The Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead is fundamental to Christianity, but is undeniably a very radical claim. There is a certain amount of historical evidence surrounding the life of Jesus, but does the evidence support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form?
Many alternative hypotheses have been offered to account for the historical data we have surrounding the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian movement.
1. Some suggest that Jesus as described in the Bible didn't even exist, and that the biblical accounts of his life are purely fabrications.
2. Some suggest that Jesus was real and was crucified, but his followers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
3. Maybe Jesus was hung on a cross, but never actually died, and after swooning for a while, somehow recovered.
4. Maybe those who claimed to have had seen post-mortem appearances of Jesus were hallucinating, or something of that nature.
Honestly, none of these seem to be very good explanations of the historical data to me.
Considering these facts:
The vast majority of scholars believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. There are several very early, independent accounts that all claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. The idea of a resurrection anything like what is claimed for Jesus was not at all a common idea in Judaism before that time. Hallucinations don't happen to groups of people at the same time, but multiple early sources record postmortem appearances of Jesus to groups of people. I have yet to hear a good explanation for how Christianity would have taken off like it did if the apostles were simply fabricating the whole story. Of course they could have fooled other people, but why would all of the apostles have been willing to suffer torture and death for something they knew was false? There are a bunch of other details that could be brought into this conversation as well.
Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus then the best explanation of the available evidence, or is there another hypothesis that explains the evidence better?
Seriously ill, a couple of days ago, emerging from the blood draw lab with multiple blood draws, I saw an encaustic of Jesus, and noted the nail holes in his hands and feet. I looked at mine.....I looked at his. I noted that we are/were good people.
People were expecting a second coming of Christ. The bible says that in the second coming, Christ will have a tongue like a sword (no doubt using it as a weapon, in his continuing quest to stamp out greed, lies, and apathy). Isn't that what I do?
If people believe, without evidence, why not believe in me? Why believe in the real Christ when he makes his second coming? I suspect that our jaded society would not even recognize Christ if he came and announced his presence. Everyone would say, "that's not Christ" because this person has real parents. But doesn't everyone have real parents? Well.....Jesus's dad was God, so both of his parents were not tangible (though some say that God is real regardless).
There is no evidence that God exists. Faith is belief without evidence. But that might lead to believing in the wrong Messiah, or believing the wrong religion, or believing in the wrong sect of the religion. Certainly belief without proof gets Christians to follow pastors who are not following God. Reverend Jimmy Swaggart hired prostitutes. Reverend Jim Bakker (and wife Tammy Fay) stole donations to starving Africans to pay for their mansion. Reverend Robert Schuller's son is spending down the $50 million for the Crystal Cathedral sale (his own personal money, not the church's money, though donors thought that they were donating to the church), as been recently photographed with booze in one arm, a scantily clad woman in his other arm, and his pants down and his penis sticking out in public. He is also the president of a Christian college, Liberty University.
Belief without proof leads to following pastors who don't seem to be following Christ.
Jesus was Jewish. Back in those days Jews looked differently than they do today. As Semitics, they looked like their Semitic brethren, the Arabs (dark hair, dark skin, hairy). Mixing genetics with their new neighbors, the Germans, they picked up DNA from blonds and other races. Today, Jewish DNA is from various sources around the world, and Jewish appearance reflects that diversity.
So, when Jesus went to his grave, he went as a Jew (dark), and when he rose from the grave, he came back with white hair, red eyes, and bronze feet (perhaps from rubbing his feet with oil after walking on hot sand).
So, Christ didn't look anything like his original appearance when he rose from the dead. Does this different appearance confirm or deny that he was Christ?
Did He Or Didn't He? Jewish Views of the Resurrection of Jesus
Link says: "The Lubavitch Chasidim were hailing their rebbe, the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson, as King Messiah. He had died two years earlier, yet they were
expecting him to rise from his grave.
5 Times the Disciples Did not Believe Jesus had Risen
Link says: "5 times, the
apostles didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus."
