Did Jesus resurrect in Heaven or in Hell?
Scriptures, as they often do, give both options as true.
The Bible does what it was created by the Jewish authors to do. Make us question and judge.
Without Midrash, the Bible is just another useless myth.
In one version, Jesus tells his fellow prisoner on the cross that they will both awaken in heaven.
Another version has Jesus awakening in hell, where he toils for 3 days.
One old adage might say, if one day is 1,000 years, Jesus is almost at his 2-year mark.
There is a confusion as to who received Jesus as a sacrifice, Satan, or the androgynous Yahweh.
If sacrificed to Satan, she rules the world.
If sacrificed to Yahweh, Jesus rules the world.
Into whose hands did Jesus ascend, Satan’s or Yahweh’s?
I cannot know where Jesus ended via the bible, but think there is a valuable moral lesson here, but do not quite have my finger on what it is. Help.
What is your best guess as to where Jesus is?
Regards
DL

Did Jesus resurrect in Heaven or in Hell?
Scriptures, as they often do, give both options as true.
The Bible does what it was created by the Jewish authors to do. Make us question and judge.
Without Midrash, the Bible is just another useless myth.
In one version, Jesus tells his fellow prisoner on the cross that they will both awaken in heaven.
Another version has Jesus awakening in hell, where he toils for 3 days.
One old adage might say, if one day is 1,000 years, Jesus is almost at his 2 year mark.
There is a confusion as to who received Jesus as a sacrifice; Satan or the androgynous Yahweh.
If sacrificed to Satan, she rules the world.
If sacrificed to Yahweh, Jesus rules the world.
Into whose hands did Jesus ascend, Satan’s or Yahweh’s?
I cannot know where Jesus ended via the bible, but think there is a valuable moral lesson here, but do not quite have my finger on what it is. Help.
What is your best guess as to where Jesus is?
Regards
DL

Hume did quite well without science

That isn't how I read him.

You need only be from Missouri.

"Show me" is a demand for observational evidence. That's what science is about.

Hume did quite well without science. You need only be from Missouri. Why would you need science to justify skepticism -- rather than, like Hume, vice versa?

You don't need science to be skeptical about dragons and faeries.

Without science, how would you justify your skepticism?

Well, I can only go by the interview above.

Unlike most other ancient Greek bioi, the gospels were written very shortly after the events they describe -- within living memory of their initial readership. They include shout-outs to witnesses. (If you don't believe me, ask Cleophas about this anecdote; or ask Rufus and Alexander about this other anecdote. They were there.) Accounts include odd personal details -- climbing a tree because one is too short to see over the heads of the crowd; you must be the only person in Jerusalem who doesn't know what was going down the past couple of days; etc., etc.). Where they clash on details they are the very sorts of details that actual eyewitness accounts clash when written down a few years later. (I have two newspaper accounts of the death of my grandfather's grandfather in a railroad accident, each written within a week after the fact, which differ as to the time of day of the accident and the age of the victim. Yet they were in substantial agreement with the oral history passed on by my grandfather.)

Of course, modern genres of realist fiction or of von Ranke's 19th cent. historiography did not then exist, so one must be cautious. There were no tape recorders; though there were stenographers. And scholars of oral traditions have demonstrated that when events are life-changing they do tend to be remembered accurately, and when there are social means for ensuring accuracy of rehearsing these stories can be preserved for far longer periods than the single lifetime of the gospels. There are Polynesian tales that are recited word-for-word on islands that were long out of contact with one another. (Jan Vansina, "Oral Tradition as History")

Believe it or not, historians have methods for assessing the reliability of accounts. It is not an either/or thing, but a more/less thing.

But Carl Olson uses none of these methods in Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? And, as I have noted a number of times, he claims that the Gospels are historically reliable, but he never explains what that means. And reading the book, the impression one gets is that he leans heavily toward the view that the Gospels are inerrant in the sense Evangelicals believe them to be.

The presumption that it was all to one side.

Did you think it was my presumption?