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

[F1fan]

And opinions about the historicity of the gospels and the evolution of Christian beliefs are not "history" even if you might think that those opinions are what actually happened.

History won't assume supernatural events and causes. That's left to religion.

I have met people who say that the only reason that people cannot fly is that they have been told that since they were little.
Many people have been told that God is not real and any historical evidence of God is rubbish and the only reason people believe it is because they have been told since little.

Humans can't fly, it's a fact. Whether any gods exist is not factual. I was told a God exists, and I questioned it as a kid. As I got older and able to reason I found the claims of a God existing baseless, and absurd. Then I studied why so many will adopt weird and untrue ideas and it is how the human brain evolved. Notice you are appealing to emotions in your claims, not facts. You're like many people who believed in the religious lore they were told, and now as an adult you still won't question it.

Neither of us can prove our view on the supernatural or offer verifiable evidence. We believe our views on faith.

That's the advantage for those who use the rules of logic. The logical default is to not believe in ideas that lack evidence. Notice you admit you can't prove a suvernatural exists, so we throw it out.

I don't want to be wrong, true.
History scholars are meant to be neutral about the supernatural but in fact they reject it in their historical work, true.

Why shouldn't they, you admit it can't be shown to be true. They are being honest. If you want to believe in your myth then all you have is your religion. Hisory won't help you. Science won't help you. Reason won't help you. You are stuck with faith and Christian lore.

You can believe that if you want to.

There's nothing to believe, a supernatural isn't apparent in reality. It's you who believe it does exist, and not for rational reasons. That's your burden alone.

The enlightenment did not expose the Bible as more prose than history. That is just opinion about all supernatural events in historical writings. That is just what scholarship does, reject the supernatural. Some people then think that since scholarship cannot tell us that the supernatural in historical documents is real, that means that it is not real.
Even historians, who are meant to be neutral about religions and the supernatural etc end up assuming that the supernatural elements are not true and end up in circular arguments about for example, when the gospels must have been written and by whom.

There is no basis to assume any supernatural exists. It is ethical to not assume religions are correct in their claims. You sound bitter that scholarship follows ethics, and isn't a tool for Christianity. That's Christianity's problem that it has absurd concepts that can't be shown to be true. You still have your faith, which is not reliable.

If people say that the only way to find real truth is through empiricism, physical evidence, then they end up saying that the only way to find the truth about things that by definition, leave no physical evidence, is through physical evidence. This of course is no more than faith in your empirical dogma.

Following facts and data works, is reliable, and verifiable. Faith is unreliable, and thinkers know to avoid it if they seek truth.

You have faith in your empirical dogma even when it comes to things that there cannot be physical evidence for.

Of course what you aren't saying is that it's a different definition of religious faith.

Then of course you deny that and just repeat that there must be physical evidence or it is not real. You deny that you use faith.
I don't mind admitting that I use faith when it comes to my beliefs about stuff where there cannot be physical evidence.

This is a terrible argument. First you're mixing two different definitions. Second, if we are using faith and we are wrong (in your opinion) then you admit faith is worthless. So you only sabotage your own use of faith.

Of course mundane faith is what any human can be said to use, like having faith that other drivers will follow traffic laws and not crash into us. Religious faith is something else, it's the accepting of irrational ideas for the sake of identity and meaning, usually in religious belief.

Critical thinkers cannot recognise when they use faith or not.

Odd criticism when you aren't aware that you are conflating two different definitions. You clerly illustrate that you aren't a critical thinker yourself. Self-sabotage, or serious mistake because you aren't a critical thinker?

So now you seem to be saying that Jesus may have existed and so you don't believe the story of Jesus is not true.

There may have been a person the myth was based on. We really don't have many records to demonstrate what happened.

As for Ashera, the Bible tells us about her and why she became involved in the religion of Israel.

Really? Where? What is she up to today? Did she get fired by Christians?

If you want to believe the scholarly version, that Israelites were really Canaanites and that Yahweh was originally part of Canaanite religion, that is up to you.

Yes, I seek truth, and I trust historians who seek truth. I'm wary of anyone with a religious agenda, like you. You're seeking validation for your religious beliefs, not truth.

The oldest mention of Yahweh however is in an Egyptian temple (Soleb Inscription) and talks of a wondering group of nomads (nomads of Yahweh) to the north of Egypt around 1400 BC.

Amazing how these cultural ideas spread around the Middle East as people travelled and civilizations grew and evolved.

 

[F1fan]

Would it be absurd and implausible to suggest that DNA could be used to resurrect an animal long dead?

This is doable by science. But has nothing to do with the topic.

A 'De-extinction' Company Wants to Bring Back the Dodo

A de-extinction company known for its plans to resurrect the mammoth and Tasmanian tiger has announced it will also bring back the dodo

www.scientificamerican.com

Or that a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being could take that one step further and actually resurrect the specific person?

Extraterrestrials are plausible since they would be natural beings that came about through some natural process. But the topic is a supernatural being bringing back dead tissue to life. Dr. Frankenstein is said to be able to do it.

I think skeptics object to the myth, its history, what it stands for, not the possibility and probably not the origin but rather the misrepresentation that became the myth.

The myth isn't objectionable, it's the claim that the myth is true that critical thinking can't be justified. The history? That would explain how the myth evolved over time, and is believed true by some in modernity despite being irrational and absurd.

 

[Jimmy]

I know that feeling but it's subjective and unreliable.

Is it?

 

[I Am Hugh]

This is doable by science. But has nothing to do with the topic.

A 'De-extinction' Company Wants to Bring Back the Dodo

A de-extinction company known for its plans to resurrect the mammoth and Tasmanian tiger has announced it will also bring back the dodo

www.scientificamerican.com

Extraterrestrials are plausible since they would be natural beings that came about through some natural process. But the topic is a supernatural being bringing back dead tissue to life.

If it's possible for us to do it with science (current knowledge) it is plausible that more advanced extraterrestrials could do it. I.e. then possible future science of our own. How could have Peter walked on water? Through Jehovah God's dynamic energy, holy (sacred, belonging to) spirit (invisible force producing visible results. i.e. wind, breath). God, a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being, provided assistance for prophets, disciples and Jesus to walk on water, heal, and resurrect. God provided Jesus, in his pre-human, supernatural existence, to create the heavens (spiritual and physical), the universe and planet earth through his holy spirit. The universe and earth are material, as are living things.

The difficulty lies within the fact, what are we, aside from the obvious physical, material? The soul of Greek philosophy (Socrates, Plato) say it's some immortal part of us, spiritual, immaterial. The Bible teaches that it is our life, blood, memories, life experiences. The Hebrew word for soul basically means breather. How would a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being or future science resurrect a person, their soul? Not in the same body, but with the same experiences, memory?

Dr. Frankenstein is said to be able to do it.

Clever. Are extraterrestrials supernatural?

The myth isn't objectionable, it's the claim that the myth is true that critical thinking can't be justified. The history? That would explain how the myth evolved over time, and is believed true by some in modernity despite being irrational and absurd.

The same was said of the possibility of mechanical flight, whales, giant squid.

 

[Kfox]

My wife doesn't. Nor does my family. And they are all Christian.

Hence my reference to a "no true Scotsman" fallacy..

If your wife and family does not believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, what do they think the bible meant when it says he rose from the dead?

 

[Sargonski]

I think the word soul is a fancy way of saying person

or perhaps person a fancy way of saying soul .. either way .. What do semantics have to do with the resurrection of the soul ... sans the physical body .. which may negate personhood Right ?

 

[Sargonski]

No .. spiritual souls don't eat broiled fish, and have physical wounds.

and neither did Zombie Jesus .. kind of the point of - there is no physical resurrection in the original version of the story.

 

[Jimmy]

or perhaps person a fancy way of saying soul .. either way .. What do semantics have to do with the resurrection of the soul ... sans the physical body .. which may negate personhood Right ?

Like I said he was resurrected. Body soul whatever you wanna call it.

 

[The Hammer]

If your wife and family does not believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, what do they think the bible meant when it says he rose from the dead?

According to my best friend it is a myth and multiple stories about being a better person, by giving someone a goal to aim for (Jesus' mythical perfection). Same thought for my wife.

Outside of that? You'd have to ask my family.

 

[The Hammer]

If your wife and family does not believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, what do they think the bible meant when it says he rose from the dead?

Here is what others have to say on the topic:

"Some say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as a metaphor that represents a new way of living, such as:

Living without limitations

Choosing to live as if life has an eternal meaning, even though we know it will end

Looking to the future

Putting the past behind us and living towards a new future where mistakes can be replaced with better choices

Some scholars believe that early Christians used "resurrection" as a metaphor for Jesus's influence that could still be felt

Life conquering death and sin

Seeing the resurrection as a symbolic representation of life overcoming death and sin "

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the original version of the story..

Original version? Do you refer to the apocrypha?

Whatever..

 

[Balthazzar]

Here is what others have to say on the topic:

"Some say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as a metaphor that represents a new way of living, such as:

Living without limitations

Choosing to live as if life has an eternal meaning, even though we know it will end

Looking to the future

Putting the past behind us and living towards a new future where mistakes can be replaced with better choices

Some scholars believe that early Christians used "resurrection" as a metaphor for Jesus's influence that could still be felt

Life conquering death and sin

Seeing the resurrection as a symbolic representation of life overcoming death and sin "

or truth overcoming deception, lies, and ignorance. We need a way of seeing and understanding things and although we get all mixed up in vain philosophy and emotion sometimes, we eventually find a center somehow and it's typically truth oriented.

 

[River Sea]

As I understand the Word (Logos) it's everything and not limited to a single book, and I take special care to rightly divide it, although I'm not always 100% or even 10%, but that's the aim. To rightly divide the Word of truth, we are required to search things out and hold true to what is true. That's the Christian way as I understand it and this goes far beyond the scriptures, but the scriptures are part of the Word. Again, I don't expect you to believe anything you are incapable of believing. Blind men don't make very good guides and without some evidence being substantiated, faith becomes moot due to it having no works. Grace? Well, daft is an operative term for many of us and it's sometimes by the hair of our chinny chin chins that we are "saved" at all.

This popped up after I made an inquiry about Greek philosophers on you tube. It appears Socrates didn't make out as well as others have, but he did understand a basic premise about understanding. I call it critical thinking. Apparently, it's called the Socratic method.

Go figure.

@Balthazzar
All because Socrates asked questions, he has to die. How come these authorities wouldn't allow people to ask questions? What were they afraid of if people asked questions?

 

[Balthazzar]

@Balthazzar
All because Socrates asked questions, he has to die. How come these authorities wouldn't allow people to ask questions? What were they afraid of if people asked questions?

Probably something to do with truth, possibly limiting their ability to manipulate others via deception.

 

[Sargonski]

Original version? Do you refer to the apocrypha?

Whatever..

Holy Scriptural unawareness Robin ! "whatever" .. Sorry mate .. its not "whatever" . In the original version of the story aka "The Gospel of Mark" There is no physical resurrection .. no Jesus in the flesh wandering around after death .. first book of the Bible .. the first version of the story. The author of Mathew .. writing a few decades later .. uses all of Mark sans a few passages he doesn't like .. derogatory to Jesus or the Disciples .. a little early "Pious Fraud" if you like ..but small scale "sin of omission" .. and who are we to Judge

The key Output here is that Matt is version two of the original story .. adding a few key items that did not exist in the earlier- Original version such as a Virgin Birth .. geneology back to David .. and well .. this whole Physical Resurrection Business never happens .. the story ends with an empty tomb .. the reader is left to wonder what happened.

 

[F1fan]

If it's possible for us to do it with science (current knowledge) it is plausible that more advanced extraterrestrials could do it. I.e. then possible future science of our own.

Yeah. And still irrelevant.

How could have Peter walked on water?

Embellishment.

Through Jehovah God's dynamic energy, holy (sacred, belonging to) spirit (invisible force producing visible results. i.e. wind, breath). God, a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being, provided assistance for prophets, disciples and Jesus to walk on water, heal, and resurrect. God provided Jesus, in his pre-human, supernatural existence, to create the heavens (spiritual and physical), the universe and planet earth through his holy spirit. The universe and earth are material, as are living things.

None of this is factual, or even plausible, so irrelevant. You're citing religious lore, and it isn't evidence.

The difficulty lies within the fact, what are we, aside from the obvious physical, material?

Of course? What is immaterial and also real?

The soul of Greek philosophy (Socrates, Plato) say it's some immortal part of us, spiritual, immaterial.

That's belief, not fact.

The Bible teaches that it is our life, blood, memories, life experiences. The Hebrew word for soul basically means breather.

Ancient people believed many weird things.

How would a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being or future science resurrect a person, their soul? Not in the same body, but with the same experiences, memory?

The 1995 film Strange Days included a plot point where human experiences could be recorded and then played back for others. I think at some point there could be technology that can do this. But soul? No one can really define what that is.

Clever. Are extraterrestrials supernatural?

As I already stated, no more than we humans. Note that if we were to travel to some other planet that had living beings capable of awareness and thinking WE would be the extraterrestrials.

The same was said of the possibility of mechanical flight, whales, giant squid.

Humans can't fly, but birds can, so we knew it was possible in reality, and humans needed to fugure out how birds do it. We did, and we designed planes. It only took 40 years for humans to have a first controlled flight to having jet fighter planes.

 

[Brian2]

Well you would claim that .. because you yourself, assume the NT to replace the OT.
The OT being included for reference.

The OT is the word of God together with the NT. Even though the Jews who rejected Jesus disagree, the ones who accepted Jesus and Christians today say that what Jesus did fits the OT prophesies of the Messiah.
OTOH Islam straight out denies the accuracy of parts of both the OT and NT.

There's not a lot in it, when it comes to the difference in law between Islam and Judaism.
Of course, many retort with the changes to the Sabbath .. but as many 'Christian countries'
now open commercially 24/7, perhaps they should reflect on that one!

The whole thing is that the keeping of moral precepts is not the way to show God how good you are and in fact, law was there to show us that we could not keep it all and needed to rely on God and His mercy. For a Christian, the Spirit of God has been given so that we can learn to hear and be led by the Spirit rather than obey a set of rules.

 

[Kfox]

Here is what others have to say on the topic:

"Some say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as a metaphor that represents a new way of living, such as:

Living without limitations

Choosing to live as if life has an eternal meaning, even though we know it will end

Looking to the future

Putting the past behind us and living towards a new future where mistakes can be replaced with better choices

Some scholars believe that early Christians used "resurrection" as a metaphor for Jesus's influence that could still be felt

Life conquering death and sin

Seeing the resurrection as a symbolic representation of life overcoming death and sin "

Do these Christians believe Jesus was born from a virgin? And was the Son of God? How do they believe Jesus died, and at what age?

 

[The Hammer]

Do these Christians believe Jesus was born from a virgin? And was the Son of God? How do they believe Jesus died, and at what age?

Did you miss the myth part? The details are less relevant than the meaning behind it. Or as some people want to say the "truth" behind it. The moral, the lesson.

But don't take it up with me. I would take it up with the Christians who think this way. You may be able to find a church and/or pastor in your area willing to discuss.

I'm Pagan and have no bone in this. Merely wanted to relay that not everyone takes things as literal fact.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In the original version of the story aka "The Gospel of Mark" There is no physical resurrection .. no Jesus in the flesh wandering around after death .. first book of the Bible .. the first version of the story. The author of Mathew .. writing a few decades later .. uses all of Mark sans a few passages he doesn't like .. derogatory to Jesus or the Disciples .. a little early "Pious Fraud" if you like ..but small scale "sin of omission" .. and who are we to Judge..

Oh dear .. the Bible is not reliable as a 'Holy Scripture', in that case .. and hence we can presume
that Mark might not be accurate either.

The key Output here is that Matt is version two of the original story .. adding a few key items that did not exist in the earlier- Original version such as a Virgin Birth..

You merely pick and choose what miracles you wish to believe in .. your prerogative.

I have the Qur'an as well as the Bible, of course. G-d remains as G-d.
"Surely, we belong to God .. and to Him we will return"