So does the 6,000 year old earth. “Calculations” is an awfully generous description.
Jesus, allegedly, died in the evening of day 1, and rose at some undetermined time early on the morning of day 3. So we was dead for as little as 24.1 hours.
According to the tale, that is.
Jesus gave up a weekend for your sins.
The title of that thread was Jesus gave up a weekend for our sins. 
Yes, “go to the back of the bus”.
I first encountered that crap when working near the Moody Bible Institute at a clinic that employed a number of wannabe missionaries. One lady was very keen to get me to join her church, always inviting me to come this Sunday or that Wednesday (apparently she spent most of her time outside of work at church)… until she found out I was half Jewish. THEN it was “you really need to go to this church of Jews who have found Jesus.” And her loon of a husband started speaking to me in Hebrew, apparently thinking it was installed at birth or something. :rolleyes: Then it was flyers for “Jews for Jesus” in my work mailbox.
Mind you, by Jewish law I’m not Jewish, I’m gentile. I was not raised as a Jew. I have never practiced that religion. But as soon as these nutjobs found out I had Jewish ancestry they completely changed how they talked to me.
I’ve encountered the attitude a few more times over the years, usually associated with highly evangelical Protestant types. Sorry I can’t be more specific, but these are not the sort of people I want to discuss religion with, or quiz about their particular sect name.
Maybe you should talk to some of the Jews I know.
Look, Jews are pretty laid back about what other people believe but they do get steamed up about misrepresentations of their own culture/religion/practices. Groups like Jews for Jesus like to smear the distinction between Jews and Christians for their own reasons and it pisses off Jews.
And certainly, if “messianic Jew” is used as a way of othering converted Jews and sending them metaphorically to the “back of the bus” then yes, it is anti-Semitic.
So do the Jews, and then ask why don’t you call them Christians because that’s what messianic Jews are.
The thing is, most of the rest of the Jews disagree with that viewpoint.
I’ve never met a messianic Jew who wasn’t a member of Jews for Jesus.
A lot of Jewish culture is just that, culture. If a bunch of now-Christian people want to call their church a synagogue, study Hebrew, and adopt many Jewish practices fine, but if they believe Jesus is the Son of God then they are not Jews in the religious sense. They may be ethnically Jewish, but they are not religiously Jews. They are Christians and IMO it’s dishonest to call them other that, especially when a group like Jews for Jesus does it to be deliberately deceptive and misleading.
What really matters is what they call themselves, and they don’t call themselves Christians.
Well, yeah, but he got taunted, and poked with a pointy thing, and if that is not enough, in John 19:25-27, he ended up coming out as a homosexual right to his mother.
I checked four versions of that , and in none does anything at all even vaguely like that happen.
You know, it is fine to disbelieve that a man came back from the dead. It is a Miracle, after all. But refusing to accept that a man lived to be 80 is a bit much.
If it makes you feel better, the Nazis would consider you Jewish. 
Y’know, the boy was 33 and was still single. Mary may have pushed her suspicions into the darkest part of her heart, but all Nazareth knew.
Cute, but the Greek word for love that was used does not imply physical, much less sexual, love.
These sorts of comments really do not promote an actual discussion.
Yup, right there on page 87. Found it.
To most likely reiterate what was said earlier: There is certainly evidence of the resurrection and it’s not weak evidence, but neither is it strong evidence. The strongest evidence is actually not the Gospels, but likely Galatians as well as the other genuine Pauline epistles. This is almost universally regarded as written by Paul and dated from between 45 and 60 AD with a likely date around 52 or so by both secular and religious scholars (so between 15 and 30 years after the crucifixion). What also makes Galatians unique is that it was written to a largely Jewish contingent in a Gentile region and it deals largely with Jewish/Gentile relations, so likely large numbers of the people reading it had contact with people from Jerusalem. The point being though that he writes definitively that the death of Christ was observed by some of those there and one supposes that they could certainly bear witness to the crucifixion. Although it could be gaslighting, it is relatively strong evidence that the crucifixion was real. In Galatians as well, he clearly states that Christ was resurrected though he does not say that there were those who observed it. This means that among people that likely were around Jesus, they believed that Christ was resurrected and since the resurrection references were not combative or argumentative, but rather simply along the lines of 'Jesus who was resurrected" it’s reasonable to assume that among this group it was an established belief taken for granted. This of course is not the same as ‘proof.’ You can believe many things to be true, even things that you are relatively close to without them being so, but it is evidence.
I think that what we can say reasonably and definitively is that a religious leader named Jesus existed, said some things and was crucified. Arguing against those points is akin to arguing that the moon landing was faked or that global warming is caused by sunspots. You could make an argument that they aren’t true, but they are fringe arguments that are only convincing to those wishing to be convinced. I think that we can also reasonably and definitively state that within 2 decades of the crucifixion, his followers believed him to be resurrected in some sense (I think it’s possible to make a cogent argument that this sense was metaphorical, though I think that 1 Thesallonians which is another early ‘genuine’ epistle likely makes this lean toward a physical resurrection, but I don’t think that you’d be in the realm of conspiracy theory to make the metaphorical case.)
As another tangent, Czarcasm wondered why they waited so long to write the Gospels. The likely answer is that they didn’t think anyone would be around to read them. The current - I won’t go so far as to say - consensus, but certainly widely held theory is that the early church was very Apocalyptic in nature. They likely believed that Christ was returning soon and not in the metaphorical sense, but the ‘happening this weekend’ sense. The gospels began to be written down during the period when the original apostles were dying. Mark likely was begun during or shortly after the Neroan persecutions in 64AD. What could plausibly be happening is that younger followers were saying “Holy crap! Our leaders are dying and Christ still isn’t here, we need to start writing down what they are saying!” So you end up with Q and Mark and as more time goes on, the other Gospels get added in for clarification.
If Jesus actually said that he was coming within their lifetimes, then this actually makes a bit of sense-Thank you.
It’s evidence in the same sense that “some guy heard a second-hand report that someone saw an extraterrestrial spaceship 20 years ago” is evidence.
Yes, you can call that evidence, but I disagree with you when you say it’s not weak evidence. It’s so pitifully weak that you can barely call it “evidence.”
It’s probably closer to ‘A number of people claim to have sen a UFO 20 years ago
and large numbers of people familiar with them believe them.’ That’s not strong evidence that there was a UFO, but neither is it weak. It’s probably enough evidence to warrant further investigation, but certainly not enough to prove anything.
While there is strong evidence the apostles didn’t actually write the new testament, I’d be willing to bet the authors weren’t the first people to actually come up with the idea that he resurrected. It was either passed down verbally, or whatever original journals were lost.
Interesting–I have used that exact comparison before (only future evidence of the existence of Manhattan is a few Spider-Man comics, then ruins of Manhattan discovered–discovery of existence of Manhattain does not prove the existence of Spider-Man) but I never knew that others were using the same analogy enough to call the fallacy after it. A case in independant invention of the wheel.
And the OP’s steadfast refusal to provide proof of his thesis does? :rolleyes:
belief != evidence - even weak evidence.
You want to call it that because thats ‘all you have’.
An eyewitness account - multiple eyewitness accounts - might serve to bolster other evidence (we saw defendant with a knife) - but it would never serve as evidence of the knife - if the knife was not available, then the eyewitness accounts would have to change - “we saw what we thought was a knife” and would be easily dismissed - and it would be even less valid the farther from the event in question.
Since ‘coming back from the dead’ is, by definition, impossible - it is going to take alot more than “belief” or “weak evidence” to overcome the claim. Given that its an article of ‘faith’ - and faith is defined as “belief without evidence” - you can’t really cite the belief as ‘evidence’.