What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

[godnotgod]

Wow, the Christian just can't win, can she? If she has proof (in the form of resurrection) she doesn't have faith. If she doesn't have proof she's irrational.

2 questions:

What does the resurrection symbolize to you?

Without the resurrection, would your faith remain as strong as it is now?

 

[Dunemeister]

2 questions:

What does the resurrection symbolize to you?

It's a sign of the new life that awaits the cosmos.

Without the resurrection, would your faith remain as strong as it is now?

Without the resurrection, I might continue to have faith. It just wouldn't be in Jesus anymore. I'd probably convert to Judaism or Noahide or Islam most likely.

 

[Dunemeister]

There is no proof of resurrection. It's impossible!

Death is when no remnants of life remain and nobody has ever returned. NOBODY!

Beg questions much?

 

[godnotgod]

It's a sign of the new life that awaits the cosmos.

You're out of touch. The cosmos is being renewed at each and every moment as it unfolds. The cosmos is always new, never old, as it is eternal, infinite, and timeless. Since it is also unborn, it cannot die. Deathless, it requires no resurrection, no renewal. It does cycle, however. off..on...off again, but it is always there, like the light that is switched on or off. In other words, it is not a created thing, subject to destruction, but an eternal entity, now you see it, now you don't....peek a boo!

Get with it.

Without the resurrection, I might continue to have faith. It just wouldn't be in Jesus anymore. I'd probably convert to Judaism or Noahide or Islam most likely.

Why? Does the lack of a resurrection change what Jesus taught; change his authenticity, or the power of his sacrifice to redeem sin?

The traditions you mention don't have a resurrected savior. Why would those be preferable?

See? That terrible burden of gnawing doubt about the authenticity of the resurrection is now lifted off your back. There now. Does'nt that feel oh, so much better? And did you notice? Yawheh did not strike you dead on the spot for that tiny little spot on your brain where, for a single nano second, you had doubt. Now go, and sin no more!

 

[Dunemeister]

You're out of touch. The cosmos is being renewed at each and every moment as it unfolds. The cosmos is always new, never old, as it is eternal, infinite, and timeless. Since it is also unborn, it cannot die. Deathless, it requires no resurrection, no renewal. It does cycle, however. off..on...off again, but it is always there, like the light that is switched on or off. In other words, it is not a created thing, subject to destruction, but an eternal entity, now you see it, now you don't....peek a boo!

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The resurrection means what it means, and if you disagree,

Get with it.

Do you normally find chiding a persuasive rhetorical strategy?

Why? Does the lack of a resurrection change what Jesus taught; change his authenticity, or the power of his sacrifice to redeem sin?

Well yes, the lack of a resurrection DOES change what Jesus taught, particularly about his future resurrection. It also calls into question his claim to be the Messiah and his claim to be the harbinger of God's renewal to the cosmos.

(And by the way, God doesn't redeem sin, he redeems people. He forgives sin.)

The traditions you mention don't have a resurrected savior. Why would those be preferable?

Because I'm convinced that if Christianity isn't correct, at least its parent religion is.

See? That terrible burden of gnawing doubt about the authenticity of the resurrection is now lifted off your back. There now. Does'nt that feel oh, so much better? And did you notice? Yawheh did not strike you dead on the spot for that tiny little spot on your brain where, for a single nano second, you had doubt. Now go, and sin no more!

Except I have no gnawing doubt. You're prescribing a remedy for a non-existent condition.

 

[Ba'al]

Well yes, the lack of a resurrection DOES change what Jesus taught, particularly about his future resurrection. It also calls into question his claim to be the Messiah and his claim to be the harbinger of God's renewal to the cosmos.

Muslims don't believe there was a resurrection and yet it doesn't prevent them from believing what Jesus taught. And yes, they believe all the good stuff about Jesus that you do, just not that he was God.

Because I'm convinced that if Christianity isn't correct, at least its parent religion is.

You should do some research on Islam. The Quran was revealed to correct the false teachings and scripture that is contained in some of the bible.

 

[Smoke]

Actually, he says there were 500 at one time. That is, Jesus showed up in public. He includes this report alongside those of the official apostles, all of whom actually interacted with Jesus. So whatever they experienced, it wasn't "visionary," or somehow all in their heads.

Again, there have been plenty of public apparitions of the Mother of God.

That's true. So one has to wonder what it was about the original Christian testimony that it was believed by so many so quickly in the geographical area where plenty of opposition had the means and the motive to stamp out the movement....

Yeah, you've got me there. I should have specified rational people.

This thread asks for evidence. Apparitions and religious enthusiasm don't constitute evidence.

 

[Smoke]

There is no such consensus, because there is no consensus that Jesus existed.

Actually, there's a pretty fair consensus that Jesus existed, and also that the gospels are not historically factual.

That is, there's not much doubt among serious scholars that Jesus existed, but they also don't claim to know much about him with any certainty.

 

[Smoke]

Wow, the Christian just can't win, can she? If she has proof (in the form of resurrection) she doesn't have faith. If she doesn't have proof she's irrational.

Did you actually read the post you responded to? Because this is a very odd response.

 

[johnhanks]

Again, there have been plenty of public apparitions of the Mother of God.

Uh-huh, and most of them are about as convincing as the Chicago subway wall stain - i.e. not convincing at all. Look, Smoke, if the Mother of God really is up there right now with her son and the rest, what possible motive could she have for revealing herself in vague likenesses on tortillas or subway walls? Why not come out in the open and descend in full glory, silencing atheists and waverers forever and establishing the absolute hegemony of God's Kingdom? Your answer will refer to god's ineffable purposes being beyond human comprehension; my far more parsimonious answer is that the supposed likenesses are random depositions which our innate pattern-seeking drive links up with images we internalised in infancy.

 

[Dunemeister]

Muslims don't believe there was a resurrection and yet it doesn't prevent them from believing what Jesus taught. And yes, they believe all the good stuff about Jesus that you do, just not that he was God.

There are actually a great number of differences of detail (including the most important one about Jesus being the final prophet....), although you are right that they hold Jesus in high esteem.

You should do some research on Islam. The Quran was revealed to correct the false teachings and scripture that is contained in some of the bible.

Yawn.

 

[Smoke]

Uh-huh, and most of them are about as convincing as the Chicago subway wall stain - i.e. not convincing at all. Look, Smoke, if the Mother of God really is up there right now with her son and the rest, what possible motive could she have for revealing herself in vague likenesses on tortillas or subway walls? Why not come out in the open and descend in full glory, silencing atheists and waverers forever and establishing the absolute hegemony of God's Kingdom? Your answer will refer to god's ineffable purposes being beyond human comprehension; my far more parsimonious answer is that the supposed likenesses are random depositions which our innate pattern-seeking drive links up with images we internalised in infancy.

First, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a believer. I'm not.

Second, I'm not talking about seeing the Mother of God in tortillas, cheese sandwiches, and bathroom doors. I'm talking about people claiming to see weird phenomena which they interpreted as her apparition or an attendant miracle. The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, for instance, or the apparitions at Zeitoun.

If I don't believe Mary spoke to Bernadette Soubirous, why should I believe her son spoke to Paul? If I don't believe in the visions of Nat Turner, Joseph Smith, or Ramakrishna, why should I believe in the visions of the early Christians? If I don't believe in the revelations to Zoroaster, Muhammad, or Nakayama Miki, why should I believe in revelations to Peter or Paul?

If we accept visionary experiences as evidence, there is very little we won't believe.

 

[johnhanks]

Good post.

First, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a believer. I'm not.

Second, I'm not talking about seeing the Mother of God in tortillas, cheese sandwiches, and bathroom doors. I'm talking about people claiming to see weird phenomena which they interpreted as her apparition or an attendant miracle. The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, for instance, or the apparitions at Zeitoun.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. Even so, I'd be interested to see your criteria for distinguishing between an illiterate peasant seeing Mary's face in a tortilla, and 'people claiming to see weird phenomena which they interpreted as her apparition'.

If I don't believe Mary spoke to Bernadette Soubirous, why should I believe her son spoke to Paul?

Well, one reason might be that the entire edifice of Christianity is not threatened if the former never occurred, but is in dire peril if we discount the latter.

If we accept visionary experiences as evidence, there is very little we won't believe.

Amen to that.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The resurrection means what it means, and if you disagree,

So the resurrection has no meaning in and of itself in terms of a Christian's current spiritual life, but only as a sign pointing to a future event. My God! A god-man had to create a miracle of such proportions just to signify cosmic renewal? That could have been done by many other means, far less dramatic. Prophecy alone would have sufficed. You are using a hatchet to kill a fly.

The Crucifixion, on the other hand, actually does something directly to the soul of man.

Well yes, the lack of a resurrection DOES change what Jesus taught, particularly about his future resurrection. It also calls into question his claim to be the Messiah and his claim to be the harbinger of God's renewal to the cosmos.

Are you certain those were'nt words put into Jesus's mouth? Are you aware that Yeshua did not believe in the resurrection of the body, and that Mithraism did, which is most likely where the idea came from, or more exactly, from the pen of one St. Paul?

Because I'm convinced that if Christianity isn't correct, at least its parent religion is.

Is that logical? It may be that Christianity is but an outgrowth of a delusive idea to begin with.

Except I have no gnawing doubt. You're prescribing a remedy for a non-existent condition.

If that were true, you would not have stated that IF the resurrection turned out to be false, etc.....

If there were no doubt, the resurrection would be understood as a given fact. It is not, hence, this discussion. Even Christians state that it is a matter of faith.

 

[godnotgod]

What many (most) people are unaware of is that inside the Buddhist community, for example, initiates routinely see apparitions and visions which are as real to them as if someone were standing right in front of them. These occur during intense meditation sessions during certain times of the year called sesshin. During private meetings with the head of the monastery, the roshi, these students excitedly proclaim things such as: "I saw Jesus!", or "I saw the Buddha!", even "I saw Mary!", etc. Because the roshi understands the delusive nature of these visions, having been through these experiences himself prior to his own enlightnenment, he calmly instructs the student: "Yes, I understand. Now I want you to return to your meditation mat and focus on your breath." "But roshi, you don't understand! I actually saw Jesus! He was right there, right in front of me!". Yes, I know you did. Now just go back to your meditation."

These experiences, many of them in all of the Buddhist monasteries throughout the world, are never publicized, but are actual nonetheless.

 

[Dunemeister]

So the resurrection has no meaning in and of itself in terms of a Christian's current spiritual life, but only as a sign pointing to a future event. My God! A god-man had to create a miracle of such proportions just to signify cosmic renewal? That could have been done by many other means, far less dramatic. Prophecy alone would have sufficed. You are using a hatchet to kill a fly.

The Crucifixion, on the other hand, actually does something directly to the soul of man.

Well, the resurrection does do something. Through it, God pours out his spirit into his people (those who are and will be). But you asked me what it symbolizes, not what it does.

Are you certain those were'nt words put into Jesus's mouth? Are you aware that Yeshua did not believe in the resurrection of the body, and that Mithraism did, which is most likely where the idea came from, or more exactly, from the pen of one St. Paul?

Are you aware of just how deceived you are?

Is that logical? It may be that Christianity is but an outgrowth of a delusive idea to begin with.

That's entirely possible, but I'm convinced it's not.

If that were true, you would not have stated that IF the resurrection turned out to be false, etc.....

My conviction to the contrary does not impede my ability to entertain a contrary counterfactual, even if only for the sake of argument or discussion.

If there were no doubt, the resurrection would be understood as a given fact. It is not, hence, this discussion. Even Christians state that it is a matter of faith.

I don't buy the "fact/matter of faith" distinction, so....

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, there's a pretty fair consensus that Jesus existed, and also that the gospels are not historically factual.

That is, there's not much doubt among serious scholars that Jesus existed, but they also don't claim to know much about him with any certainty.

Smoke, I respect your opinion, and I also expect you to have reasonable evidence to back up such a claim. On what basis do you claim a consensus of belief among serious modern scholars (by which I take you to mean historians)? And I am not taking the word "consenus" in its literal sense to mean 100% agreement. I would say that the figure should be in the 90th percentile, however, for such a claim to be accurate.

 

[Dunemeister]

Smoke, I respect your opinion, and I also expect you to have reasonable evidence to back up such a claim. On what basis do you claim a consensus of belief among serious modern scholars (by which I take you to mean historians)? And I am not taking the word "consenus" in its literal sense to mean 100% agreement. I would say that the figure should be in the 90th percentile, however, for such a claim to be accurate.

Copernicus, why don't you survey the relevant literature and tell us what you find?

 

[footprints]

What many (most) people are unaware of is that inside the Buddhist community, for example, initiates routinely see apparitions and visions which are as real to them as if someone were standing right in front of them. These occur during intense meditation sessions during certain times of the year called sesshin. During private meetings with the head of the monastery, the roshi, these students excitedly proclaim things such as: "I saw Jesus!", or "I saw the Buddha!", even "I saw Mary!", etc. Because the roshi understands the delusive nature of these visions, having been through these experiences himself prior to his own enlightnenment, he calmly instructs the student: "Yes, I understand. Now I want you to return to your meditation mat and focus on your breath." "But roshi, you don't understand! I actually saw Jesus! He was right there, right in front of me!". Yes, I know you did. Now just go back to your meditation."

All that really says is the roshi is not really enlightened. And I suppose one of the reasons the monks lead the attacks on the chinese forces.

One cannot blame the students for poor quality teaching.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, why don't you survey the relevant literature and tell us what you find?

Well, my friend, you are just as capable as any of us, so I pass the homework assignment back to you. I was more interested in why Smoke believes the claim that a near consensus of scholars believes in the historical Jesus. I can easily imagine why you would believe such a thing, but I consider Smoke more objective about the question of the historicity of Jesus. Personally, I have never come across any data to support that claim, and I have looked for it.