sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
So as long as you don't believe in miracles then everything is allogorical, yes?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Resurrection of Christ
- Thread starter redwine
- Start date
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
The "raised from the dead cult" was a common cult around the supposed time of Christ. This mythology became immmersed in Christianity to become part of the literalist interpretation of it.
Mr. Peanut
Active Member
Christ is risen. Christ is risen, indeed!
That's nice logic. Let's see... murder is a common theme in today's world. Therefore, facts that support suicides must be wrong since murder is more common.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Your analogy does not make sense.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm anxious to see how you explain the Old Testament ressurections. :yes:
That was the point.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
No, it is not a correct analogy of what I posted.
tomspug
Absorbant
Actually, the Pharisees (the political sect of Judaism that was responsible for Jesus's death) believed fervently in the concept of resurrection. The Saducees were a political sect that did not, and there were many arguments concerning this.
Considering that the Roman government, the Pharisees, the disciples, and ALL of the people that followed Jesus were interested in whether or not Jesus Christ would rise from the dead, don't you think it's kind of a stretch to simply call it a 'myth' when there were so many people that were concerned with whether or not it would actually happen?
If it didn't happen, then how can you explain the explosion of Christianity immediately following his 'death'? Wouldn't Christianity have stopped before it even started if it was well-accepted that he did NOT rise from the grave? Also, if the disciples KNEW that Jesus did not rise from the grave, then why did all of them die for their faith? It doesn't make sense!
Considering that the Roman government, the Pharisees, the disciples, and ALL of the people that followed Jesus were interested in whether or not Jesus Christ would rise from the dead, don't you think it's kind of a stretch to simply call it a 'myth' when there were so many people that were concerned with whether or not it would actually happen?
If it didn't happen, then how can you explain the explosion of Christianity immediately following his 'death'? Wouldn't Christianity have stopped before it even started if it was well-accepted that he did NOT rise from the grave? Also, if the disciples KNEW that Jesus did not rise from the grave, then why did all of them die for their faith? It doesn't make sense!
Mr. Peanut
Active Member
Some quotes from
Evidence for the Resurrection wherein McDowell gives a compelling argument for the Resurrection of Christ:
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Josh McDowell
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. F. F. Bruce Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. A. N. Sherwin-White Classical Roman Historian
Evidence for the Resurrection wherein McDowell gives a compelling argument for the Resurrection of Christ:
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Josh McDowell
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. F. F. Bruce Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. A. N. Sherwin-White Classical Roman Historian
Mr. Peanut
Active Member
Some quotes from Evidence for the Resurrection (click on link for article if interested) wherein McDowell gives a compelling argument for the Resurrection of Christ:
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Josh McDowell
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. F. F. Bruce Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. A. N. Sherwin-White Classical Roman Historian
A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"
"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Josh McDowell
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias. Clark Pinnock Mcmaster University
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. F. F. Bruce Manchester University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. A. N. Sherwin-White Classical Roman Historian
Great link and so many valid points included and examined. Another significant point about the gospels regarding the issue is that women were the first to find the empty tomb: if the authors were trying to start a myth based around the resurrection then it would be folish for women to have found the tomb.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
If Jesus resurrected bodily, than that is a great and miraculous accomplishment. It is something that God is most certainly capable of. Whether he resurrected physically is not really of as much importance as some claim it to be...If Jesus was sent of God, was he not returning to God anyways in the spirit? Did Jesus say that one must believe him to be physically resurrected to inherit the Kingdom of God? We argue over the petty issues, all the while ignoring the significance of what truly matters, the words of great wisdom brought forth by Jesus. We neglect his teachings, yet stand so firmly beside the issues that are of little importance in the grand scheme of things. Many believe that Jesus ascended unto heaven. Some believe it to be physical while some spiritual. Of what difference does it truly make?
Francine
Well-Known Member
Spiritual more often than not stands for "not really". The belief in a physical ascension safeguards the doctrine. Otherwise you would get a problem if you said, for example, that Mary was a "spiritual" virgin.
Muffled
Jesus in me
What a peson believes affects what a person does. Much of the motivation to be in the Kingdom of God (earthly) is the opportunity to be in a resurrection body that never dies. Otherwise we would be tempted to eat, drink and be merry because it has no bearing on the future.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
The flesh is dust. It rots. The soul is Spirit and it never rots, nor does it need a body.
"These are all things pertaining to the soul, and are not bodily ills. Thus, it is apparent that the soul, even as the body, has its own individuality. But if the body 66 undergoes a change, the spirit need not be touched. When you break a glass on which the sun shines, the glass is broken, but the sun still shines! If a cage containing a bird is destroyed, the bird is unharmed! If a lamp is broken, the flame can still burn bright!
The same thing applies to the spirit of man. Though death destroy his body, it has no power over his spirit -- this is eternal, everlasting, both birthless and deathless.
As to the soul of man after death, it remains in the degree of purity to which it has evolved during life in the physical body, and after it is freed from the body it remains plunged in the ocean of God's Mercy.
From the moment the soul leaves the body and arrives in the Heavenly World, its evolution is spiritual, and that evolution is: The approaching unto God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 65)
Regards,
Scott
Ringer
Jar of Clay
It is important whether or not Jesus rose bodily or spiritually. For one thing, I don't think Jesus nor the disciples indicated it would be a spiritual resurrection. Could you imagine how much easier it would have been for the disciples to imply a spiritual ressurection? There would have been no way to disprove their claim that Jesus in fact had control to take up His life again. It would have been a safeguard to say He will rise spiritually because had He still been in the tomb, you couldn't say they were in error because the claim cannot be falsified.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Understand that I think there was a physical presence of Jesus after His death. I just have no reason to believe it was the body that died less than forty-eight hours before.
Whatever physical presence was seen was a manifestation of the Spirit.
Regards,
Scott
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Me? I say that Jesus came in the flesh. I don't say Jesus was God, but I do not doubt His existence in any way. Nor do I doubt He was resurrected in the Spirit and walked amongst men after His death on the cross.
Regards,
Scott