What Convinces You That Jesus Did Not Rise from the Dead?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Essenes were looking for two Messiahs, one priestly, one lay. One died, one did not. Hence one eats food, one is resurrected spiritually. It is the scapegoat, the left and right, good and evil, the spiritually the natural, the two sides of the coin.

Perhaps you don't think that there were two. Then recall the riddle: How does an all powerful God make something so heavy it can't lift it?

That riddle points to no gods at all (at least no all-powerful ones), not to two gods. Invoking multiple all-powerful beings doesn't get rid of the paradox.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the 'observable effects' are the living witnesses. It is they that you should listen to. Perhaps you think it is going to do something physical. It is not about that. The inner change of the person (the hidden pin no') is what it is about. It is the hidden that is important: like the soul, like the mind. The mind has evidence as we see its actions, but it is an offshoot of the soul. The soul or Self is the real inner part, and it is that which is important

I get the distinct impression that you're describing a gut feeling. I don't consider gut feelings to be evidence. Do you?

If what you're talking about is something else, then what makes it different from a gut feeling?

Again, I think you are looking for phsyical things.

No, I'm looking for verifiable things. Real things... whatever form they take.

A materialist mindset will always look for outer things, which we should be looking for inner things. It shows you how much we trust in our five outer senses, even though those senses are told to us by the very mind that we can't see in the first place, and assume it is there. But where? Have you seen one?

It's not that I have perfect trust in our "outer senses"; it's that I have no trust at all for things that are only contained within your brain. There's room for us to be wrong even when we do our best to confirm our beliefs against reality, but there's MUCH more room to be wrong when we don't bother to do even that much and instead just assume that whatever popped into our heads is correct.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I get the distinct impression that you're describing a gut feeling. I don't consider gut feelings to be evidence. Do you?

If what you're talking about is something else, then what makes it different from a gut feeling?


No, I'm looking for verifiable things. Real things... whatever form they take.


It's not that I have perfect trust in our "outer senses"; it's that I have no trust at all for things that are only contained within your brain. There's room for us to be wrong even when we do our best to confirm our beliefs against reality, but there's MUCH more room to be wrong when we don't bother to do even that much and instead just assume that whatever popped into our heads is correct.

and yet everything resides within the mind anyway, no matter what you see. You appear to be a materialist. That is fine. It serves us well in a material world, but that is as far as it can take you/.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

and yet everything resides within the mind anyway, no matter what you see. You appear to be a materialist. That is fine. It serves us well in a material world, but that is as far as it can take you/.

I see you didn't answer any of my questions.

If human ideas backed up by external evidence are unreliable, then why would human ideas without external evidence be reliable? What is it that about a lack of external that - in your mind - makes a claim MORE reliable?

If all you're interested in is gut feelings, remember that other people have gut feelings, too. I have a gut feeling that no gods could possibly exist... however, I recognize that this is unsupported, so I look for evidence for or against the idea.

It's only because I think that intersubjective verifiability is useful that I'm even willing to discuss this issue with you. If I took your advice and just went with my gut like you suggest, I could happily reject any god-claim you felt like making.

Good for you that I value rational thougth too much to do that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I see you didn't answer any of my questions.

What questions? I take it they are present here. I shall read more carefully.

If human ideas backed up by external evidence are unreliable, then why would human ideas without external evidence be reliable?

One is physical, one is spiritual. They is a gulf between them

What is it that about a lack of external that - in your mind - makes a claim MORE reliable?

It doesn't. We live in physical bodies in a physical world. Same for me and you. But spiritual discernment is another things altogether, to which man is not capable of understanding its whereabouts.

If all you're interested in is gut feelings, remember that other people have gut feelings, too. I have a gut feeling that no gods could possibly exist... however, I recognize that this is unsupported, so I look for evidence for or against the idea.

But that is world thinking, physical. Only God gives. You are looking for something that cannot be seen. Metaphysical things are not seen in the physical, by definition.

It's only because I think that intersubjective verifiability is useful that I'm even willing to discuss this issue with you. If I took your advice and just went with my gut like you suggest, I could happily reject any god-claim you felt like making.

It is not a gut feelings. It is spiritual discernment.

Good for you that I value rational thougth too much to do that.

It is good to have rational thought in a physical world. But we are speaking of spiritual things not carnal things. The things of the world are not the things of the spirit, nor can they be.
What is needed is found within you.
When that is found, then you will see what is without.
That is the way it is

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What questions? I take it they are present here. I shall read more carefully.

I asked what the difference is between your "spiritual discernment" and a gut feeling.

One is physical, one is spiritual. They is a gulf between them

What makes an unsupported belief "spiritual"? What makes spiritual beliefs reliable?

It doesn't. We live in physical bodies in a physical world. Same for me and you. But spiritual discernment is another things altogether, to which man is not capable of understanding its whereabouts.

If you're not capable of understanding it, then you can't validly use it as a basis for knowledge claims.

But that is world thinking, physical. Only God gives. You are looking for something that cannot be seen. Metaphysical things are not seen in the physical, by definition.

Then you have no knowledge of metaphysical things. Maybe they exist, maybe they don't, but what you're saying implies we don't have the tools to even begin telling the difference.

It is not a gut feelings. It is spiritual discernment.

What's the difference?

It is good to have rational thought in a physical world. But we are speaking of spiritual things not carnal things. The things of the world are not the things of the spirit, nor can they be.
What is needed is found within you.
When that is found, then you will see what is without.
That is the way it is

This still strikes me as the words of someone who wants to just not subject his beliefs to critical thought. I get the distinct impression that "spiritual discernment" is nothing more than a term you use to try to distract us from the fact that you don't have a solid foundation for the beliefs you're peddling.

 

[Cephus]

Personally, I stand unconvinced that Jesus existed as a literal being.

Oh, I'm sure there was a person or persons who actually existed upon whom the raiments of godhood were posthumously draped. The Jesus as described in the Bible certainly didn't exist, the one who did miracles and raised from the dead, that's a total fiction. There may or may not have been someone at the kernel of the myth though, but just a man, certainly not a god.

 

[pearl]

Building on these points, I think it's telling that the older the date of the gospel, the less miraculous the story.

In Mark, we have a very secretive Jesus who tells the people he heals not to tell anyone what's happened, and the gospel ends (in the original ending, anyhow) without a resurrected Jesus at all; just an empty tomb and a bunch of confused and fearful disciples. It's only as the other gospels are written over the next several decades that miracle accounts start getting added onto this original story.

One can follow the theology and Christology at work in the NT from Paul through the Gospels. There is no nativity in Paul, Jesus is simply 'born of a woman', Jesus' crucified is the risen Lord. Mark, Jesus is recognized as God's son at His baptism, Matt and Luke Jesus is recognized as the Son of God at birth, John, Jesus is pre-existent word. Within the Synoptic gospels is an ascending Christology, a descending Christology in John. There is a book by Pinchas Lapide, a Rabbi whose expertise is in NT interpretation,'The Resurrection of Jesus A Jewish Perspective, in which he states that there is sufficient evidence that Jesus' resurrection was an historical event. He does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but that resurrection is within Jewish belief.

 

[Khaleel]

One can follow the theology and Christology at work in the NT from Paul through the Gospels. There is no nativity in Paul, Jesus is simply 'born of a woman', Jesus' crucified is the risen Lord. Mark, Jesus is recognized as God's son at His baptism, Matt and Luke Jesus is recognized as the Son of God at birth, John, Jesus is pre-existent word. Within the Synoptic gospels is an ascending Christology, a descending Christology in John. There is a book by Pinchas Lapide, a Rabbi whose expertise is in NT interpretation,'The Resurrection of Jesus A Jewish Perspective, in which he states that there is sufficient evidence that Jesus' resurrection was an historical event. He does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but that resurrection is within Jewish belief.

Sorry, but there's a truer version that makes sense: The birth of Jesus is indeed a miracle, though less miraculous than the creation of Adam from clay and water... Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus as a 'Word of God' who breathed into her of His Spirit. No man involved (and thus the proposed genealogy starting from Joseph back to Abraham is non-sense). This is in no way a reason to consider Jesus as the son of God (or as God on Earth...). He was a man like other men, eating and working, thinking and talking... But he was sent as a prophet to Israel to bring them back to God, on the right path... Though they wanted him to die, he wasn't killed. They were made to believe that he was on the cross, but in reality someone else, who was made by God to resemble Jesus, was crucified. Jesus (peace upon him) was risen to God, which means that there's no resurrection. Jesus remained alive and he will come back to fight the antichrist when God allows that !
Something else...of utmost importance! Just as Moses predicted the coming of Jesus ("Moses wrote of me." (John 5:46), Jesus prophesied the sending of another prophet after him whom he called 'Paraclete': "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you into the age (to come)." John 14:16 - That Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came indeed with the last and closing religion, Islam.

 

[Khaleel]

I do not want to believe anything just because it's what I've always believed. I grew up in a charismatic Christian home. I used to believe in creation; but, now, I believe in evolution.

So, I'm presenting to you (in the next post) with a research paper I wrote about the resurrection of Jesus. I sincerely want to hear from you guys about this, especially those who have thought through the issue. Please, poke holes, ask questions, present new information, etc.

For me, faith is very important, and that's why I don't want to believe things that are flat out wrong. If God is, then I want to please Him, and I want to orient my life around that. But I want the truth, whatever it is. I want to follow fact, no matter how disorienting it may be, no matter how much disillusionment may come my way as a result.

Whatever our backgrounds, we'll all in the same boat. We're all going to die, and I want to know what's true. So, I have an open mind.

Dear... When reading your post, we feel that you're really looking for the truth! Of course, no-one can bring you tangible proofs, but faith can come by praying God for that. We believe that God created this universe and all that is found in it for the sake of humans, and thus created the first man, Adam, gave him intellect and language...and then all his off-spring, which means we're all brothers and to Him we shall go back for an eternal life... God sent prophets and messengers asking people to believe in Him, to do good to each other and to get ready for the hereafter. So, it's unreasonable to believe in various religions as God is ONE. After prophets like Enoch and Noah..., came Abraham, then later on Moses, then David and Solomon, then Jesus, then the last prophet (peace and blessings upon them all) with the closing religion.
We Muslims are required to believe in them all and in the Books they came with, but it's Islam that we consider as the last religion to follow, and all humanity is concerned... In fact, all prophets are mentioned in the Coran as 'muslims', the word meaning 'submission to the one God. As far as the resurrection of Jesus is concerned there's a truer version in the Coran which you should read carefully (attached file). In a word, it wasn't Jesus who died on the cross. Jesus was neither crucified nor killed, but God raised him to Him and he'll come back by the end of time to rule on Earth and to fight the antichrist. Read about all this in the Coran...

 

[s2a]

I do not want to believe anything just because it's what I've always believed. I grew up in a charismatic Christian home. I used to believe in creation; but, now, I believe in evolution.

So, I'm presenting to you (in the next post) with a research paper I wrote about the resurrection of Jesus. I sincerely want to hear from you guys about this, especially those who have thought through the issue. Please, poke holes, ask questions, present new information, etc.

For me, faith is very important, and that's why I don't want to believe things that are flat out wrong. If God is, then I want to please Him, and I want to orient my life around that. But I want the truth, whatever it is. I want to follow fact, no matter how disorienting it may be, no matter how much disillusionment may come my way as a result.

Whatever our backgrounds, we'll all in the same boat. We're all going to die, and I want to know what's true. So, I have an open mind.

 

[Jumi]

Just because many people believe doesn't mean it's true. There is no evidence for resurrection.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only vampires rise from dead.

 

[Cephus]

Only vampires rise from dead.

And zombies.