Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[sojourner]

Do you believe that there is no evidence in this book, sojourner? Or that the evidence does not convince you, and would not convince anyone else? Also what would you say to someone whose view was changed after reading this book?

I think it’s an apologetic work whose job it is to convince the reader of the writer’s
position. Scholastic works don’t take a position; they just present evidence and draw possible conclusions. Apologists don’t work from evidence. They work from bias.

I’d hope that anyone who was convinced would do further scholastic research.

 

[samtonga43]

So, do you think there is no evidence in this book? And, if someone was convinced, why would she need to read another book, scholastic or otherwise?

 

[Kilk1]

As mythic stories? Yes. As historic fact? Not enough verifiable fact to arrive at a conclusion.

Okay, I was trying to figure out if you were extending the mythicism to the two facts was I presenting, and you were. But again, virtually all scholars (minus two?) grant that these facts are historical (i.e., they really, literally happened in history). John Dominic Crossan wrote: "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus [Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18:3:3] and Cornelius Tacitus [Annals 15:44]" (emphasis and text in brackets mine). In fact, you could add more sources not among Christ's supporters to the list, such as Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11–13), and Mara bar Serapion.

The same is true with the post-resurrection appearances. As I've said, the atheist Gerd Lüdemann wrote, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80). The apostle Paul delivers in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 what is “first of all” concerning the gospel:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We have here appearances to individual disciples, to groups of disciples, and even to unbelievers. Paul, formerly an outspoken persecutor of Christianity, didn't change his mind and switch to being one of the persecuted simply because of some mythical story he read; he says it was because he actually saw Jesus risen.

Furthermore, if the Gospels were of the myth genre, then why is Jesus' resurrection contrasted with David not rising from the dead? In Acts 2:25-32 (Acts being the sequel to the Gospel of Luke), Peter quotes a Psalm from David speaking of someone not being left in Hades (the abode of the dead) and says that David wasn't talking about himself. Why? Because, Peter says, David didn't rise from the dead, "and his tomb is with us to this day." Therefore, he argues, David was discussing "the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption" (emphasis mine). But if Jesus' resurrection wasn't literal, then the same logic would have gone against the Christ as much as against David. In fact, we'd expect a comparison, not a contrast, between Jesus Christ and King David, that each of them rose to heaven or something, if the resurrection were intended to be just mythological.

Finally, if the stories were only intended to be myths, why didn't the early enemies of Christianity know this? Their understanding of what the Christians were saying was that Jesus literally rose from the dead, leaving an empty tomb. The skeptics' response as to why the tomb was empty was that Jesus’ body was stolen (see here, here, and here), not risen. Does this response make sense against a non-literal resurrection?

Sorry that my post got rather long. In a nutshell, virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was crucified literally, in history, and that the disciples became convinced they saw him risen literally, in history. Many writings around the time in addition to the Gospels say Jesus was crucified. In addition, the Apostles used Jesus' empty tomb as evidence, and Paul cited himself and others as "seeing" Him. Finally, the enemies of Christianity claimed the body was stolen, which would be a rebuttal to a literal, bodily resurrection, not a mythological one. In light of this, do you see that the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection believed he really was crucified and really rose from the dead, even if you may not agree with them?

 

[sooda]

Okay, I was trying to figure out if you were extending the mythicism to the two facts was I presenting, and you were. But again, virtually all scholars (minus two?) grant that these facts are historical (i.e., they really, literally happened in history). John Dominic Crossan wrote: "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus [Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18:3:3] and Cornelius Tacitus [Annals 15:44]" (emphasis and text in brackets mine). In fact, you could add more sources not among Christ's supporters to the list, such as Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11–13), and Mara bar Serapion.

The same is true with the post-resurrection appearances. As I've said, the atheist Gerd Lüdemann wrote, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80). The apostle Paul delivers in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 what is “first of all” concerning the gospel:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We have here appearances to individual disciples, to groups of disciples, and even to unbelievers. Paul, formerly an outspoken persecutor of Christianity, didn't change his mind and switch to being one of the persecuted simply because of some mythical story he read; he says it was because he actually saw Jesus risen.

Furthermore, if the Gospels were of the myth genre, then why is Jesus' resurrection contrasted with David not rising from the dead? In Acts 2:25-32 (Acts being the sequel to the Gospel of Luke), Peter quotes a Psalm from David speaking of someone not being left in Hades (the abode of the dead) and says that David wasn't talking about himself. Why? Because, Peter says, David didn't rise from the dead, "and his tomb is with us to this day." Therefore, he argues, David was discussing "the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption" (emphasis mine). But if Jesus' resurrection wasn't literal, then the same logic would have gone against the Christ as much as against David. In fact, we'd expect a comparison, not a contrast, between Jesus Christ and King David, that each of them rose to heaven or something, if the resurrection were intended to be just mythological.

Finally, if the stories were only intended to be myths, why didn't the early enemies of Christianity know this? Their understanding of what the Christians were saying was that Jesus literally rose from the dead, leaving an empty tomb. The skeptics' response as to why the tomb was empty was that Jesus’ body was stolen (see here, here, and here), not risen. Does this response make sense against a non-literal resurrection?

Sorry that my post got rather long. In a nutshell, virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was crucified literally, in history, and that the disciples became convinced they saw him risen literally, in history. Many writings around the time in addition to the Gospels say Jesus was crucified. In addition, the Apostles used Jesus' empty tomb as evidence, and Paul cited himself and others as "seeing" Him. Finally, the enemies of Christianity claimed the body was stolen, which would be a rebuttal to a literal, bodily resurrection, not a mythological one. In light of this, do you see that the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection believed he really was crucified and really rose from the dead, even if you may not agree with them?

Josephus was born AFTER the crucifixion and worked for the Romans.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, I was trying to figure out if you were extending the mythicism to the two facts was I presenting, and you were. But again, virtually all scholars (minus two?) grant that these facts are historical (i.e., they really, literally happened in history). John Dominic Crossan wrote: "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus [Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18:3:3] and Cornelius Tacitus [Annals 15:44]" (emphasis and text in brackets mine). In fact, you could add more sources not among Christ's supporters to the list, such as Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11–13), and Mara bar Serapion.

The same is true with the post-resurrection appearances. As I've said, the atheist Gerd Lüdemann wrote, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80). The apostle Paul delivers in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 what is “first of all” concerning the gospel:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We have here appearances to individual disciples, to groups of disciples, and even to unbelievers. Paul, formerly an outspoken persecutor of Christianity, didn't change his mind and switch to being one of the persecuted simply because of some mythical story he read; he says it was because he actually saw Jesus risen.

Furthermore, if the Gospels were of the myth genre, then why is Jesus' resurrection contrasted with David not rising from the dead? In Acts 2:25-32 (Acts being the sequel to the Gospel of Luke), Peter quotes a Psalm from David speaking of someone not being left in Hades (the abode of the dead) and says that David wasn't talking about himself. Why? Because, Peter says, David didn't rise from the dead, "and his tomb is with us to this day." Therefore, he argues, David was discussing "the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption" (emphasis mine). But if Jesus' resurrection wasn't literal, then the same logic would have gone against the Christ as much as against David. In fact, we'd expect a comparison, not a contrast, between Jesus Christ and King David, that each of them rose to heaven or something, if the resurrection were intended to be just mythological.

Finally, if the stories were only intended to be myths, why didn't the early enemies of Christianity know this? Their understanding of what the Christians were saying was that Jesus literally rose from the dead, leaving an empty tomb. The skeptics' response as to why the tomb was empty was that Jesus’ body was stolen (see here, here, and here), not risen. Does this response make sense against a non-literal resurrection?

Sorry that my post got rather long. In a nutshell, virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was crucified literally, in history, and that the disciples became convinced they saw him risen literally, in history. Many writings around the time in addition to the Gospels say Jesus was crucified. In addition, the Apostles used Jesus' empty tomb as evidence, and Paul cited himself and others as "seeing" Him. Finally, the enemies of Christianity claimed the body was stolen, which would be a rebuttal to a literal, bodily resurrection, not a mythological one. In light of this, do you see that the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection believed he really was crucified and really rose from the dead, even if you may not agree with them?

Not a problem with the post length. Just to clarify, I’m not disputing the historicity of the crucifixion. I’m saying that there simply isn’t evidence for a literal resurrection. The gospels all admit that there were no eyewitnesses. There is evidence that later writers report that some saw Jesus after the crucifixion, but that’s not evidence. That’s story, because, again, no eyewitness accounts.

 

[sojourner]

So, do you think there is no evidence in this book? And, if someone was convinced, why would she need to read another book, scholastic or otherwise?

There may or may not be evidence included in the book. There may or may not be medical fact contained in a novel about a hospital, too. But if I’m looking specifically for facts related to a medical procedure, I’m going to go to a medical textbook. Same with facts surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection.

 

[Kilk1]

Josephus was born AFTER the crucifixion and worked for the Romans.

Yes. What point are you making with this?

 

[sooda]

Yes. What point are you making with this?

Perhaps I misread your earlier post.

 

[Kilk1]

Not a problem with the post length. Just to clarify, I’m not disputing the historicity of the crucifixion.

I'm glad you aren't disputing the crucifixion's historicity, as that's one of the most agreed upon facts of ancient history. Do you agree on the second fact, "that," in the words of Gerd Lüdemann, "Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80)?

I’m saying that there simply isn’t evidence for a literal resurrection. The gospels all admit that there were no eyewitnesses.

Respectfully, you're mistaken in saying the Gospels "admit that there were no eyewitnesses." To see where you're coming from, could you provide a citation from one of the four Gospels?

There is evidence that later writers report that some saw Jesus after the crucifixion, but that’s not evidence. That’s story, because, again, no eyewitness accounts.

But Paul was one of the eyewitnesses. He, who knew the other witnesses, delivers a list of them in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[sojourner]

Do you agree on the second fact, "that," in the words of Gerd Lüdemann, "Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80)?

I agree that the writer says they “saw” Jesus. Did they? We don’t know, because, again, no evidence.

Respectfully, you're mistaken in saying the Gospels "admit that there were no eyewitnesses." To see where you're coming from, could you provide a citation from one of the four Gospels?

None of the gospels say that any of the disciples were in the tomb, watching the body, saw it sit up, Yawn and stretch, and walk out of the tomb. That is admitting that there were no eyewitnesses. And before you claim that just because the gospels don’t mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, please take note of the literary fact that the narrator always knows everything in the world of the story. By remaining tacit, the narrators are admitting that this is something that they just don’t know happened in the world of the stories.

But Paul was one of the eyewitnesses.

No, Paul had a vision. Paul didn’t actually see Jesus-in-the-flesh before the ascension.

 

[lukethethird]

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?
Spoil alert for those that have not read the book, yes, he did, and then in the first chapter of Acts he rose up into the heavens. I'm sure most people know that.

 

[JJ50]

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?
Spoil alert for those that have not read the book, yes, he did, and then in the first chapter of Acts he rose up into the heavens. I'm sure most people know that.

You can't say that for a fact, it is only a belief, the Bible is no sort of evidence.

 

[samtonga43]

There may or may not be evidence included in the book. There may or may not be medical fact contained in a novel about a hospital, too. But if I’m looking specifically for facts related to a medical procedure, I’m going to go to a medical textbook. Same with facts surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection.

Which textbook would you suggest?

 

[Muffled]

The hs is another myth, imo. I have met people claiming to be 'spirit filled' who were highly unpleasant and very untrustworthy.

I believe a claim is not the same thing as the real thing. However God can be very unpleasant towards sinners, so one should not be surprised that the Paracete acts the same way.

 

[Muffled]

You’re misunderstanding what is meant by “mythic.” “Mythic” doesn’t mean “a fake story.” Mythic stories speak truth in a way that is larger-than-life. Augustus was presented as larger-than-life. So was Jesus. Both were deified, Augustus by being proclaimed a state deity, and Jesus by virtue of resurrection.

I believe mythic means not verifiable by written history from the time of the event. In that sense the Bible is mythic because most of it was written after the events. However even written history is sometimes not very reliable since the authors sometimes deify existing people to stay in their good graces.

I believe it is different with God inspired text. It doesn't matter if it is written at the time or not because God knows everything that occurred throughout time. That is what makes the text valid.

 

[Muffled]

Clearly it wasn't Jesus.

I believe the nail prints testify otherwise.

 

[sooda]

I'm glad you aren't disputing the crucifixion's historicity, as that's one of the most agreed upon facts of ancient history. Do you agree on the second fact, "that," in the words of Gerd Lüdemann, "Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80)?


Respectfully, you're mistaken in saying the Gospels "admit that there were no eyewitnesses." To see where you're coming from, could you provide a citation from one of the four Gospels?



But Paul was one of the eyewitnesses. He, who knew the other witnesses, delivers a list of them in 1 Corinthians 15.

Are you quite sure Saul of Tarsus was a witness?

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you quite sure Saul of Tarsus was a witness?

I agree with you that he was not not a witness .
I understand that Saul of Tarsus aka Paul of Pagan-Christianity was not a witness of the event of Cross. None of the Gospels say so. I understand that when Jesus went out of Judea secretly as per his plan, after treatment of his injuries inflicted upon him on the Cross, Paul who was an enemy of Jesus could quench his revenge from Jesus and from his disciple no more, so with a fake vision he appointed himself as a disciple/Apostle of Jesus. Sure Paul was not among the twelve. Right, please?

Regards

 

[lukethethird]

You can't say that for a fact, it is only a belief, the Bible is no sort of evidence.

I never said it was evidence of anything, I just gave the ending of the story away in order to answer the question, anyone can read the story for themselves.

 

[Prince Mthembu]

None of those are actual acknowledgements of Christ himself, but rather descriptions of the early Christians and a brief synopsis of their beliefs which of course would include Christ.

Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”[18]

Are you trying to convince yourself that, or argue and debate if the truth is a lie or not and Vice Versa?