 A.D.
Intervening Time Span - 1,000 years
Number of copies - 20(-)

Pliny the Younger - history
Written - 61 - 113 A.D.
Earliest copy - 850 A.D.
Intervening time span - 750 years
Number of copies - 7

Thucydides (History)
Lived, wrote - 460 - 400 B.C.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,300 years
Number of copies - 8

Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum)
lLived, Wrote - 75 - 160 A.D.
Earliest copy - 950 A.D.
Intervening time span - 800 years
Number of copies - 8

Herodotus (History)
Lived, wrote - 480-400 B.C.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,300 years
Number of copies 8

Sophocles
Lived, wrote - 496 - 406 B.C.
Earliest copy - 1,000 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,400 years
Number of copies - 100

Lucretius
Died 55 or 53 B.C.
Intervening time span - 1,100 years
Number of copies - 2

Catullus
Written 54 B.C.
Earliest copy - 1,550 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,600 years
Number of copies - 3

Euripedes
Written - 480 - 406 B.C.
Earliest copy - 1,100 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,500 years
Number of copies - 9

Demosthenes
Written - 383 - 322 B.C.
Earliest copy - 1,100 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,300 years
Number of copies - 200

Aristotle
Written 382 - 322 B.C.
Earliest copy 1,100 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,400 years
Number of copies - 5

Aristophenes
Written - 450 - 385 B.C.
Earliest copy - 900 A.D.
Intervening time span - 1,200 years
Number of copies - 10

=========================================
New Testament documents have a staggering 5,000 Greek manuscripts.
They contain ALL or PART of the New Testament.
There are 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate written by Jerome from 382-405 A.D.

More than 350 copies Syriac NT (Christian Aramiac) from 150 - 250 A.D.
Entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations from early church fathers.

There are some 32,000 citations in the writings of these Christian scholars prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Dates of earliest manuscripts copies of the New Testament range from the early second century A.D. to the time of Reformation.
The John Rylands manuscript found in Egypt dates back to about 120 A.D. It contains a few verses from the Gospel of John.

The Chester Beatty Papyri contains virtually all of the New Testament and dates back to 325 A.D.

Codex Vaticanus contains almost the entire Bible dates back to 325 - 50 A.D.

"Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthuiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents. Most historians accept the textural accuracy of other ancient works on far less adaquate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament." J P Moreland

Originally posted by whodey
But what made them keep going? If it was a lie, then why continue this sham? Was it worth their lives?

Who mentioned that they might be "lying"? I didn't. I don't think you are "lying" when you say you believe the bible is "true" or "divinely" inspired. As it happens, neither your beliefs nor mine depend upon me explaining Jesus' followers' actions to your satisfaction.

Originally posted by FMF
Who mentioned that they might be "lying"? I didn't. I don't think you are "lying" when you say you believe the bible is "true" or "divinely" inspired. As it happens, neither your beliefs nor mine depend upon me explaining Jesus' followers' actions to your satisfaction.

So what made them believe do you think?

Originally posted by sonship
When many historiagraphical tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

[b] Bibiographical writng ...[text shortened]... s adaquate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament." J P Moreland [/quote]

The thing I appreciate about the Bible is that it shows the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Jewish people. Conversely, look at any other culture and typically they edit out all the bad stuff. Egypt was notorious for this.

I can appreciate a book that portays its heros as human, like Moses who stuttered so bad Aaron his brother had to speak for him. Moses also murdered a man. Of course, Islam has none of it and declares that the heros like Moses in the OT were perfect. They then claim that the text has simply been corrupted.

Looking at the Bible, only Jesus was perfect.

Originally posted by whodey
But what made them keep going? If it was a lie, then why continue this sham? Was it worth their lives?

A whole religion is never so simple as a single truth claim. There are a number of claims made.

There are also humans that take risks and don't realize it's going to cost them their lives until it's too late. There are also humans willing to give their lives for a worthy cause. This does not mean they think the cause is perfect in every way. There are also humans who have committed their whole lives to a movement and would have nothing to live for if it is squelched. For them, they may not care if it leads to their eventual death, because they don't want to do anything else with their life.

Originally posted by whodey
So what made them believe do you think?

That is for them to say ~ just as it is for Dasa, my Muslim neighbour, and my Hindu client [for instance] to say with respect to what they believe.

Originally posted by sonship
When many historiagraphical tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

Compared to other important ancient figures and writings, how do the New Testament documents compare in time span between the events and the earliest copies ?

[b] Bibiographical writng ...[text shortened]... s adaquate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament." J P Moreland [/quote]

This list of writers ~ what is it you claim their writings corroborate?