Matthew 28 versus John 20.

Give me a break. I'll repreat what I said to subbie in message 39.Say I was having a disagreement with cavediver concerning cosmology. (Which incidentally I wouldn't be stupid enough to do. ) Who do you think has the most credibility? Will it be cavediver who has spent his years studying and teaching it, or will it be me based on the fact that I read a Brian Greene book.We are all going to come to our own conclusions about the message but obviously the credibility of the source plays a big part in that, just as it does in a court of law.

Well then if you don't agree that, then tell me what conclusions you would draw. I can't see where you get the idea that I felt that the resurrection of Paul was unimportant. I quoted from 1st Cor. where Paul says that if the resurrection isn't fact then he and all of them were wasting their time. I guess we'll just disagree. The resurrection of Jesus was what spurred the early church into existence and implicit in that was that it was a bodily resurrection which included as part of that narrative the empty tomb, IMHO.(Incidentally, according to Crossan the most common thing that happened to the bodies after crusifixion is that they were eaten by wild animals.)

Under Constantine Rome became a quasi-christian empire although I have to agree that peace and love were not the most dominant features. However the situation was improved and continued to improve from the days that the killing of Christians was a Sunday afternoons entertainment for the wife and kids.

Here is one historical site.A quote from that site.

quote:

---

There was no shortage of other shows which nowadays we would clearly regard as horrific: wild beasts of different types tied together to maul each other to death or a single animal of one type eg a Lion versus a pack of dogs.

​

The Roman love for naturalistic sadism didn't stop here and it was also employed as part of capital punishments during public shows. For example the myth of Prometheus would be portrayed by some hapless criminal tied up for animals to have a go at feeding on his liver.

​

The death of many Christians has been handed down through time although doubtless many non-Christians also dies of similarly atrocious deaths: convicted persons might be tied up to a stake so that enraged hungry beasts might have a go at them.

​

A particularly gruelling account is given by Roman historians who report the horror of parts of the Roman population when Nero had the Christians rounded up as culprits for the great fire in Rome. He had them sown up in animal skins and thrown to the dogs to be mauled apart.

---

Here is a quote from Tertullian in "Apology".

quote:

---

Those, too, who at the gladiator shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows fresh from the wound, and then rush offto whom do they belong? those, also, who make meals on the flesh of wild beasts at the place of combatwho have keen appetites for bear and stag? That bear in the struggle was bedewed with the blood of the man whom it lacerated: that stag rolled itself in the gladiator’s gore. The entrails of the very bears, loaded with as yet undigested human viscera, are in great request. And you have men rifting up man-fed flesh?

---

Here is a quote from this site

quote:

---

To add excitement to the spectacles, trap doors were strategically hidden locations in the wooden floor. Suddenly, one would spring open, releasing a charging lion or other savage animal, ready to attack anyone who happened to be in the Coliseum of Rome arena. The crowds loved this gimmick.

---

Another quote from here.

quote:

---

After the venationes, a typical spectacle would include a lunch interlude during which humiliores (Romans of non-elite status - execution by sword was a privilege reserved for the elite) who had been convicted of capital crimes were executed. Typically, the convicted were killed by burning at the stake or crucifixtion (forms of capital punishment that the Romans appeared to have adopted from the Carthaginians) or ad bestias (in which the convict would be left alone in the arena with one or more wild - and hungry - animals). Romans had a somewhat contradictory attitude towards these executions. On the one hand, like the venationes, the executions were welcome examples of the power of society, law and order, to restrain and suppress forces that threatened it. Public executions were popular. On the other hand, writers of elite status, seem to suggest that gentlemen and women didn't indulge themselves too much in this spectacle. The decent thing to do was go get lunch. Some writers, for example, criticized the Emperor Claudius because he routinely stayed in the stadium and observed the executions. To ordinary Romans, however, Claudius' presence indicated that the Emperor took his responsibility for preserving law and order seriously. The people executed were, by definition, wicked and dangerous. Their deaths were something to rejoice in. During the Principate they become something to revel in. Under Nero, the practice arose of writing plays adapted from myths in which people died and assigning the role of a character who would die to a condemned man. The audience would watch the play, and the actual killing of the condemned man in character's role (an ancient variant on a snuff film).

​

It was at these lunch time spectacles that Romans executed Christians when local or national officials were in a persecuting mode. Public response to these executions could vary dramatically. On the one hand, Christians who refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods, flagrantly rejected the norms of the society in which they lived. There are plenty of examples of communities demanding that their leaders send Christians to the arena for public execution (cf. accounts of Jews demanding that Pilate order the execution of Jesus). On the other hand, the "crime" of Christianity was quite different than the crimes of others executed in the arena (murder, temple theft, etc.). Christian sources, at least, report that the dignity of Christians in facing a spectacle intended to degrade and humiliate them, often inspired respect among the crowds in the stadium.

---

ABE Also of course public crusifixion was the norm although I wouldn't know what kind of entertainment value it would have had.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This is from wiki

quote:

---

Crucifixion was in use particularly among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.

---

The whole thing with gladiators went on for quite a while later but it was a start. My point is also to compare the dominant society then to the dominate societies of the world today. The world seems to gradually developing more respect for human life since the time of Christ.Obviously I have no evidence that it has anything to do with Christ and what He taught. We once again go back to our individual beliefs.

It's possible, as in most cases we can't be positive about the writers other than Paul. Paul writes that he met with the disciples directly so he would have heard what they had to say.In the end, no matter who wrote the various books of the Bible we have to choose whether we accept what is written or not. I have a hunch you don't.

We don't really know one way or the other. The only tradition was in existence and undoubtedly there was more material that we no longer have. However, as I have already said, I'm fine either way. We all to make up our mind as to what it is that we are going to believe. Read Acts 15. James for one was the brother of Jesus. He would be referring to his road to damascus experience. No

I never suggested that James who was the brother of Jesus was the same person who wrote the book of James.The authorship of James is a very open question. If it was James it would have had to be written earlier than it is generally believed, which may have been the case.If it is James the brother of Jesus, the letter as you noted was "to the twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion" who would be aware of his relationship. Why would he write it in?It is also written as a series of exhortations rather than as a narrative. It would make no sense to be relating stories about the life of Jesus.I repeat though again that it is a very open question as to whether it was written by James the brother of Jesus, someone who had been taught by James. a different James or even someone who wrote it and named the book after James. Take your pick. That's the trouble with this forum. We all read different threads. I have gone over my view of the Bible many times on other threads and it can get tedious.I'm curious though which passage you were referring to when you asked the question about wayward children.Edited by GDR, : To add the 2nd bit

I am probably not clear on what you were asking. You gave several differences in the accounts in the gospels around the story of the empty tomb.I took from this that you were questioning how someone could reconcile their Christianity with the fact that the gospels couldn't all be completely accurate.As far as reconciling the different accounts that you mentioned the only thing I can say about that it is the same as you would find in a court of law when people remember the events around a crime differently and they can't all be right. They do all agree though that the crime was committed.Sorry about going off topic.

The gospel accounts are not written in a mythological form as I suggest Genesis is . (Which doesn't mean Genesis doesn't represent many great truths about many things.)The accounts are also not written in a way that represents anything that a first century Jew would write to fit Jewish messianic expectations. Also the accounts, particularly after the resurrection are written in a way that implies that; although it sounds strange this is what I experienced.According to the gospel accounts the disciples all abandoned the mission when Jesus was being executed by the Romans. They went back to their fishing and whatever else they did, believing that Christ was the latest in a fairly long line of failed messiahs. Then something happened which caused them to dedicate their lives to taking the Christian message of love, kindness and justice to the world along with the story of Jesus and particularly His resurrection.Assuming we give any credibility to the gospels at all, l I think that we have to believe that the disciples and other followers believed the accounts of Christ's resurrection and that he was indeed the messiah.I see the question as not one about whether it was mythology or not, but whether or not the disciples were mistaken or not.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Inspiring someone to write an account is not the same as telling someone exactly what to write. I see the gospels as being written by people who wrote about either what they had observed, what had been handed down to them via the oral tradition or from earlier writings.