The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[Spartan]

You post 98 offers no evidence, I'm afraid.

I'll answer every point tonight when on my computer.

Don't bother. I'm fine with my position. For you to say that the information I posted in Post 98 offers no evidence just shows how far off base your theology is.

 

[Spartan]

ROFL... clearly YOU need to do YOUR homework, because you don't have answers to my questions either. The truth is that your book is filled with claims made by nameless people that it is impossible to verify the legitimacy of. Claiming that Christ rose from the dead has just as much evidence to back it up as the claim that Odin casts lighting bolts and Thor creates thunder. Both have books claiming such nonsense and both have or had gullible followers who actually believed it.

Let me help you out with your untenable claim that the Gospels are from nameless people.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[QuestioningMind]

Study up on the historicity of the Gospels. You haven't done that yet. So read the recommended books, read Post # 98 and hopefully your knowledge base will increase on that. Also, it's highly recommended your read the following:

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

AGAIN... no one is going to spend hours reading all of the books you suggested. IF you have actually read then THEN you should be able to EASILY tell us what you think is the BEST argument these books contain that ANYONE would accept as verifiable evidence. The longer you refuse to provide such an answer, the more I have to think that you haven't actually read the books yourself.

As for 'post #98, I ALREADY responded to that nonsense and YOU just happened to ignore it. Honestly, claiming that a book says that a 'group of women' witness this resurrection is pathetically poor evidence for anything... other than the fact that someone wrote it in a book.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Let me help you out with your untenable claim that the Gospels are from nameless people.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

Learn to read what I actually wrote,. I want the names of the 'women' in this 'group of women' that this book CLAIMS saw a dead man come back to life. IF you can't provide me with such names, WHY would anyone accept them as being true? Unless you can verify that this 'group of women' were a reliable source ( and if you can't even name them you certainly cannot claim that they are reliable) there's absolutely no reason why anyone should believe that what this book claims that these nameless women claimed is true.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

All God had to do was just not create the perishing or any human whatsoever. Therefore no evil and no hell. It's not like He needed humans and before He created anything, He already had everything He could ever need or want, so all of this was completely unnecessary.

God did not have everything He could want. He did not have a family. Humans were created and given the power to become part of God's family.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

This is actually a possible argument for the proper biblical interpretation of the resurrection. But to expect others to give it any credibility based on the weak evidence for it is an error on your part. You failed to show that there is any more evidence for that event than there is for Mohammad's trip to the Moon. If you believe one but not the other you are not being consistent in your reasoning.

The consistancy is that one is described in the Bible and one is not. Yes, some people actually believe the Bible.

 

[oldbadger]

Don't bother. I'm fine with my position.

That's a brainwashed mindset, right there.
You wanted a debate, and when offered a reply to your key post you say 'Don't bother'.

For you to say that the information I posted in Post 98 offers no evidence just shows how far off base your theology is.

The sentence above destroys most of your case.
You offer your idea of 'historical' evidence, and when a Historical Jesus student like me comes along you tell me that my 'theology' is off base!!! My answers are HISTORICALLY BASED!

I'll go back and sort through your stuff........ but not for you because I think that your glue has set fast. I'll do it for any interested member who ever comes along.

Here we go...... back to 98......!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The consistancy is that one is described in the Bible and one is not. Yes, some people actually believe the Bible.

But without any reliable reason to accept the Bible that amounts to a special pleading fallacy.

 

[oldbadger]

Evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Historical Evidence That Jesus Rose From the Dead

Right...... let's see what you've got......

Plus:
"In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics."
12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

The above is rubbish.
The real heavyweight internation HJ schollares and professors all have individual and differing views about Jesus. Typical examples being Crosson's idea of a Galilean peasant with two or three followers rambling ahead from village to village as they sell the coming magi who will amze them for keep and food...... he calls this 'Magic for meal' in kind of shuffling peasant with a successful survial circuit. Or Geza Vermes who is an internationally known bible and Dead sea Scrolls translator who concludes that Jesus was a clever man on a failed campaign...... and on and on....... and there's you trying to tell the World that all HJ scholars agree about something. They don't!
Your idea that sceptics agree on the resurrection is absurd. Not funny, but absurd.

Twelve Facts Most Scholars Agree on Concerning the Crucifixion and Resurrection

Here we go........

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

After excluding the professors who conclude that Jesus was totally mythical, the majority of the remainder do accept that Jesus got crucified. He probably was, but he may well have been taken down alive. Josephus recounts a wonderful tale about how he begged for the lives of three crucified friends who were reprived and taken down, two dying anmd one living. Jesus was only on the cross for about 5-6 hours imo, and it often took three days to die. Because these three executions had to be finished by sunset (for the sabbath) the two other convicts' legs were broken so that they could not push upwards to gain breaths and death would soon have folowed, but Jesus was pirced in the lower right lung which was a way of releasing fluids out of the largest lung and easing breathing. He was taken down, and away.
This and the fact that he rolled up in Capernaum ot long after is evidence that he lived!

[

2. He was buried.

No. He was (reportedly) left in a tomb. Not the same as buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

Nope. His ARREST caused the disciples to skip it and away. The only one who lingered had to lie like blazes to saved himself from arrest as well. After that they were nowhere near.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

Of course the tomb was empty! Joseph got him out of there as dast as possible! Pilate liked Jesus, hated the priesthood and was probably delighted in the fuss that Jesus had caused. You can bet that the tomb was empty.

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

That's just Christian bulldust, written after the events. Of course the discioles were amazed to see Jesus.... they thought he was a goner!

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

Superstitious as Galilean peasants were, the disciples that wanted to continue on with the campaign that the Immerser started just did so. But several disciples disappeared after all this.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

Nope, not immediately afterwards it wasn't. The message was 'withhold Temple dues', and so the Temple employed folks like Saul to go out and sort out the offenders. Pay-up or die was the message.
The resurrection message came Saul got that brilliant blinding idea about how to control whole countries of people. Hitherto the horrors of the cross, afterwards the threat of never-ending horrific pain FOREVER! Saul was quite bright about that, and it worked.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

Yes, once Paul got started they did, but they had no evidence or witness that it was true.

9. The Church was born and grew.

Yes it did. It's just a pity that a growing Church proves nothing about the truth of the Jesus story

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

Othodox Jews would never alter the sabbath. Jews who left Judaism might have. And again, that proves nothing.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrection.

There is doubt about the above. There is opinion out there that James could have been James BarZebedee. Conversions don't prove the resurrection, I'm afraid.

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic and initially a persecutor of Christians).

Well, it was his idea, but he never bothered about Jesus or his real campaign, there was no need to bother with any of it, and so Paul never offered a single anecdote about Jesus's person, his real life or his real mission.
The real mission was so obvious, so simple, and a continuation of the Immerser's campaign, to cut the flow of money to the greedy residents around Jerusalem, The Priesthood, the Temple and to demonstrate against the disgusting images hammered on to the Temple coinage.

You haven't got a hope, Spartan, not a hope. There are too many HJ students on this site.

 

[Spartan]

Learn to read what I actually wrote,. I want the names of the 'women' in this 'group of women' that this book CLAIMS saw a dead man come back to life. IF you can't provide me with such names, WHY would anyone accept them as being true? Unless you can verify that this 'group of women' were a reliable source ( and if you can't even name them you certainly cannot claim that they are reliable) there's absolutely no reason why anyone should believe that what this book claims that these nameless women claimed is true.

The women are only "nameless" to the Biblically-challenged, who haven't done their own reading and due-diligence.

How Many Women Visited the Tomb of Jesus? | Cold Case Christianity

In addition, there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

 

[Spartan]

That's a brainwashed mindset, right there.
You wanted a debate, and when offered a reply to your key post you say 'Don't bother'.

It's not a debate with you. It's you kicking everything presented to you to the curb, as evidenced by your comment that there's no evidence for the resurrection in my Post # 98.

 

[Spartan]

Right...... let's see what you've got......


The above is rubbish.
The real heavyweight internation HJ schollares and professors all have individual and differing views about Jesus. Typical examples being Crosson's idea of a Galilean peasant with two or three followers rambling ahead from village to village as they sell the coming magi who will amze them for keep and food...... he calls this 'Magic for meal' in kind of shuffling peasant with a successful survial circuit. Or Geza Vermes who is an internationally known bible and Dead sea Scrolls translator who concludes that Jesus was a clever man on a failed campaign...... and on and on....... and there's you trying to tell the World that all HJ scholars agree about something. They don't!
Your idea that sceptics agree on the resurrection is absurd. Not funny, but absurd.


Here we go........


After excluding the professors who conclude that Jesus was totally mythical, the majority of the remainder do accept that Jesus got crucified. He probably was, but he may well have been taken down alive. Josephus recounts a wonderful tale about how he begged for the lives of three crucified friends who were reprived and taken down, two dying anmd one living. Jesus was only on the cross for about 5-6 hours imo, and it often took three days to die. Because these three executions had to be finished by sunset (for the sabbath) the two other convicts' legs were broken so that they could not push upwards to gain breaths and death would soon have folowed, but Jesus was pirced in the lower right lung which was a way of releasing fluids out of the largest lung and easing breathing. He was taken down, and away.
This and the fact that he rolled up in Capernaum ot long after is evidence that he lived!

[
No. He was (reportedly) left in a tomb. Not the same as buried.


Nope. His ARREST caused the disciples to skip it and away. The only one who lingered had to lie like blazes to saved himself from arrest as well. After that they were nowhere near.


Of course the tomb was empty! Joseph got him out of there as dast as possible! Pilate liked Jesus, hated the priesthood and was probably delighted in the fuss that Jesus had caused. You can bet that the tomb was empty.


That's just Christian bulldust, written after the events. Of course the discioles were amazed to see Jesus.... they thought he was a goner!


Superstitious as Galilean peasants were, the disciples that wanted to continue on with the campaign that the Immerser started just did so. But several disciples disappeared after all this.


Nope, not immediately afterwards it wasn't. The message was 'withhold Temple dues', and so the Temple employed folks like Saul to go out and sort out the offenders. Pay-up or die was the message.
The resurrection message came Saul got that brilliant blinding idea about how to control whole countries of people. Hitherto the horrors of the cross, afterwards the threat of never-ending horrific pain FOREVER! Saul was quite bright about that, and it worked.


Yes, once Paul got started they did, but they had no evidence or witness that it was true.


Yes it did. It's just a pity that a growing Church proves nothing about the truth of the Jesus story

Othodox Jews would never alter the sabbath. Jews who left Judaism might have. And again, that proves nothing.


There is doubt about the above. There is opinion out there that James could have been James BarZebedee. Conversions don't prove the resurrection, I'm afraid.


Well, it was his idea, but he never bothered about Jesus or his real campaign, there was no need to bother with any of it, and so Paul never offered a single anecdote about Jesus's person, his real life or his real mission.
The real mission was so obvious, so simple, and a continuation of the Immerser's campaign, to cut the flow of money to the greedy residents around Jerusalem, The Priesthood, the Temple and to demonstrate against the disgusting images hammered on to the Temple coinage.

You haven't got a hope, Spartan, not a hope. There are too many HJ students on this site.

Sorry, Old Badger, but your revisionist ideas (i.e. Jesus didn't die on the cross) is way, way out there in left field. Evidence he died in the link below.

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

 

[QuestioningMind]

The women are only "nameless" to the Biblically-challenged, who haven't done their own reading and due-diligence.

How Many Women Visited the Tomb of Jesus? | Cold Case Christianity

In addition, there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

Okay... so that's just a long way of admitting that you can't tell me who this 'group of women' was or how you can KNOW that what they supposedly claimed is true.

Thanks for clarifying what I already knew.

 

[Darkstorn]

Sorry, Old Badger, but your revisionist ideas (i.e. Jesus didn't die on the cross) is way, way out there in left field. Evidence he died in the link below.

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

Don't make me laugh.

United Church of God - Wikipedia

You're claiming that a specific denomination's bible studies amount to evidence. The only source it uses is the bible. The only references it quotes are bible quotations... You cannot prove the claims of the bible WITH the bible.

You have exactly the same evidence for Jesus' resurrection as you have for Gandalf's resurrection.

(I'll give you a hint: None.)

 

[Trailblazer]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity. If Christ is not risen from the dead, Christianity dies an immediate death.

Why do you think that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the crux of Christianity? I thought the cross sacrifice is what was supposed to atone for the sins of humanity so it seems to me that should be the crux of Christianity.

Why do you think the Resurrection of the body of Jesus is so important? Is it because that is the only way the Jesus could return to earth?

Actually, I believe it is the Person of Jesus, His Mission and His Teachings that are the crux of Christianity and the cross sacrifice was simply the culmination of all that, a demonstration of His Love for humanity.

 

[Trailblazer]

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, there are several categories of problems with the Resurrection.

To show there was an historical resurrection, it's necessary to establish that:

1. There was an historical Jesus.
2. He had an ordinary human body and brain. [Some Christologies deny this.]
3. As a result of crucifixion, his body and brain became irreversibly dead, not as a matter of appearance but as a matter of fact.
4. He came back to life, in a physical body, with his personality, memories, intellect &c as they'd been before. However, various new and non-human qualities are attributed to his resurrected body.

As to 1, there's insufficient evidence to settle the question one way or the other. So all further arguments must be understood to begin, "Given there was an historical Jesus, then ...."

As to 2, unless you wish to put an alternative view, I'll proceed on that basis.

As to 3, the evidence for the events of the resurrection is of abysmal quality. I'll come back to that shortly. Meanwhile, the mainstream version says Jesus appears to die on the cross, is stabbed in the side to establish his death, and is taken down; the body is prepared in the usual fashion, taken to JofA's tomb and sealed inside it. The fact is that the medical knowledge did not exist in 30 CE (and indeed arguably doesn't exist now) to give an unambiguous determination of death in the absence of decay. At no stage is it claimed that Jesus' body was seen in a state of decay.

As to 4, the dead Jesus is said to be able, after his resurrection -
- to move about unseen
- to be seen as an unidentified person in the company of people who know him very well but to remain unrecognized by them until he chooses to be recognized
- to speak, touch and eat
- to appear inside locked rooms and to disappear from them
- to physically ascend unaided and with no exterior support or propulsion into to the sky

To which the impartial listener to these reports might be heard to murmur, My eye and Betty Martin ...

And the defenders of the tales to say that it was a manifestation of supernatural powers.

So at this point I ask you, as the provoker of this debate, to tell us by what method, in your view, these things were done; and if you're of the supernatural school, to tell us why the idea of the-supernatural-in-reality is not, just of itself, a contradiction in terms, since there's no distinction between 'nature' and 'the world external to the self' and 'objective reality'.

The only place where supernatural things are known to happen is in the imagination, no?

The next thing is the evidence. There are six accounts of the resurrection, Paul's, those of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and the one in Acts 1.

None is an eyewitness account. (An eyewitness account reads along the lines of "I was present at this place on this occasion. I saw A, B and C there. I heard A say the words "..." and B replied "..." ─ and so on. If you claim that you're reporting someone else's eyewitness account, then unless you reproduce word for word what that someone said, your report is at best merely hearsay.)

None is a contemporary account. The earliest is Paul's, in the 50s CE so not less than twenty years down the track. Mark's is some 45 years late, Matthew's and Luke's about 55 years late, John's about 70 years late, and the reference in Acts 1 about the same or a bit later.

None is an independent account.

They have in common that each of them irreconcilably contradicts the other five in major ways. To give you the general idea, not one of these questions has a unanimous answer:

Who went to the tomb?
What did they see?
Were there any guards?
What did they do?
Did they see anyone else there?
What did they do next?
To whom did Jesus first appear?
How?
Where did the people there go?
To whom did Jesus second appear?
Where?
With what result?
To whom did Jesus third appear?
Fourth appear?
Fifth appear?
When did Jesus ascend into heaven?
From where?​

I repeat: Not one of those questions has a unanimous answer. The closest we ever get is that four of the six accounts agree Mary Magdalene is part of the answer to the first question.

That's to say, the evidence is of abysmal quality.

As usual when I say that, I mention the videos of Ganesha drinking milk (one example here at 2:50). They don't persuade me, and I haven't heard a single Christian say he or she was persuaded either; but for quality of evidence they're light years ahead of the NT accounts of the resurrection.


Then there's the point that resurrections were standard fare for gods in the old days, so no surprise if Jesus gets one. As you know, there are three in the Tanakh (not counting Saul consulting Samuel's ghost), three plus Jesus in the NT plus Matthew's zombies, many many more in the mythologies of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, the Celts, and so on.

If you tell me what real thing you intend to denote when you say 'God', such that we have a test to tell us whether any real thing or being is God or not, I'll happily try to answer your question. Without that, I have no idea what you're talking about. And without that, you don't either.

AWESOME post..... Can I post the link to your post on my forum? There is a Christian I am posting to there who I have been posting to for about five years now. We are friends but we vehemently disagree on religious beliefs. He is convinced that Baha'is have "trashed" the Bible when really all we do is interpret it differently.

Of course, we disagree on the "bodily" resurrection because Baha'is do not believe Jesus ever came back to life, that which would have been impossible had He really been dead for three days. One problem I have is that I do not know the Bible very well at all and obviously you do, so your arguments would shed some new light on the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, Old Badger, but your revisionist ideas (i.e. Jesus didn't die on the cross) is way, way out there in left field. Evidence he died in the link below.

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

Not a very reliable source. Apologists tend to be liars for Jesus. Can you find anything that passed peer review?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't make me laugh.

United Church of God - Wikipedia

You're claiming that a specific denomination's bible studies amount to evidence. The only source it uses is the bible. The only references it quotes are bible quotations... You cannot prove the claims of the bible WITH the bible.

You have exactly the same evidence for Jesus' resurrection as you have for Gandalf's resurrection.

(I'll give you a hint: None.)

Wait just one second there partner, I have read TLotR many times and yes Gandalf the Grey does come back as Gandalf the White.

Frodo lives!

 

[Darkstorn]

Wait just one second there partner, I have read TLotR many times and yes Gandalf the Grey does come back as Gandalf the White.

Frodo lives!

I'd argue that he comes back as "Saruman as he was intended."

""

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, Old Badger, but your revisionist ideas (i.e. Jesus didn't die on the cross) is way, way out there in left field. Evidence he died in the link below.

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

On that website it says:
One of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was-the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered-is His resurrection from the dead.

But why is the resurrection from the dead one of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was-the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered?

• How does the resurrection prove Jesus was exactly who He said He was? Did Jesus make a big deal over being resurrected, or was it the Church who made a big deal out of it?
• How does the resurrection prove Jesus was the Son of God?
• How does the resurrection prove Jesus was he only One through whom eternal life is offered?