Why Don’t You Believe Jesus Rose From The Grave?

[joelr]

It was true 2000 years ago and it is the foundation of the Christian faith. It is why the disciples of Jesus believed Jesus was whom He claimed to be. It is what Jesus said He would do. If Jesus did not rise from the dead they would have gone back to fishing etc just as followers of other so called Messiahs did when their Messiahs did not do what the Messiah was to do. Jesus however showed that God was on His side and that He was alive and would continue to do what the Messiah was to do.
It is these days in Western culture that people are called fanatics for believing the plain simple truths of the gospel.

Actually in those days people were not interested in what was true and they didn't think about historicity, they just accepted stories that set them apart from other nations and their stories. Truth wasn't important.
Your book says Jesus did this, Islam has a book that says Muhammad did this, Mormons have another, Hindu have another, all claims. All mythology.
Jesus didn't show anything. The story made that claim. It also used Greek theology and was nothing new at all.



The ORIGINS of Christian Mythology | Drs Dennis MacDonald & Richard Miller

1:20 When folk tales and myths were originally presented (Jesus, Appolonias, Buddha…), they were happily presented without concern about historical truth. Being true was not even the point.


Why did this change in modern times?




2:10 We need to understand the enlightenment, science became more important than other considerations. In the ancient world what mattered most about their stories is not that they were true but were more satisfactory to the identity of these communities.


What makes the narrative work is the cohesiveness of the story, it gives the people an identity different than other groups. Your hero is more virtuous than your enemy.

The enlightenment gave a new way of thinking. Logic, truth, evidence. The ancient people did not think this way.

In The Bible Unearthed (the best summary of the scholarship on the OT), archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has the same conclusion:


For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community



21:33 These stories did not start as folklore (the Gospels), they are intellectual engagements with the classical tradition (imitating Homer etc…) Written by elite educated intellectuals imitating the classics like Homer and using fictive writing styles.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No Ho Ho

Of course, you can disagree, but it is just your personal opinion.

The myth about Santa describes him as having omniscience, knowing when children all around the world are sleeping or awake, or if they've been naughty or nice. And this is not to mention his alleged divine power to deliver different toys to every child in the world in a single night while riding in an oversized sleigh through the air pulled by eight flying reindeer. Many of the stories about Jesus in the Bible describe him as having omniscience and divine power to perform supernatural miracles (walking on water, turning water into wine, miraculously healing the sick, raising the dead, and being resurrected from the dead himself). In the popular stories about him and Santa Claus, both were given specific divine attributes that made them appear to be godlike.

 

[InChrist]

In my 51 years of life, I've only met a few Christians who actually live up to what they profess as Christians. To be honest, if it weren't for my husband, who is a devout Christian, and a few other genuine ones I know, I would loathe Christians because of how many of them have badly treated me my entire life.

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with Christians. I have had my share, too, with those who profess to be Christians, yet certainly don’t reflect Christ likeness. But I think the scriptures give abundant warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Jimmy]

I was a devout Catholic for years (or tried to be), and I converted at 17 and wasn't from a Catholic family, so I had to actually study and learn things about Christian theology to convert. I wanted to join a religious order for a long time. I tend to know more about religion in general than most people do. I could tell you about the teachings from almost any religion you mention.

That’s quite an accomplishment

 

[Jimmy]

Of course, you can disagree, but it is just your personal opinion.

The myth about Santa describes him as having omniscience, knowing when children all around the world are sleeping or awake, or if they've been naughty or nice. And this is not to mention his alleged divine power to deliver different toys to every child in the world in a single night while riding in an oversized sleigh through the air pulled by eight flying reindeer. Many of the stories about Jesus in the Bible describe him as having omniscience and divine power to perform supernatural miracles (walking on water, turning water into wine, miraculously healing the sick, raising the dead, and being resurrected from the dead himself). In the popular stories about him and Santa Claus, both were given specific divine attributes that made them appear to be godlike.

Or should I say yo-yo yo. - Homie Clause

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That’s quite an accomplishment

Thank you.

 

[1213]

Because dead people have rotten brains that can't put the central nervous system to work.

If God can create life, I don't see why he could not restore life also. This regular life is as great miracle as would be to raise someone from death.

But, this is interesting matter. If we give scientists a dead cell, that has all parts for functional cell, they can't make it living. What can be the missing thing that causes life? At the moment it seems only God can give life.

 

[danieldemol]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

My thoughts are if you reflect on why you presumably believe my great grandfather from 2000 years ago didn't rise from the grave you'll probably cover most of the bases all by yourself in my view.

Honest question, do you believe in Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon allegedly written on gold plates and translated by Smith as received from an angel?

Or do you believe it is easier to get people with a vested interest to believe in a tale, or is there some other option that I'm unaware of?

To me Jesus alleged rising from the grave falls into the same category as the book of Mormon or the angel Gabriel dictating the Qur'an to Muhammad in a cave. Much more likely to be a tale told initially to the credulous and later on reinforced though indoctrination than an actual historical event in my view.

 

[blü 2]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Death is the irreversible cessation of the body's life support systems.

The only way any human, including an historical Jesus, could 'rise from the grave' is by not being dead in the first place.

Moreover, none of the NT accounts of the resurrection is credible and none is by an eye-witness ─ you couldn't renew a dog license with evidence of that quality. I set out some of the details on this link >Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus<.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Because I believe/have faith in a different version of reality.

 

[Brian2]

I wonder when exactly the myth of Jesus was written, and became part of the basis of the religion. S we know the Gospels were written long after the time Jesus was supposedly alive.

The resurrection story is just one of those things that historians see as having been there as part of the gospel from before it was written down. Christians believed it from the start and there is no reason to think that it was added on later.

There's no reason to treat the Gospels as history.

Modern history does not accept the supernatural. In theory it is supposed to treat it in a neutral way but in practice the dating of the gospels and authorship are worked out with the assumption that the supernatural events did not happen. This is circular reasoning.
And of course the whole gospel story cannot be seen as history also because of the supernatural elements in it and surrounding it.

Because the Enlightenment spoiled the non-reasoning believer's default. No one who inteprets the Bible literally does so based on facts and reason, they have other non-rational motives. It's apparent most believers have no idea why they believe, they just do. They mimic those who taught them.

Christians admit that they have a faith. If people believe the gospel is not true, that also is a belief not based on facts.
It is reasonable however to believe in the literal Jesus of the gospels.

 

[Tomef]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Technically he was in a tomb.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why don't I believe that Jesus existed as depicted, and rose from the grave? Well, mostly because I don't believe God exists, and hence the truthfulness of any so-called prophets including Jesus Christ. Religions seem to need some kind of unique selling point to persuade people as to believing in them and such supposed miracles like this is just one way to do this. The afterlife is another obvious carrot as to enticing people into having such beliefs, and perhaps why so many religions do have such as part of their doctrine. And to me, religious texts are simply not verifiable as having that kind of authority to be acceptable as proper evidence rather than what they should be seen as - simply being of their times.

But even if there is a God I still doubt the truth of religions simply based on the probabilities of so many different belief systems occurring, the differences between them, the truth of any particular one, and the deficits of having so many, given that they do conflict so often and tend to cause aggressions and even wars - as shown by history and the present.

 

[Brian2]

In response to the OP, I'm reposting what I wrote in his previous threads with similar topics. I explained why I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection.

To be honest, reading about Jesus in comparative mythology was very eye-opening for me, and it made me realize that the stories told about him in the Bible (e.g., virgin birth, miracles, cruxifixion, death, and resurrection) weren't as unique and compelling as I had previously believed. I began to recognize the significant impact that paganism had on Christianity, as I explained in the following paragraphs. Of course, my opinion is based on what I've learned.

I think that it is essential to consider the biblical accounts of Jesus in the context of comparative mythology and recognize that the savior story about him in the Bible is not the first of its kind. There are other stories of Christlike figures that predate both the Bible and Christianity. In light of my own research on the subject, I've concluded that if Jesus (the English adaptation of Yehoshua/Yeshua) had lived 2,000 years ago, then he was just an ordinary man and a popular religious teacher whose followers spread embellished stories about him, including modified stories about demigods from Greek mythology and other pagan religions that would make him appear godlike. For example, if you replace the name Jesus with Attis (the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation), you'll see a strikingly familiar savior story similar to that of Jesus, except the Greek myths about Attis are dated 1250 BCE, which predates Christianity and the Bible (source). You could also replace the name Jesus with any of the other Christlike figures discussed in the articles I linked. There are even more similar myths that parallel the stories of his divine birth, performing supernatural miracles, walking on water, miraculously healing the sick, raising the dead, as well as his alleged crucifixion, death, and resurrection. You will see that the stories about him are not unique, including his savior story, which, in my opinion, is no more credible than all of the other savior stories that preceded it. As shown in the articles, it is just one among many of the same kind.

10 Christ-Like Figures that predate Jesus

The Truth About Mythological Figures Similar To Jesus

Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ

In conclusion, I believe that most of the biblical stories about Jesus are plagiarized pagan myths, demonstrating that these stories are not unique and that paganism had a substantial impact on Christianity. In my opinion, the stories about him were greatly embellished, either copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions that his followers were aware of at the time or stories based on hearsay that became more elaborate as they spread. Do you know how you can tell a story to a group of people, and over time the original story changes substantially because some people forget what was said, so they guess by making something up to fill in the blanks, or they add their own narratives to embellish the story? I believe this could be the reason why the stories of Jesus vastly spread from region to region and that these stories about him were greatly embellished to make him appear to be godlike and even the son of the Abrahamic God. Again, what I've stated in my post is my personal opinion. I realize that others will disagree with me.

I think it's yet another example of how paganism has had a significant impact on Christianity. In this article, "Mythic Origins of Christianity and How It's Similar to Paganism," there are other examples of how Christianity parallels pagan religions that predate it. More examples can also be found in this article: "The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence." I think it's obvious that paganism also had an impact on Christmas (see here) and Easter (see here).

Despite Christians' claims that the Bible was inspired by God and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world, I believe these other stories prove that neither the stories about Jesus nor Christianity are as unique as Christians claim. Considering all of these facts disputing the authenticity of Christianity, I don't believe that the stories of Jesus are any more credible or believable than all the other similar savior stories from ancient pagan religions.

Myths are told as myths and have little or no connection with real history. The gospel is connected to real people in real places and is foretold in the prophecies of the Jews.
The mythical stories you presented are not as similar to Jesus as is made out and that can be seen from reading them.

 

[ChristineM]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

I have a very different view of jesus which is based on the situation at the time. My view is, whoever was interrered in the cave was not dead.

 

[GoodAttention]

I have a very different view of jesus which is based on the situation at the time. My view is, whoever was interrered in the cave was not dead.

You mean josesus tomb right?

 

[ChristineM]

You mean josesus tomb right?

I mean the cave where he was interrered, call it what you like

 

[Brian2]

Actually in those days people were not interested in what was true and they didn't think about historicity, they just accepted stories that set them apart from other nations and their stories. Truth wasn't important.

The truth of the gospel story is stressed by the apostles and disciples in the New Testament who witnessed Jesus and the risen Jesus.

Your book says Jesus did this, Islam has a book that says Muhammad did this, Mormons have another, Hindu have another, all claims. All mythology.
Jesus didn't show anything. The story made that claim. It also used Greek theology and was nothing new at all.

There is a lot of stories in Greek mythology and a lot of different theologies. It would be strange if Christianity did not share parts of theologies in Greece at the time.

In The Bible Unearthed (the best summary of the scholarship on the OT), archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has the same conclusion:


For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community

Finkelstein and Silberman are Biblical minimalists and many other archaeologists disagree with what they say in "The Bible Unearthed".

21:33 These stories did not start as folklore (the Gospels), they are intellectual engagements with the classical tradition (imitating Homer etc…) Written by elite educated intellectuals imitating the classics like Homer and using fictive writing styles.

No the gospel story started in Israel with Jesus and what He did.
People just like making things up about why the gospels cannot be true.

 

[Brian2]

I have a very different view of jesus which is based on the situation at the time. My view is, whoever was interrered in the cave was not dead.

If you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead then either the body was stolen or the buried Jesus was not dead. That is if you believe at all that Jesus was crucified.
The resurrection story makes sense of the spread of the gospel however. I don't think it was spread by people who knew they were spreading a lie,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as in, "Hey fellas, let's spend our lives spreading the lie that Jesus was actually whom he claimed to be and that he rose from the dead".
These disciples seemed to be Jews who were seeking the truth and the real Messiah of Israel. I would think that they would just go back to fishing if Jesus proved to not be the Messiah.

 

[ChristineM]

If you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead then either the body was stolen or the buried Jesus was not dead. That is if you believe at all that Jesus was crucified.
The resurrection story makes sense of the spread of the gospel however. I don't think it was spread by people who knew they were spreading a lie,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as in, "Hey fellas, let's spend our lives spreading the lie that Jesus was actually whom he claimed to be and that he rose from the dead".
These disciples seemed to be Jews who were seeking the truth and the real Messiah of Israel. I would think that they would just go back to fishing if Jesus proved to not be the Messiah.

Not a lie but a belief.

My view is detailed here
My view on Jesus.