So, was Jesus Resurrected?

[cj.23]

More cerebral I'm sure.

But can I ask your own views on the resurrection? Do you take it more seriously than the tales being told about the leaders of North Korea?

I don't know anything about the chap other than he appeared genuinely loved and his body was displayed among huge amounts of lamentation by the people, so I would find it hard to make a judgment. But yes I believe in a Resurrection of Jesus Christ, sure, but not for any reasons related to to this thread's scope. I'll explain cheerfully after - you can't really accuse me of concealing my biases, as my signature has been the same since i joined the forum a little while back. (Actually not sure, maybe a few years back now!) -- EDIT OK, three years ago. I just post fairly intermittently!

 

[Lothian]

I'm interested in the historical issues of the Resurection, as it came up in DOC's thread an I thought I'd have a go as he was rather busy with his stuff...

cj x

What historical issues? The only issue is the one you have described in the thread title, 'was Jesus Resurrected?'

We know Doc's answer "Yes, because it is in the bible so it must be true."

You appear to be saying, "it is in the bible, that does not make it true but something must have happened. Let us see what could have happened"

Sounds like wishful speculation to me.

 

[Lothian]

I don't know anything about the chap other than he appeared genuinely loved and his body was displayed among huge amounts of lamentation by the people, so I would find it hard to make a judgment.

We know what the bible says about Jesus and his life, death and the resurrection. I have real problems, when trying to see if the biblical account is credible, people go back to see what the bible says.

I realise there is very little else that can be used. There is no other evidence for the resurrection. I just think it is not something that can be proved either way. And I don't think that means that the chances are 50:50.

 

[cj.23]

What historical issues? The only issue is the one you have described in the thread title, 'was Jesus Resurrected?'

We know Doc's answer "Yes, because it is in the bible so it must be true."

You appear to be saying, "it is in the bible, that does not make it true but something must have happened. Let us see what could have happened"

Sounds like wishful speculation to me.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Yes it is speculation, but clearly the narratives have a root in something, and it's informed speculation. Why distrust the Bible more than any other source? I think looking at the sources is the way to go, but I have spent my day at BBC Birmingham and then running errands for friends so I'm too tired to add much tonight.

OK, let's have another example which might clarify. King Arthur. Whether there was a "Historical Arthur" or not, he clearly bore little resemblance to the Arthur of Mallory and Chretien de Troyes. Yet something happened: at some point the Arthur of romance developed, and given we have earlier references to an Arthur in some Welsh tales and in I believe, and i am half asleep Gildas (actually no I mean Nennius - Gildas never mentions Arthur I think?) we might think there was some historical dude, and some historical events. So was Arthur at the Battle of Mount Badon? Where was Mons Badonicus? Did it ever exist? Even if Nennius made it up (and Gildas does also mention the battle I think), that matters not - because Nennius' creation of the British king is in itself a historical event.

Does that help at all? This is exactly the kind of approach I am suggesting here. I am surprised people are not interested in it as a historical issue at least?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

We know what the bible says about Jesus and his life, death and the resurrection. I have real problems, when trying to see if the biblical account is credible, people go back to see what the bible says.

I realise there is very little else that can be used. There is no other evidence for the resurrection. I just think it is not something that can be proved either way. And I don't think that means that the chances are 50:50.

Sorry missed your edit, and replied to earlier version - but to reply to this: I suspect we may have quite a lot of extra-biblical material to bring to bear on the issue. We know a lot about Roman law and administration, we know about the political backgrounds of the era, we have plenty of information from archeology and medicine on crucifixion, and we can look at if the accounts tally with Jewish burial traditions. But the obvious place to start must be with the biblical accounts: inconsistent, written to further theological agendas. but still accounts which provide us with a basis for a narrative. And I agree, not 50:50, if you mean a supernatural resurrection. The Christian claim is this is a unique event in history - the odds must be trillions to one against a person coming back from the dead, at least. In my experience it does not happen. But the supernatural claims are NOT what I want to look at, but rather the naturalistic hypotheses that underdetermine that claim.

cj x

 

[Lothian]

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Yes it is speculation, but clearly the narratives have a root in something, and it's informed speculation. Why distrust the Bible more than any other source? I think looking at the sources is the way to go, but I have spent my day at BBC Birmingham and then running errands for friends so I'm too tired to add much tonight.

OK, let's have another example which might clarify. King Arthur. Whether there was a "Historical Arthur" or not, he clearly bore little resemblance to the Arthur of Mallory and Chretien de Troyes. Yet something happened: at some point the Arthur of romance developed, and given we have earlier references to an Arthur in some Welsh tales and in I believe, and i am half asleep Gildas (actually no I mean Nennius - Gildas never mentions Arthur I think?) we might think there was some historical dude, and some historical events. So was Arthur at the Battle of Mount Badon? Where was Mons Badonicus? Did it ever exist? Even if Nennius made it up (and Gildas does also mention the battle I think), that matters not - because Nennius' creation of the British king is in itself a historical event.

Does that help at all? This is exactly the kind of approach I am suggesting here. I am surprised people are not interested in it as a historical issue at least?

cj x

A better example (better to me) would be Robin Hood. I understand that there are a few candidates the story can be traced back to. What we will never find is anything (other than in the story) having him split the sheriff of Nottingham's arrow with his own.

Similarly you can look back at the bible story and find evidence for the mundane facts and they can appear credible but as far as the supernatual goes...nothing.

As Doc's favourite historian Sir W Ramsay said "The truth of the historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places the birth of Jesus does not prove the supreme facts, which give human and divine value to the birth are true."

and

"The surrounding facts are matter of history, and can be discussed and proved by historical evidence. The essential facts of the narrative are not susceptible of discussion on historical principles, and do not condescend to be tested by historical evidence"

and

"as to the inner facts, the birth and the divine nature of Jesus, there can (as said above) be no historical reasoning, for those are a matter of faith, of intuition, and of the individual human being's experience and inner life."

The resurrection is a 'supreme fact' that you can only believe with faith.

 

[Limbo]

The Christian claim is this is a unique event in history - the odds must be trillions to one against a person coming back from the dead, at least.

Isn't the claim that it happened to Jesus and that it is a unique one-time-one-place historical event two different claims? I think it happened to Jesus but is not unique per se. The rebirth/resurrection archetype is universal.

 

[I Ratant]

... The Christian claim is this is a unique event in history - the odds must be trillions to one against a person coming back from the dead, at least. In my experience it does not happen. But the supernatural claims are NOT what I want to look at, but rather the naturalistic hypotheses that underdetermine that claim.

cj x

.
Gilgamesh did it first.

 

[tsig]

What about Matthew 27:52-53?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

Looks like Jesus wasn't the only one resurrected.

Created quite a stink.

 

[tsig]

The question of the resurrection is open to empirical verification -we simply have to wait for Jesus to turn up again and then we can ask him.

dlete

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, you already started it. Good show.

I've heard it argued, though I don't accept the argument, that what Paul experienced was the love he saw in a local group of Jewish Christians and that he translated this into Jesus reawakened.

I have a hard time accepting that this is what happened because it doesn't seem to reflect fully how Paul describes the resurrection; and most of the argument seems to precious by half, depending largely on the way that certain words are translated and defined.

Paul seemed to think that there was going to be an actual bodily resurrection and he seems to have thought the same happened to Jesus, at least in the letter to the Corinthians. I'm not sure he would have made the argument that he did in that letter if he thought purely in spiritual, or even sociological terms.

I tend to think that someone dreamed about Jesus, they discussed it, and created what became Christianity out of that experience.

 

[Brainache]

...
Nope. You are not the sole responder in this mode, but this particularly rude tone caught my eye.

Sorry if asking questions about the fundamental tenets of your beliefs is rude, but how else can they be examined if we can't question them?

The Apostle Paul explained that well enough.

1 Cor. 15:14 "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless." ​

That answers for its importance.

I still don't get it. I may be dense, but why should faith in god be dependent on Jesus rising from the dead? If he was a sacrifice to cleanse humanity of sin, shouldn't he stay dead? Is a sacrifice more effective if the lamb gets up and walks around afterwards?

Are you saying that Paul couldn't sell his new religion to the Romans if it just involved some Jewish preacher telling people to be nice to each other, so he had to invent a magical story about miracles and the resurrection to attract converts?

Sorry if this seems off topic, but I thought it was central to the whole question of why people believe in the resurrection.

This puts an interesting light on people searching for Jesus' buried body within a tomb. If said tomb is found, and somebody could demonstrate that the body is/was Jesus, the one crucified under Pilate whom the Bibllical authors referred to (not sure that can be done, given the conventions on how much evidence it takes to convince anybody of anything) then what Paul says rocks the foundations of at least the Greek Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and most likely any church lineally related to either ... which is most/all Protestant churches.

This leads to another question: who benefits from finding this body, if it can be both found and clearly identified?

DR

Documentary filmmakers and the sellers of souvenirs?

 

[Limbo]

- the odds must be trillions to one against a person coming back from the dead, at least.

Only if there is no such thing as psi. If there is such a thing (which there is ), then the odds must be trillions to one in favor of it happening at least once - if the consciousness of the mystic is advanced enough, if they are in tune enough with the rebirth archetype they are manifesting in and through themselves. Apotheosis.

That which we modern folk call 'psi' is of course that which ancients would call 'spiritual power', or 'mana', it's another universal. The power of God, miracles, etc.

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are all children of the most High." -Psalm 82:6

 

[godless dave]

Yes, we an certainly make that inference from our experience, as I agreed in my OP. That does not necessarily make it true, but it is certainly a sound basis to begin. That still leaves the question of what actually happened then? Even if you reject the supernatural a priori,(and I don't personally) it still strikes me as a very interesting question?

cj x

It's not very interesting to me. It's also not answerable. We have no primary sources. All we can do is speculate.

My guess is, Jesus's followers were traumatized by his execution. Here's a guy who preaches love, goodfellowship, and charity, who goes out of his way not to subvert the prevailing political order, and the prevaling political order executes him anyway. Some of his followers were so upset by this injustice that they convinced themselves that he came back to life, either in bodily or spirit form.

Then several decades later some Greek guy named Paul ran into them, and said hey, I could combine some of this Jesus's teachings with Hellenistic philosophical monotheism and make a religion out of it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I still don't get it. I may be dense, but why should faith in god be dependent on Jesus rising from the dead? If he was a sacrifice to cleanse humanity of sin, shouldn't he stay dead? Is a sacrifice more effective if the lamb gets up and walks around afterwards?

Are you saying that Paul couldn't sell his new religion to the Romans if it just involved some Jewish preacher telling people to be nice to each other, so he had to invent a magical story about miracles and the resurrection to attract converts?

Sorry if this seems off topic, but I thought it was central to the whole question of why people believe in the resurrection.

There is more than one aspect to Christianity, if that helps at all.

There is the ethical dimension -- and the resurrection has nothing to do with that. Following the ethical dictates is just something that you should do. One way of talking about this is to call the ethical bits the "religion of Jesus", which was really just a form of Judaism with turn the other cheek added.

The resurrection was supposed to be evidence that God had initiated the general resurrection -- Paul's discussion about if Jesus had not been resurrected, then this is all in vain referred to this part of the story. In other words, the resurrection was supposed to be a promise that believers could also be resurrected, a demonstration of the promise. Instead of the "religion of Jesus", this is more the "religion about Jesus".

Paul, of course, believed that the general resurrection was coming just around the corner, and this is reflected in the gospels where Jesus says that some of the people in front of him will not die before the kingdom of God is realized.

That obviously didn't happen, so we are left looking at the resurrection from the vantage of 2000 years later where it doesn't seem all that, as you point out.

Originally it meant something very important. Now we have to do some mental gymnastics to make sense of it.

 

[six7s]

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Yes it is speculation, but clearly the narratives have a root in something, and it's informed speculation.

Informed? Really? Other than 'it's been quite popular for a while' what informs your speculation?

Why distrust the Bible more than any other source?

Because the bible (OT and NT) is not a 'reference book' - it is a (literally) ridiculous anthology of fiction that is consistently inconsistent with regard to what we know of LTUAE, it's riddled with absurdities and it's littered with contradictions that are exceedingly susceptible to cherry picking interpretations

 

[cj.23]

(much snippage)

"as to the inner facts, the birth and the divine nature of Jesus, there can (as said above) be no historical reasoning, for those are a matter of faith, of intuition, and of the individual human being's experience and inner life."

The resurrection is a 'supreme fact' that you can only believe with faith.

Yes, absolutely. I concur with Ramsay. And I am not interested in discussing the faith claim, as I think my OP makes clear. My perspective is those secondary historical aspects, where we can apply known methodologies and tools to bring light to bear. That may well inform the faith thing I guess, but this is not a faith thread. It's about the Historical Jesus issues.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Informed? Really? Other than 'it's been quite popular for a while' what informs your speculation?

History.. Archeology, Sociology. Psychology, etc, etc?

Because the bible (OT and NT) is not a 'reference book' - it is a (literally) ridiculous anthology of fiction that is consistently inconsistent with regard to what we know of LTUAE, it's riddled with absurdities and it's littered with contradictions that are exceedingly susceptible to cherry picking interpretations

Why do you regard it this way as one book? I think you have a serious problem here. The narratives we are examining, or a few of us are, are from widely divergent authors, theologies, and dates, and seeing them as "The Bible" occludes that central fact. Stop trying to read the events through the canon of a later compilation - try to see each source as a historical documents standing quite independent of the faith tradition, or you will never get anywhere in making a historical assessment?

Think of Harry Prices' The Most HAunted House in England. You can't make an assesmsent of what may or may not have happened at Borley on teh strength of Harry's book as a whole - you have to look at each of the individual narratives and witness statements it contains independently of Price's later interpretative gloss?
cj x

 

[cj.23]

.
Gilgamesh did it first.

I thought a serpent swallowed the flower and he didn't manage immortality in the end?

 

[cj.23]

What about Matthew 27:52-53?

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

Looks like Jesus wasn't the only one resurrected.

Zombie Apocalypse Jerusalem is something we need to discuss. Yep, once I've got some sleep (been out three hours catching a very dumb cat of mine who had strayed, back here purring now) I think that needs some definite discussion.

OK, so what is a first century Jewish idea of a ghost? Is that what this is? Who are the Saints in question? And what on Earth is going on here? And if Matthew was written near the time, assuming the city was not really filled with the walking dead, how did Matthew think he could get away with this
claim? And if it is allegorical, how much more of Matthew is equally allegorical? And if it is not, did the Righteous Dead really walk the streets, cos Holy Zombies is a pretty scary thought (think of various prominent Evangelicals coming crashing in to your house after your brains - yeah I know... , we still have Pat. But make them dead too!)

cj x