The Resurrection of Christ

[outhouse]

Alright I'll keep an eye open, however upon visiting the Biblical contradictory sites I was disappointed at the lack of context

not a good place to look.

Finding sites that deal with the historical context will definatky be better then biased sources for either side.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Alright I'll keep an eye open, however upon visiting the Biblical contradictory sites I was disappointed at the lack of context

I just use them as jumping off points for my own studies. Here's a link to my first thread.

 

[outhouse]

Here's a comparison that cites its sources Investigating the Similarities between Jesus and Pagan Figures

yes but heavily biased for your side.

You dont even need outside sources, the OT has plenty of simularities all in its own.

 

[outhouse]

I just use them as jumping off points for my own studies. Here's a link to my first thread.

Moses has no historicity

most see him as a later creation which was also heavily redacted.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Moses has no historicity

most see him as a later creation which was also heavily redacted.

See my post on that thread.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

yes but heavily biased for your side.

You dont even need outside sources, the OT has plenty of simularities all in its own.

Of course it is, however I've noticed it actual cites sources from the mythologies, I'm inviting you to show me anything contrary to it

The New Testament is so heavily dependent on the Old that it seem ridiculous to accuse it from coming elsewhere

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Of course it is, however I've noticed it actual cites sources from the mythologies, I'm inviting you to show me anything contrary to it

The New Testament is so heavily dependent on the Old that it seem ridiculous to accuse it from coming elsewhere

One of the things that led me away from Christianity, a religion I had been a part of most of my life, was that I seen so many differences between the OT and the NT, it was hard to correlate them as a single religious idea. But we'll discuss those elsewhere.

 

[Quagmire]

beating a dead horse here,

How do you discount the ressurection,if you don't believe/support it if you do.

I leave the resurrection alone.

Out of all the "Messiahs" of the first century only Jesus has a world religion based on him,

Is it really based on him though?

I've never read of any of the other first century messiahs being linked to a ressurection, the apostlesn who were cowardly during their lives were able to hop on boats and risk their lives for the gospels,

Well, if a group of men actually did abandon their families/livelihoods/lives to follow a wandering teacher with no clear destination or ultimate earthly goal, I wouldn't call them cowardly.

At the same time, the traditional accounts of the Apostles going on to preach "the gospel" with (many of them) suffering martyrdom as a result have no historical---or even biblical---basis. Aside from James and possibly Peter there are no records anywhere telling us what happened to the Apostles after the first few chapters in Acts. Any stories dealing with their later lives and/or deaths are strictly traditional.

people high in the Jewish society abandoned their beliefs to follow Christ,

Well, I have my own theory as far as that goes (and yes, I know it's a wild one).

First century Judea was in the grips of "Messiah-Mania". The populace fully expected the Messiah to appear in their lifetime, so messianic movements were everywhere, many of them were militant and synonymous with rebellion against Rome.

The Jewish high officials realized the suicidal implications of all that and did their best to suppress these movements to whatever extent they could, but they couldn't do anything about the underlying reason for the emergence and popularity of these movements, ie., the Messianic expectation itself. Basically, no matter how many would-be Messiahs they arrested, or how many of these movements they squelched, more would just keep popping up to take their place.

Then, at some point in their campaign, they came across "Christianity" (or the fore-runner thereof) and noticed a rather significant difference: their Messiah had already come and gone. The "Christians" weren't plotting rebellion against Rome, they were waiting patiently and peacefully for their crucified Messiah to return and tell them what to do next.

Well, obviously a dead Messiah would be much less of a threat and much more predictable than a live one--- not to mention the fact that his followers would be a lot easier to handle--- so, rather than put down this movement, they would have good reasons for encouraging it.

So, some prominent Jewish citizens, including some of the Pharisees themselves, actually joined the movement and the established religious order actually supported it (which is why James is seen given access to the inner sanctum of the Temple itself in Acts).

Like I said: it's a wild theory, and I would expect it to be summarily blown to pieces by anyone in here who's studied the roots of Christianity more thoroughly than I have.

But in the meantime, it's my theory and therefore my favorite.

through all this persuection we have the witnesses of the martyrs, so my question really is, what more do you want?

Who's "we" and what do we actually have?

 

[outhouse]

Of course it is, however I've noticed it actual cites sources from the mythologies, I'm inviting you to show me anything contrary to it

The New Testament is so heavily dependent on the Old that it seem ridiculous to accuse it from coming elsewhere

coincidences between Jesus and other figures are really not up for debate and we would never expect anyone of them to copy from one another.

We are talking about mythical content though.




You might want to study this.

Elijah and Elisha traditions

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Well, if a group of men actually did abandon their families/livelihoods/lives to follow a wandering teacher with no clear destination or ultimate earthly goal, I wouldn't call them cowardly.

however they lost hope when he died on the cross and locked themselves up in the upper room.

At the same time, the traditional accounts of the Apostles going on to preach "the gospel" with (many of them) suffering martyrdom as a result have no historical---or even biblical---basis. Aside from James and possibly Peter there are no records anywhere telling us what happened to the Apostles after the first few chapters in Acts. Any stories dealing with their later lives and/or deaths are strictly traditional.

however they did go into feilds at the risk of their own safety, that we know, their deaths may be a bit less reliable.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There's a problem in using the apostles, and their actions and mindset, as testimony to the supposed truth of Christianity. It's easy to say, they gave up their livelihoods and families, they went into dangerous situations, and they gave up their lives, but this is not unique to Christianity. So can we say that other religions and ideals are true, simply because of the actions of it's followers? I find this a bit shaky to base one's faith on. And there's something else: what's to say they didn't suffer from some kind of mental defect, much like modern day cults? There's too many variables involved to try to say that the apostles, particularly their actions and mindset, are reliable as to whether or not Christianity is true.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

There's a problem in using the apostles, and their actions and mindset, as testimony to the supposed truth of Christianity. It's easy to say, they gave up their livelihoods and families, they went into dangerous situations, and they gave up their lives, but this is not unique to Christianity. So can we say that other religions and ideals are true, simply because of the actions of it's followers? I find this a bit shaky to base one's faith on. And there's something else: what's to say they didn't suffer from some kind of mental defect, much like modern day cults? There's too many variables involved to try to say that the apostles, particularly their actions and mindset, are reliable as to whether or not Christianity is true.

We can simple compare them to other followers of messiahs in the first century, and we notice that this "mental defect" wasn't experienced by any of them.

The idea isn't because they died they were right, it's because they gave up once Christ died, but a few days later had more zeal then their whole lives

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

We can simple compare them to other followers of messiahs in the first century, and we notice that this "mental defect" wasn't experienced by any of them.

The idea isn't because they died they were right, it's because they gave up once Christ died, but a few days later had more zeal then their whole lives

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. It could have been something as simple as psychology. They gave up their livelihoods to follow this man that claimed to be the messiah, they enjoyed some popularity because of it, he dies, and now, they're at a loss as to what to do. They'll be shamed by their own people, possibly hunted down. They're visions of Jesus after his death could have been nothing more than hallucination brought on by the intense amount of stress they would have been under. Then, convinced that their messiah had 'risen' from the grave, they set out on their journeys.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. It could have been something as simple as psychology. They gave up their livelihoods to follow this man that claimed to be the messiah, they enjoyed some popularity because of it, he dies, and now, they're at a loss as to what to do. They'll be shamed by their own people, possibly hunted down. They're visions of Jesus after his death could have been nothing more than hallucination brought on by the intense amount of stress they would have been under. Then, convinced that their messiah had 'risen' from the grave, they set out on their journeys.

How often to groups of 12 people have the same hallucinations at the exact same time? let alone 500?

Why is it that only one out of the tons of Messiahs in the first century had this happen to his followers? Where is the body then? clearly they could have produced it if it was false? Do hallucinations require some to expect or want to see something? because non of the other messiahs were even expected to resurrect, if you lost to Rome, tradition was your followers left you

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

How often to groups of 12 people have the same hallucinations at the exact same time? let alone 500?

Remember, that 500 after the resurrection dropped to 120 at the upper room on Pentecost.

Why is it that only one out of the tons of Messiahs in the first century had this happen to his followers? Where is the body then? clearly they could have produced it if it was false? Do hallucinations require some to expect or want to see something? because non of the other messiahs were even expected to resurrect, if you lost to Rome, tradition was your followers left you

So, because it's not possible for it to have happened that way because your faith doesn't allow you to see the fact that it could possibly happen, means that it can't possibly happen? And, you say why didn't they produce the body? This presupposes that he existed at all. But for sake of argument, let's say he did. Why wouldn't they produce the body? It was already stolen, perhaps. I don't remember, does the Bible say any of his disciples actually went to where the body was buried, while it was being buried? If not, they may not have known where it was buried. They were from Galilee, and other than religious festivals that were required to go to Jerusalem, they may not have known the city layout that well. There's all kinds of possibilities that could have happened. If if we assume that Jesus existed, then that still leaves us with the fact that 1. we have to prove it happened the way the Bible said it did, and 2. we have to deal with all the other possibilities, proving that they couldn't have happened. This has to be done before any meaningful case can be made as to the veracity of the Bible and the practice of evangelizing.

Edit: And why was Christianity the only one to survive, out of all the other religions available at the time? A little luck, getting them to state support.
Edit 2: You're last statement answered your first question.

 

[outhouse]

How often to groups of 12 people have the same hallucinations at the exact same time? let alone 500?

we know the 500 was a exaggeration, had thta happened he would have been so popular a local historian would have written about him while he was alive.

while alive no one knew him.

we dont know the 12 witnessed anything.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

.

So, because it's not possible for it to have happened that way because your faith doesn't allow you to see the fact that it could possibly happen, means that it can't possibly happen?

Excuse me? I gave you plenty of reasons why I believed it happend the fact that I can't dismiss it simply as a myth has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, however vice versa is true,

And, you say why didn't they produce the body? This presupposes that he existed at all.

All Religions have founders, these guys didn't huddle together and decide to go do this on their own, someone made the doctrines they taught,
We have more evidence that Jesus existed then Alexander the Great, on top of that if Jesus had been a myth would not early opponents of Christianity just claimed as such? Is there proof any did, I've seen much to the contrary on top of that Josephus wrote of Jesus!!! Yes there was some interpolation but he did write about Jesus! why people go out of their ways to deine it baffles me it makes the Jesus myth theory lose so much creditably in my mind

But for sake of argument, let's say he did. Why wouldn't they produce the body? It was already stolen, perhaps. I don't remember, does the Bible say any of his disciples actually went to where the body was buried, while it was being buried? If not, they may not have known where it was buried. They were from Galilee, and other than religious festivals that were required to go to Jerusalem, they may not have known the city layout that well. There's all kinds of possibilities that could have happened.

Yes they did, some of the women who followed Jesus prepared oinments and such for his body and brought it over on Sunday but found the tomb empty in shock they ran out and met the resurrected Christ if the Body was stolen by anyone other then the diciples then it would have produced and the ressurection story would have ended there, but for some reason it didn't happen.

If if we assume that Jesus existed,
then that still leaves us with the fact that 1. we have to prove it happened the way the Bible said it did, and 2. we have to deal with all the other possibilities, proving that they couldn't have happened. This has to be done before any meaningful case can be made as to the veracity of the Bible and the practice of evangelizing.

Edit: And why was Christianity the only one to survive, out of all the other religions available at the time? A little luck, getting them to state support.
Edit 2: You're last statement answered your first question.

Yes but if we weight them all equally and don't try and leap out of the idea that the ressurection might idea I think we can do an honest examination, however the idea that a large group all saw something that wasn't there and that this only happend once when the same situation happened a dozen or more times in the same area of the world at the same time, leaves me unstatisfied

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Excuse me? I gave you plenty of reasons why I believed it happend the fact that I can't dismiss it simply as a myth has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, however vice versa is true,

Fair enough. But, if you're trying to convince a non-believer that Christianity is true, you cannot dismiss the alternate possibilities, and the fact that a non-believer will have these types of doubts.

We have more evidence that Jesus existed then Alexander the Great, on top of that if Jesus had been a myth would not early opponents of Christianity just claimed as such?

Yes. The first one that comes to mind is Celsus, who wrote against Christianity, claiming it was no more useful than the old Greek and Roman myths. Unfortunately, the only parts of his works that survive are what's recorded in Eusebius' Church History.

Is there proof any did, I've seen much to the contrary on top of that Josephus wrote of Jesus!!!

Josephus wasn't an eyewitness, he wasn't even alive at the time.

why people go out of their ways to deine it baffles me it makes the Jesus myth theory lose so much creditably in my mind

He said what he did because at the time he wrote, he probably had dealings with Christians. You would think that for such a movement as Christianity was supposed to be, he would have wrote more. He wrote a bit more about John the Baptist than he did Jesus, making me think that John was held in much higher regard, or at least his movement was more well known.

Yes they did, some of the women who followed Jesus prepared oinments and such for his body and brought it over on Sunday but found the tomb empty in shock they ran out and met the resurrected Christ if the Body was stolen by anyone other then the diciples then it would have produced and the ressurection story would have ended there, but for some reason it didn't happen.

The women went to the tomb on Sunday, yes, but did they accompany the body while it was being buried? If they didn't, then how can we know they even went to the right spot?

Yes but if we weight them all equally and don't try and leap out of the idea that the ressurection might idea I think we can do an honest examination, however the idea that a large group all saw something that wasn't there and that this only happend once when the same situation happened a dozen or more times in the same area of the world at the same time, leaves me unstatisfied

I am also trying to look at Christian ideas from honest examination. I am attempting to look at all sides, examine it from every viewpoint, analyze the situation, and try to reason which side makes more sense. I will admit, the hallucination theory is a bit of a stretch, considering the number of people and the number of appearances, but this doesn't rule it out completely.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Yes. The first one that comes to mind is Celsus, who wrote against Christianity, claiming it was no more useful than the old Greek and Roman myths. Unfortunately, the only parts of his works that survive are what's recorded in Eusebius' Church History.

When did he write and what knowledge did he have of 1st century Israel?

Josephus wasn't an eyewitness, he wasn't even alive at the time.

He wrote extensively of first century Israel however

The women went to the tomb on Sunday, yes, but did they accompany the body while it was being buried? If they didn't, then how can we know they even went to the right spot?

The body of Christ had been taken a follower of Christ and lead in a tomb said follower had purchased, it's a weak arugement to that they just got the wrong address, it then would have been just as easy for skeptics to produce a body

I am also trying to look at Christian ideas from honest examination. I am attempting to look at all sides, examine it from every viewpoint, analyze the situation, and try to reason which side makes more sense. I will admit, the hallucination theory is a bit of a stretch, considering the number of people and the number of appearances, but this doesn't rule it out completely.

and I'll just be the other side of the coin then

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

When did he write and what knowledge did he have of 1st century Israel?

We don't know. All that we know of him is what's recorded in Eusebius. His works were destroyed when Christianity became the state religion and they destroyed all the texts of those they considered to be heretics.

He wrote extensively of first century Israel however

True, but this doesn't supersede the point that he wasn't an eyewitness. He was only going off of what he heard.

The body of Christ had been taken a follower of Christ and lead in a tomb said follower had purchased, it's a weak arugement to that they just got the wrong address, it then would have been just as easy for skeptics to produce a body

Yes, the man who bought the tomb. But did anyone who actually follow Jesus, who was a witness to his resurrection, follow him to the tomb to be buried? It might be a weak argument to you, but considering the circumstances, such as lack of knowledge of the city, the amount of stress they were under, it's a valid argument.

and I'll just be the other side of the coin then

Works for me.