The resurrection of Jesus.

[waitasec]

I did, and I did. Here it is again:

Also, the pretext also sets up the idea for a physical resurrection. Taking the whole passage in context, it makes a lot of sense.

We see that the whole idea is that the body, after the resurrection is changed. That after the resurrection, the physical body becomes a spiritual body. The perishable body becomes an imperishable body. We are told clearly that the body will be changed.

So no, the context of the passage does not suggest a spiritual resurrection in the idea that only the soul is resurrected. It supports the idea of a physical resurrection which changes the body into a spiritual body, and imperishable body.

1 cor 15:44 If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

again, it doesn't make sense...why was the body missing, mr theologian?

50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—

seems to me he's talking about the soul mr theologian, and not only that- not all of them will die when jc comes back...
well lookey here, they're all dead

 

[fallingblood]

again, it doesn't make sense...why was the body missing, mr theologian?

I explained it already. In depth. But here, lets make it simple. When Jesus died, that was it for his natural body. With the resurrection, his natural body, which was made of flesh and blood and thus was perishable, was changed to the spiritual body, which was imperishable. There is no suggestion that the resurrection was just taking the soul, as you claimed. Instead, we see that Paul says that one is changed, the perishable is made imperishable. Thus, the reason the body was missing is that it was resurrected, and in that resurrection, was made imperishable.

So really make it simple, the reason the body was missing is because it was resurrected. That is how Jesus was able to supposedly appear to people. Again, no suggestion that it was the soul that was resurrected.

seems to me he's talking about the soul mr theologian, and not only that- not all of them will die when jc comes back...
well lookey here, they're all dead

He never states anything about the soul. And I've gone over this in depth. Those who are dead, will be resurrected. Those who are alive, will be changed. Paul states that.

Can you show anywhere that Paul is talking about the soul? No, because there is no reason to assume that he is talking about the soul based on his background. I've gone over all of this already.

 

[kingdombuilder]

From post#25, pg. 3:"...If it could be shown to be true, I would accept it, most likely."

Your replied to post appered very confused to me and I believe it is this line your wrote that answers why. Read it very carefully and feel free to read your entire reply again, the reference has been given above as well.

In essence what you have admitted here is that even if a resurrected Jesus was shown to be true, it may not matter because you might still refuse to believe it...even though it had been shown to be true. This to me clearly points to a heart issue rather than a head (intellectual) issue. If this is indeed the case, the real question you need to be asking yourself, is why you might still refuse to believe in a resurrected Jesus even when evidence might be given that shows it to be true.

 

[fallingblood]

From post#25, pg. 3:"...If it could be shown to be true, I would accept it, most likely."

Your replied to post appered very confused to me and I believe it is this line your wrote that answers why. Read it very carefully and feel free to read your entire reply again, the reference has been given above as well.

In essence what you have admitted here is that even if a resurrected Jesus was shown to be true, it may not matter because you might still refuse to believe it...even though it had been shown to be true. This to me clearly points to a heart issue rather than a head (intellectual) issue. If this is indeed the case, the real question you need to be asking yourself, is why you might still refuse to believe in a resurrected Jesus even when evidence might be given that shows it to be true.

The reason is very simple. Jesus being resurrected, in my opinion, is not logical. It would be a miracle, and thus, the least likely thing to have occurred. With that said, it would be very difficult for me to believe that it happened, even if shown proof.

More so though, it would raise many other questions. Such as, what happened to Jesus after the resurrection? The ascension is also, in my opinion, illogical. It is something that can't be proven. So the question would be, where did Jesus go after the resurrection, and why did no one record anything about him?

Even if I saw proof that Jesus was resurrected, it simply raises to many questions that really can't be answered.

 

[kingdombuilder]

The reason is very simple. Jesus being resurrected, in my opinion, is not logical. It would be a miracle, and thus, the least likely thing to have occurred. With that said, it would be very difficult for me to believe that it happened, even if shown proof.

- The very definition and nature of a "miracle" is that it is a rare occurance. Otherwise it would not be considered a miracle.
- Simply because something has a low chance of occuring does not mean that it is necessarly illogical.
- In other words, logic is not necessarly determined by probability.

More so though, it would raise many other questions. Such as, what happened to Jesus after the resurrection? The ascension is also, in my opinion, illogical. It is something that can't be proven. So the question would be, where did Jesus go after the resurrection, and why did no one record anything about him?

- Asking "where did Jesus go" would certainly be a good question to ask. However, if one eventually accepts that Jesus was resurrected then any other questions not directly related to the resurrection itself would certainly become secondary in light of the acceptance of a resurrection, would it not?
- Why do you think that "no one recorded anything about him" post resurrection?

Even if I saw proof that Jesus was resurrected, it simply raises to many questions that really can't be answered.

- Questions that have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of a resurrection.
- I still see nothing other than a heart issue here.
- You have already stated that a resurrected Jesus is "not logical," so it should not be surprising that you have not yet "seen" any proof.
- No amount of shown proof would be enough to overcome a heart and mind not wanting or able to see. All such proof for an illogical resurrection or miracle would be simply seen as "not logical."
- Other responses in above quoted post.

 

[Hawkins]

So what is the most likely explanation for the resurrection of Jesus?

No matter what that piece of "explanation" is, it requires faith to believe. You believe by faith that resurrection can be explained in some other way than what the Bible says.

Actually I demanded God to prove to me about Jesus and He did. I manage to figure out that the characteristic and process of death are well documented in the Bible, which inevitably lead me to think that if such a process is somehow documented into the Bible, someone must actually have died and returned to write it down.

 

[fallingblood]

- The very definition and nature of a "miracle" is that it is a rare occurance. Otherwise it would not be considered a miracle.
- Simply because something has a low chance of occuring does not mean that it is necessarly illogical.
- In other words, logic is not necessarly determined by probability.

You missed one thing though. I simply stated that in my opinion, being the key point, that the resurrection is not logical. Also, your definition of miracle isn't quite right. There are many things that are rare occurrences, that are not miracles.

- Asking "where did Jesus go" would certainly be a good question to ask. However, if one eventually accepts that Jesus was resurrected then any other questions not directly related to the resurrection itself would certainly become secondary in light of the acceptance of a resurrection, would it not?

Yes, and that is why I put those questions in a secondary light. If I accepted the resurrection, as soon as I asked those secondary questions, I would once again have to assume that it never happened.

- Why do you think that "no one recorded anything about him" post resurrection?

Can you point out any credible records?

- Questions that have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of a resurrection.
- I still see nothing other than a heart issue here.

Actually, those questions tie directly in with the resurrection.

- You have already stated that a resurrected Jesus is "not logical," so it should not be surprising that you have not yet "seen" any proof.
- No amount of shown proof would be enough to overcome a heart and mind not wanting or able to see. All such proof for an illogical resurrection or miracle would be simply seen as "not logical."
- Other responses in above quoted post.

That is nothing more than a cop out. What evidence is there?

 

[fallingblood]

No matter what that piece of "explanation" is, it requires faith to believe. You believe by faith that resurrection can be explained in some other way than what the Bible says.

Incorrect.

Faith:complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I don't have to have complete trust or confidence in those explanation.

Actually I demanded God to prove to me about Jesus and He did. I manage to figure out that the characteristic and process of death are well documented in the Bible, which inevitably lead me to think that if such a process is somehow documented into the Bible, someone must actually have died and returned to write it down.

Return? Jesus never wrote down anything.

Also, I'm not denying the crucifixion of Jesus. I'm denying the resurrection.

 

[kingdombuilder]

-- Actually, you both are correct in certain senses of the term. You left out an important element of "faith" in your definition.

From the merriam webster dictionary we read the following definition: : "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Complete trust."

Note the part you left out of your definition "for which there is no proof." While you can claim there is no proof for the resurrection (at least according to your perspective) the same could be pointed out for your position, that there is no proof against the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, yours could be considered just as much a "faith" position as those who claim otherwise.
-In fact this is very much implied in your initial post for this thread. While you do give a couple of reasons for your current belief (we do not see people rising from the dead today and it would be the least likely explanation in explaining the resurrection/ probability - responded to in another post), these can not be said to be "proof" for your belief.

 

[kingdombuilder]

One of your questions was what evidence is there (for the resurrection of Jesus).

For starters, take a look at your 1st post on the thread here. You stated one of the problems with the grief theory. For some, this problem is seen as evidence and was enough to cause them to believe in the resurrection account. Now granted, you may not consider it as proof or evidence, but then, who said that proof and evidence are necessarly objective and universal in nature? I have found that when one speaks of evidence and proof, persuasion is just as much a factor, if not more so, than simple artifacts of evidence in holding to a belief. What may persuade one person may not, and usually does not persuade another.

 

[fallingblood]

-- Actually, you both are correct in certain senses of the term. You left out an important element of "faith" in your definition.

From the merriam webster dictionary we read the following definition: : "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Complete trust."

Note the part you left out of your definition "for which there is no proof." While you can claim there is no proof for the resurrection (at least according to your perspective) the same could be pointed out for your position, that there is no proof against the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, yours could be considered just as much a "faith" position as those who claim otherwise.
-In fact this is very much implied in your initial post for this thread. While you do give a couple of reasons for your current belief (we do not see people rising from the dead today and it would be the least likely explanation in explaining the resurrection/ probability - responded to in another post), these can not be said to be "proof" for your belief.

I actually left out nothing. The definition that I used is quoted in full. The key point though is the complete trust. I've been open that I don't have complete trust in my idea, and that is why I'm questioning it and trying to learn more about it in general. Faith is not playing a part in my belief here.

 

[fallingblood]

One of your questions was what evidence is there (for the resurrection of Jesus).

For starters, take a look at your 1st post on the thread here. You stated one of the problems with the grief theory. For some, this problem is seen as evidence and was enough to cause them to believe in the resurrection account. Now granted, you may not consider it as proof or evidence, but then, who said that proof and evidence are necessarly objective and universal in nature? I have found that when one speaks of evidence and proof, persuasion is just as much a factor, if not more so, than simple artifacts of evidence in holding to a belief. What may persuade one person may not, and usually does not persuade another.

Just because one idea is false, it does not mean the alternative is true. It isn't even evidence that the alternative is true.

I'm open to hear the evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) or proof (evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement) that support the resurrection. If none can be presented, there is no reason for me to entertain the idea.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Just because one idea is false, it does not mean the alternative is true. It isn't even evidence that the alternative is true.

- I never stated otherwise. Perhaps you misunderstood the point. I was simply introducing the concept of persuasion and the role it plays in one's beliefs which they hold. Evidence and proof and how much or of what quality they are are actually secondary to how easily or difficult a person may be persuaded by various arguments, "evidences," and even problems raised by other arguments.

- I personally think that how difficult or easily a person is persuaded depends on their personal bias toward certain ideas and subjects, and general heart attitude concerning a subject.

I'm open to hear the evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) or proof (evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement) that support the resurrection. If none can be presented, there is no reason for me to entertain the idea.

Ok then, what "evidences" presented for the resurrection are you familiar with and why do you not accept (not persuaded by ) them?

Other response above in blue.

 

[waitasec]

Out of all of the supernatural claims made about Jesus, this is one that I have the hardest time with. Just to start out, I do not believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus. The reason being that it defies what we knows happen. People simply do not come back from the dead. Since it is a miracle, it is the least likely thing to occur in that situation.

I've heard a couple of theories on explanations of how the resurrection came into the Jesus tradition. The one that I like the most, at this point, is the idea that in a time of grief, a human can have visions of the dead. We have many documented cases of this phenomena, so it is a logical possibility. It still happens to this day, and even looking at various third world countries (parts of Asia, especially underdeveloped parts of India), there have been cases in which people are believed to have come back from the dead.

The problem with this theory that I see is that multiple people having a vision of Jesus, at the same time, would be unlikely. It is somewhat of a stretch to assume that all of the visions can be explained from this phenomena, especially considering the accounts of him appearing before large groups. My only explanation for this would be something I've seen happen frequently when performing magic. That is the fact that people have a tendency to create a miracle in their minds, and honestly believe it. But I don't think that perfectly fits either.

Another interesting idea that I've considered is the possibility that Jesus did survive the crucifixion. However, just knowing what the crucifixion entailed, I am more apt to believe that he was left on the cross, and later picked apart by scavenging animals.

So what is the most likely explanation for the resurrection of Jesus?

simple, it never happened.
the gospels were oral traditions for many, many years before they were written down...up to about 95 years..
it is a legend, a fairy tale... an urban legend of the time

 

[fallingblood]

simple, it never happened.
the gospels were oral traditions for many, many years before they were written down...up to about 95 years..
it is a legend, a fairy tale... an urban legend of the time

That answers nothing. If it is a fairy tale, why was it created? That is what I'm asking.

And not, the Gospels we have do not go back 95 years after Jesus died. More like 60 years.

 

[fallingblood]

Ok then, what "evidences" presented for the resurrection are you familiar with and why do you not accept (not persuaded by ) them?

Other response above in blue.

The only evidence I've heard is what is listed in the Bible. Yet, the Bible accounts do not record it the same.

 

[kingdombuilder]

The only evidence I've heard is what is listed in the Bible. Yet, the Bible accounts do not record it the same.

-Then let's start there. Why are you not "persuaded" by what is found in the Bible? List specifics, what apparent contradictions are you refering to?

- Also give specifics as to why you currently are more persudaded by any arguments/evidence against a resurrected Jesus than for.

 

[dogsgod]

simple, it never happened.
the gospels were oral traditions for many, many years before they were written down...up to about 95 years..
it is a legend, a fairy tale... an urban legend of the time

What evidence is there for an oral tradition existing for many years? Sure, some pieces of the story may be drawn from oral traditions, but over all, what evidence is there that suggests oral tradition played a significant role?

 

[fallingblood]

-Then let's start there. Why are you not "persuaded" by what is found in the Bible? List specifics, what apparent contradictions are you refering to?

- Also give specifics as to why you currently are more persudaded by any arguments/evidence against a resurrected Jesus than for.

How many angels were present after the resurrection of Jesus? Who first witnessed the resurrection? Were their any guards present? The Gospels do not agree on these aspects. Plus, there was never any expectation that the Messiah would die and be resurrected. More so, if we look at Paul, he claims that without a general resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus makes no sense.

 

[kingdombuilder]

How many angels were present after the resurrection of Jesus? Who first witnessed the resurrection? Were their any guards present? The Gospels do not agree on these aspects. Plus, there was never any expectation that the Messiah would die and be resurrected. More so, if we look at Paul, he claims that without a general resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus makes no sense.

The above will be addressed, but first...what about the second part of my post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdombuilder
-Then let's start there. Why are you not "persuaded" by what is found in the Bible? List specifics, what apparent contradictions are you refering to?

- Also give specifics as to why you currently are more persudaded by any arguments/evidence against a resurrected Jesus than for.