Hi Yuyutsu,

Interesting take on the "resurrection", a team of doctors, okay.

Roman crucifixions in Judaea during the first century AD were common. In 4BC the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century AD, according to the Roman/Jewish historian Josephus. "Christ was crucified on the pretext that he instigated rebellion against Rome", he may well have. Pontius Pilate the Roman governor of Judaea, served in that capacity for about 10 years. Despite contempery accounts, Pilate was a valuable administrator for Rome, and certainly during his governorship many Jews were put to death. Would Pilate vacillate over passing a death sentence on Jesus, a common Jew, certainly not, overwhelming evidence would not be required.

As for the Christian references to Christ being God, they are rather vague and somewhat coy, which is understandable for the times. I am the "word", or I am the "son of God", can be interpreted as you please. Jesus was very careful never to claim to be GOD. Such a direct claim would have been a death sentence, not from the Romans, but from the Jews themselves.

Today I value Christianity as a positive for mankind, but that has only come about in the last few hundred years. Recently the Christian God has been transformed to become a loving, forgiving, merciful being. Prior to his transformation God was portrayed as a spiteful, vengeful being, and used as an oppressor of people, rather than a positive influence on people.

May you all stay safe and have time well spent
with your family and friends during this Easter
break.

Dear Paul,

Due to the unreliable nature of the authors, nothing about the life of Jesus is certain and anything is possible, from Jesus not having existed at all on one extreme, to his bodily ressurection on the other (and everything in between). We can only work with logic and probabilities.

But two things are most improbable according to the information we have about Jesus: that he was an ordinary Jew or that he wanted to rebel against Rome. Sure he was Jewish by birth and observed the Jewish commandments, but he was anything but ordinary. The "evidence" to any extent we can call it such, is all against both.

To the extent any of the "evidence" is correct, Jesus was a highly spiritual person who knew God. By the wisdom he presents to his disciples, he may well even been an incarnation of God, like many Avatars before and after him. It was highly unlikely for Pontius not to notice his peacefulness, fearlessness and spiritual aura and reject the baseless false claims about Jesus being a rebel against Caesar and Rome. According to the book, Pontius disbelieved the Jewish leadership's claims and tried to have Jesus speak up and refute them, but when Jesus fell silent, he washed his hands and must have devised some other plan. I do believe that Pontius was not an idiot, I do believe that he didn't buy into the Jewish-leadership's lies. I do believe that he wanted to punish them instead, although he did not do it openly, although he outwardly accepted their demand to kill Jesus. I do believe that he got his sweet revenge in Jesus's "resurrection".

«Such a direct claim would have been a death sentence, not from the Romans, but from the Jews themselves.»

And isn't this just what transpired?
According to Roman law, the Jews were not allowed to kill anyone directly, but instead had to request Rome to do it for them, and so they did.

BTW, God never transformed, whether in recent centuries or otherwise: all that changed was people's understanding (or misunderstanding) of Him.

Many civilisations throughout the northern hemisphere had some sort of festival or suchlike to celebrate the end of winter and the beginning of spring. Hurrah, we survived another winter, the cold being the most dangerous times for humankind. (These days we've lost track of that and fear heat!!). Equally they celebrated the beginning of spring and the reactivation of like. Hence, eggs and buns. Animals were procreating and increasing in number. Plants were emerging from the winter hiatus. So food was again becoming plentiful.

What's not to celebrate?

That the early church subsumed some of that into their own celebrations is undisputed. Nonetheless, the raison d'etre for the celebrations we current enjoy was the death of one man. That one death was one of the most consequential events in human history.

[Deleted for abuse and obscenity]

Paul wote: "I did read extensively on the subject of Christianity as a young bloke. mhaze if you can provide new compelling evidence that what I say is somehow now totally debunked, then feel free to present that evidence."

Likewise I've studied extensively on the early church many moons ago. And like you I was of the view that the Gospels were either unreliable or unverifiable. But about a decade ago I stumbled across some writing suggesting all that was being re-evaluated. I've read plenty since then and have changed my views.

To get a feel for this and as a entre to the issue, this talk is a pretty good jumping off point....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0O4bHuQmX8

It is rather long at 2hours but the last half hour is primarily Q&A and the crux of the issue is the first 30 minutes. Basically the lecture addresses the exact issue you raise. The speaker acknowledges that the consensus 40 years ago was that the Gospels were unreliable and that the death was equivocal. He sets out to explain what's changed such that the consensus these days among the scholars in the field, including agnostic and atheist scholars is that the Gospels and most of Paul's writings are highly reliable such that the easter stories are very likely true.

The talk doesn't cover all the issues but mentions enough other sources to act as a jumping off point.