• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So, was Jesus Resurrected?

Hi Cj,
Let's assume that you are correct and we have all of these witness statements and they are true sworn personal statements and not merely the hearsay that they all are. Let's consider these witnesses as being real.

These witnesses are all people with an education and world understanding equal to taht of 2000 years ago. Majority are unread. none are unaware how sex results in a baby. Majority have very little understanding of human medicine and how the brain/body works. There are no cameras. There are no videos. There are no anything that would suggest a visual record of Jesus that would make it easy for them to have been able to place a face with a person.

With that said, what confirmation do we have that all these witnesses weren't simply mistaken or decieved?

Doesn't an imposter or a falsely documented death make much more sense to explain the resurrection story?

Why should we beleive that these people couldn't have been fooled? Why should we believe that the people placing Jesus in the Tomb were able to tell the difference between a coma and death?

I must again remind that we have mondern witnesses who swear to have seen Elvis alive in the 80s and 90s. hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses with photos. Does this provide proof that elvis was actually alive or that he was resurrected?
If not, then why should we allow 2000 year old witness statements as proof of a resurrection 2000 years ago?
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a bloke in the park who says he's Jesus, but he won't verify whether he was resurrected or not until I buy him some more surgical spirit. Must be for the nail wounds.
 
The Platypus said:
People need to grow up beyond childish concepts and fear of death... Reality is what it is. Everyone dies, noone ever comes back, noone ever came back. Grow up and cope.
Click to expand...
This is a pointless snipe completely at odds with the friendly and lively discussion cj is asking people to engage in. (See Darat's point on how this can be enjoyable and engaging).

In a friendly and lively way.

Nope. You are not the sole responder in this mode, but this particularly rude tone caught my eye.
Brainache said:
Why is the resurection so important to Christians?
Click to expand...
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.

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
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
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.

DR
Click to expand...

You apparently have low standards for explanations.
 
Darth Rotor said:
...snip...

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.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Or to use my bias for discussing this part of the Christian Bible - for Paul to be an apostle there had to be a resurrection.
 
paximperium said:
"So why is the Resurrection important to Christians?"
"Because Paul said so by fiat."
Click to expand...
*facepalm*

No. Paul actually has more to say than that single line, however, the reasoning that led him to that particular remark is sufficient for his statement to be correct in terms of its impact on Christians. (Not to mention that his sales {Paul's}would plummet).

On a practical level, the resurrection is inextricable in two critical ways: one, in how Christianity differentiated itself from its standard Judaic root, and as the practice evolved, the practice in the Greek and Roman churches of what the Eucharist is, and its importance as a cornerstone of the Faith. Without the Greek and Roman churches, Christianity doesn't get very far. Without the resurrection, the Faith (if it survives at all) becomes something significantly different from what it is today, but my bet is on "fails to spread and grow." Don't know, we are in counterfactual land. Likewise, much of what Paul writes (that later becomes canonical) hits the dustbin, or is edited out when canon is determined, if the Resurrection isn't/wasn't.

DR
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
So, regarding this [CJ: 1 Corinthians], there are several possible objections.
1) Paul made it up.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, a point made by Bikewer this morning I had no time to respond to. I have seen arguments Mark invented it, but they make no sense as Paul predates him. Paul has some kind of intense conversion experience, and may well have invented the whole Jesus figure and story to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. This was the theory put forward by Rational Revolution who I like on the RD.net, and he wrote this little book on it - http://www.lulu.com/content/687167 It's good.

However I think the case is fatally flawed. Firstly, while Paul's Epistles were written in the 50's and 60's they were not collected till the 90's, by which time the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and possibly John were already written. Secondly a major aspect of Galatians (by Paul) and the later Acts of the Apostles is teh conflict over doctrine and authority between the Jerusalem Church (under James, Jesus' brother), and Paul. Now if you are going to make up a dead messiah it seems funny to paint yourself as a peripheral at best figure in relation to him, and to then say you had a major falling out with his brother. Why invent a fictitious brother as a rod to beat your own back?

There are many other issues, but I reject Christ myth for this reason. It's just easier to believe the stories were based on a Galileean preacher who actually existed and inspired a cult. Plenty of those did exist after all, and similar figures appear to this day. A conspiracy to invent him faces the problems of the criterion of embarassment (thinsg which were just awkward that he reputedly said), multiple attestation - the synoptics, Thomas, various other mentions, and the common sense objection we know the cult soon gained ground in teh very area where he was said to live - we might have expected Palestinian Christians ot notice the absolute lack of any memory of their messiah among the general populace, and people who were in Jerusalem in the year in question to go "you what???"

Puppycow said:
ETA: 1.5) Someone made it up and told Paul or someone made it up and told someone else who told Paul, etc.)
Click to expand...

Absolutely - and the likely villain now switches to James, his brother. Except Paul says he was around persecuting them in Jeruslem, it seems within two years of events. I would have thought any decent sceptic suppressing a new cult would have started by checking the easily verifiable facts - this guy was hardly meant to be low key, and the fact there was a cult to suppress that early argues to me Paul was not hoodwinked. He believed he was told the truth, which is far from saying it was true.

Puppycow said:
2) It doesn't actually say Jesus appeared in the flesh, does it? Perhaps he appeared in a dream. I've dreamed of departed loved ones and I don't consider that a miracle.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think here the implication of the 500 witnesses (if they existed) was that he appeare din the flesh so to speak to all of them, but in fact in the Census of Hallucinations (SPR, 1894) multiple witnessed apparitions are quite common, and so in Donald West's later surveys, and in Richard Wiseman's latest. I will get back to seeing departed loved ones later - I have W Dewi Rees article from the British Medical Journal (October 1971) The Hallucinations of Widowhood on my desk in froint of me, but I think we will return to this in a while if that is ok? It's certainly a very good possibility.

Cheers for the intelligent and useful input.
cj x


3) Who are the Twelve? Does it include Judas?[/quote]
 
Puppycow said:
3) Who are the Twelve? Does it include Judas?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I somehow missed this! Thats ia really good question, and the honest answer is I don't know. Yes it includes Judas - a replacement is according to Acts of the Apostles elected by lots. Yet I find it hard to work out how to reconcile all the names given for them. I can tell you the traditional names, and explanations, but we seem to have more than 12, unless like Cephas/Peter some have more than one name - quite possible! Actually just checked and wikipedia is FAR better than I can be here, and seems sound as far as I can tell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)

I have always suspected The TWelve might have been a flaoting inner circle, with memebers coming and going. The idea of twelve is simple - it represents the 12 Tribes of Isreael, os it would have been selected for its symbolic resonance :)

cj x
 
Darat said:
We could discuss this from the perspective of what we know about "cult" leaders and so on and the fact that Paul is claiming "last dibs" on seeing Jesus would match the type of claims we know such people have and do make. Think of it this way - Paul knew he couldn't get away with claiming to have known Jesus but a non-verifiable last person to have seen the resurrected Jesus - well who could prove he hadn't?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. And I think this whole question of authority is a vital issue here. We see the conflict in the Earliest Church in Galatians and in Acts, and central to that is "who is an Apostle? Who has authority to teach?" HAving a) known Jesus in life and followed him and b) witnessed the resurrection appearances are the key factors. Paul needs to have seen the risen Jesus to have teaching authority: when we consider his experience we must bear that in mind. Yet he testifies to his rivals legitimacy as well here...

cj x
 
joobz said:
Hi Cj,
Let's assume that you are correct and we have all of these witness statements and they are true sworn personal statements and not merely the hearsay that they all are. Let's consider these witnesses as being real.
Click to expand...

. . . and let's ignore the fact that these accounts (that are demonstrably not those of eyewitnesses) are mutually incompatible. (What exactly happened on Easter morning? Who discovered what and when?)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
. . . and let's ignore the fact that these accounts (that are demonstrably not those of eyewitnesses) are mutually incompatible. (What exactly happened on Easter morning? Who discovered what and when?)
Click to expand...


Astonishingly incompatible actually, unless you really really try hard. You can do it - I have seen them all reconciled - but it does require people to see the Empty Tomb, leave, come back, see the Risen Jesus, leave, not tell anyone, until the whole things just strains credibility. I think the stories are therefore at any sensible level incompatible. SO what does that tell us? I think we should discuss it in depth, but maybe look at them first, and identify all the incompatibilities.
 
cj.23 said:
I have always suspected The TWelve might have been a flaoting inner circle, with memebers coming and going. The idea of twelve is simple - it represents the 12 Tribes of Isreael, os it would have been selected for its symbolic resonance :)

cj x
Click to expand...
Peter: Andrew: James: John: Philip: Bartholomew: Matthew: Thomas: James(The Just/Less) : Thaddeus: Simon: Judas Iscariot: Matthias

Why 12?

1. Perhaps beer was sold in 12 packs back then as well. :D
2. The convention of eating doughnuts when breaking one's fast (holey food) *groan*

OK, I'll stop.

DR
 
paximperium said:
Let's start with something simple. Let's assume Jesus existed. Let's assume he died on the cross via crucification. Who are the eyewitnesses?

We can discuss their claims later.
Click to expand...

There are no eyewitnesses whose words we have directly: we have purportedly second hand reports which claim to derive from the authority of eyewitnesses. I am aware of no eyewitness accounts, are you?

cj x
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
. . . and let's ignore the fact that these accounts (that are demonstrably not those of eyewitnesses) are mutually incompatible. (What exactly happened on Easter morning? Who discovered what and when?)
Click to expand...
I was attempting to avoid a protracted discussion on the fact that the witnesses aren't even "good" witnesses in any legal sense.

But wanted to go one step further and show that a bunch of people 2000 years ago claim something great happened. Ok, great. We have a bunch of magical claims of people from hundreds to thousands of years ago. We typically call it BS based upon our understanding of nature. So why is this any different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom