Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Trailblazer]

What we're looking for is the best explanation, not just a possible one.

The best explanation is that, if the gospel resurrection stories are true, what the disciples saw was the spiritual body of Jesus that had risen after His physical body had died. A spiritual body can look exactly like a physical body, and since Jesus could do miracles Jesus could have made His new spiritual body look and feel like a physical body.

The best explanation is not that His physical body that was buried and beginning to decompose came back to life three days later.

1 Corinthians 15 New Living Translation
44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

 

[ppp]

Then it's a good thing God never constructed it. If was rather constructed by Christian doctrines.

I see no evidence that your statement is anything but Baha'i doctrine.

 

[Trailblazer]

How often does she do that?

Never. The whole idea of a physical body rising from the dead is ludicrous and it serves no purpose to raise a physical body from the dead only to have it die again. Why would God do something that serves no purpose? If Christians cannot have faith in God and Jesus without the resurrection belief then their faith is very weak. Jesus said that our faith should be strong enough to move mountains.

The only purpose such a belief serves is to make Christians 'feel' superior to all the other religions and to mislead Christians into 'believing' that they will also rise from their graves physically on judgment day, which totally contradicts what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 15:44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see no evidence that your statement is anything but Baha'i doctrine.

That was not Baha'i doctrine. That was my personal opinion.
There is a version of hellfire in the Baha'i Faith, but it is not a physical place where people burn for all eternity.

 

[ppp]

That was not Baha'i doctrine. That was my personal opinion.

An opinion that is impregnated with Baha'i Doctrine.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead? It's true that God doesn't wish to raise most people but then again the case of Jesus doesn't fall in line with most people as the context of his life is religiously charged and his death offered a chance for divine vindication. In such a situation, it becomes far morely likely that God would wish to raise Jesus if his claims were true.

As a Baha'i, I believe the purpose of God was to sacrifice Jesus as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth.
If Jesus rose from he dead after 3 days, how could His death on the cross have been a sacrifice?

Do you think it makes sense for God to later realize He made a mistake and bring Jesus back to life?

One reason we know that Jesus did not rise from the dead is because it would negate the cross sacrifice which was needed as a ransom.
Christians should really think about what their doctrines imply.

 

[Trailblazer]

An opinion that is impregnated with Baha'i Doctrine.

Explain how my opinion is impregnated with Bahai Doctrine. Baha'is don't even have any doctrines, we only have Writings.
While you are at it explain how Christian opinions about hell are not impregnated with Christian doctrines.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you do not get to assume that only Jesus was resurrected. Your argument had the "plausibility" clause. It is simply not plausible. To claim plausible you need other examples.

How many people were raised from the dead in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

How many people have been raised from the dead? What are the different resurrections recorded in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Trailblazer]

It is correct that according to the (in my view ridiculous) story Jesus death offers the chance for divine vindication, but it is Jesus's death which does that, *not* Jesus resurrection.

*WINNER*

 

[ppp]

Explain how my opinion is impregnated with Bahai Doctrine. Baha'is don't even have any doctrines, we only have Writings.

How many Baha'i reject "Baháʼu'lláh is a Messenger of God?

While you are at it explain how Christian opinions about hell are not impregnated with Christian doctrines.

Why would I do that?

 

[Trailblazer]

You claimed that if the story of Jesus dying for our sins were true it gave an increase to the probability of God wanting to resurrect Jesus, I'm asking how so if the resurrection is irrelevant to the claim of Jesus dying for our sins being true. Jesus could have died for our sins and not been resurrected for example.

If Jesus died for our sins and was brought back to life 3 days later, how is that dying for our sins?

 

[Trailblazer]

According to this idea, was Elvis also resurrected? The number of sigtings of Elvis after his death number in hundreds of thousands at least.

*WINNER*

 

[rocala]

People have been talking about the "resurrection" for a long time. They say that he was recognized and that people saw his wounds. It seems they forget an important detail. Prior to the crucifixion, Jesus was scourged. I once read about the Roman scourging. It was hideously brutal. The whips had bone tips that ripped the flesh, sometimes exposing muscle. Birds were known to peck at the wounds while victims were helpless on the cross.

It is a long time since I read the Bible, but I don't recall any mention of this very distinguishing feature on the newly resurrected Jesus.

 

[Orbit]

If Jesus died for our sins and was brought back to life 3 days later, how is that dying for our sins?

Modern Christians' understanding of this is quite different from the way early Christians looked at it. For example, my husband, who has a background in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, tells me that an early quote from a 2nd century theologian was "God became man so man could become God" which would appear heretical to later Christians but was accepted at the time. In the view of these early Christians, the point of the incarnation was the deificiation of man, and the idea of substitutionary atonement didn't come about until much later, around the 12th century. From a theological standpoint I find this fascinating. But I suppose my point here is that yes, Bahai's have a point, but early Christians didn't see it that way. Don't ask me the details, I don't know them.

Edited to add: here is one of his posts on it: The Trinity in the Eastern Christian Tradition

 

[Trailblazer]

Dead people stay dead.

Sure as shooting.

 

[Trailblazer]

FYI, I happen to believe in Jesus's resurrection and that they were true visions of God himself

So do you also believe that Jesus was God?

 

[Trailblazer]

There no law in science that says dead people stay dead.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think the apostles and the disciples were lying when they say they saw Jesus?

No, but if they saw anything I think that they saw the spiritual body of Jesus, not His physical body.

 

[viole]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

These are just nice stories written in a book, you know?
I wouldn't go crazy to interpret something that could simply be pure fiction, without first showing evidence that it is not fiction. Good luck with that.

Otherwise, it would be like analyzing the true mechanical force that locked excalibur into the rock, and how plausible it was that only the promised king of England could remove it from there.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

It does not. Christians do and have done heinous things on a daily basis. Both as individuals and in groups as Christian institutions.

but since they are saved and forgiven they are not going to burn in hell fire.
You need to learn your Christian doctrines.