The Resurrection - a pious legend or an historical event? (tradition, Gospels)

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by Mike555

As stated, even secular scholars and historians accept that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus.

And I believe that I've made myself clear about referring to my posts on the other two threads concerning the historical evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus. I'm not going to spend the day going over the same material yet again.

RESPONSE:

Please name some and tell us EXACTLY what they claim.

[Aristotle's Child]

Originally Posted by Mike555

As stated, even secular scholars and historians accept that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus.

And I believe that I've made myself clear about referring to my posts on the other two threads concerning the historical evidence regarding the resurrection of Jesus. I'm not going to spend the day going over the same material yet again.

RESPONSE:

Is that because you now realize that it really isn't convincing evidence?

[Aristotle's Child]

The gospel called Matthew’s, written anonymously about 80 AD, contains a Resurrection account which includes both an and Ascension story absent in both Paul’s limited account and in Mark’s gospel.

It appears that Matthew, evidently a non-witness, copied most of his information from Mark’s gospel (Matthew’ Gospel contains includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses). He also may have used the putative Q document (a sayings document) and added some material unique to Matthew.

It is not certain, but there are reasons for believing his gospel, like Mark’s, was composed in Antioch.

Several very good reasons for believing that Matthew was not a witness to the events he described, are the incident of having Jesus ride two animals (of different size) into Jerusalem to fulfill what he thought to be a prophecy. His claim of the resurrected dead who showed themselves to many in Jerusalem, and especially the fact that nowhere in Matthew’s gospel does Jesus or any of the apostles speak to him nor does he speak to them.

Let’s next take a look at some unique aspects of Matthew’s Resurrection account not necessarily appearing in the other accounts.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

The gospel called Matthew’s, written anonymously about 80 AD, contains a Resurrection account which includes both an and Ascension story absent in both Paul’s limited account and in Mark’s gospel.

Matthew's account may have been written right after Christ's death. Not only that, but Christ foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:2 which occurred in 70 A.D. Had Matthew been written in 80 AD I'm sure the writer would have attested to Christ's earlier word of its destruction.

Several very good reasons for believing that Matthew was not a witness to the events he described, are the incident of having Jesus ride two animals (of different size) into Jerusalem to fulfill what he thought to be a prophecy. His claim of the resurrected dead who showed themselves to many in Jerusalem, and especially the fact that nowhere in Matthew’s gospel does Jesus or any of the apostles speak to him nor does he speak to them.

I thought I would bold the above. Here is proof Christ spoke with the disciples after the resurrection:

Matthew 28:16-20 Now the eleven disciples went into Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus arranges
with them." (17) And, perceiving Him, they worship Him, yet they hesitate." (18) And, approaching,
Jesus speaks to them saying, "Given to Me was all authority in heaven and on the earth." (19) Going,
then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy
spirit, (20) teaching them to be keeping all, whatever I direct you. And lo! I am with you all the days till
the conclusion of the eon! Amen!"

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Mike555

While secular scholars obviously don't believe that Jesus was actually resurrected, they recognize that the disciples believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus. However, the best explanation as to why the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus is because they really did.

That you can admit that much to yourself and us shows there's a sliver of hope for you, Mike but I won't hold my breath.


The mainstream thinking among secular scholars (the vast majority of religious scholars, by the way) is that the disciples BELIEVED they saw a resurrected Jesus. That's all it would take.


The best logical explanation, the one scholars have always subscribed to is that someone came running to the disciples screaming hysterically, "I've seen him! I've seen him! He resurrected just like he said he would!"


This got the ball rolling and the rumor mills into full gear and before you knew it all the disciples were proclaiming they saw Jesus.


Never happened, of course. But mass hysteria can pass through a crowd with the greatest of ease. Remember, thousands of people proclaimed at Fatima they saw the sun dance like a ball in the sky and then rush toward earth and then rush back into place. Thousands of people witnessed this "miraculous event". You don't really believe it happened though, do you?


And remember, too none of this actually got written down until more than a half century later. Paul never wrote about seeing a bodily Jesus. The Jesus he saw was a celestial being. He's always said so.

[Hannibal Flavius]

Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child

The basis of today's Christian religion is the Resurrection of Jesus.

But what real evidence is there that this actuually happened and wasn't just a legend?

A religious leader named Jesus was executed by he Romans for insurrection about 30 A.D. Stories evidently developed among his followers that he, as a number of pagan gods and demigods, rose from the dead. In later versions of the story it was added that Jesus had "ascended" into heaven (which would explain why no remains could be found).

Stangely, for a "miraculous" occurrence, there are no written records. The first was developed by Paul, a non-witness to the Resurrection, who converted to Jesus' teaching. This writing (1 Corinthians 15) was created about 55 AD, or 25 years after the event it describes. In contained no "empty tomb" or Ascension claim.There are no other reports of any Resurrection from this period.

There are no subsequent reports until we come to the Gospel of Mark, written about 70 AD, by a Syrian
who was also a non-witness. In it's original form, it, too, had no Ascension story.That -"the Longer Verion of the Gospel of Matthew" was added in the second century.

In about 80 AD two other versions of the story appeared (Matthew's and Luke's based ln Mark's account) containing more but sometims conflicting details. These would have been about 50 years after the events described. Finally about 95 AD, of 65 years after the event, John's version of the story appeared, but this adds nothig really new and is more or less a theology of what are claimed to be Jesus' teachings.

From a historical perspective then, is there any reason to believe these are other than merely stories?

If so, what confirming evidence can be provided that the Resurrection was an actual event and not simply a legend based on wishful thinking?

There was a long known legend about the coming of Messiah 4000 years after Adam and prophesies about his coming when the scepter would fall from Judah, that those were the days of the coming of the Messiah.


Now Judah didn't drop it's ability to rule it's own people until Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar Augustus in 6 A.D. marking the very first time that Judah had dropped the scepter and so we know that if the prophesy was true, it would most certainly be in the days when Judah lost it's ability to punish according to it's own laws.


We just happen to have a story of Jesus in 6 A.D. when he was presented to the world and found teaching in the Temple just as Judah dropped the scepter and it fell to the Messiah.


But this Messiah was to come teaching great secrets of Torah and this is the one thing that proves Jesus to me, he came teaching the great secrets. Jesus came teaching great hidden secrets that wouldn't remain secrets and he added to the nation just as it was said about a Messiah gaining a global following.


So much knowledge gained and the world changed so extremely in such a short period of time should prove that Jesus lived and the knowledge gained from his coming cannot be more evident in my eyes.




He taught what the kingdom of heaven really was.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

That you can admit that much to yourself and us shows there's a sliver of hope for you, Mike but I won't hold my breath.


The mainstream thinking among secular scholars (the vast majority of religious scholars, by the way) is that the disciples BELIEVED they saw a resurrected Jesus. That's all it would take.


The best logical explanation, the one scholars have always subscribed to is that someone came running to the disciples screaming hysterically, "I've seen him! I've seen him! He resurrected just like he said he would!"


This got the ball rolling and the rumor mills into full gear and before you knew it all the disciples were proclaiming they saw Jesus.


Never happened, of course. But mass hysteria can pass through a crowd with the greatest of ease. Remember, thousands of people proclaimed at Fatima they saw the sun dance like a ball in the sky and then rush toward earth and then rush back into place. Thousands of people witnessed this "miraculous event". You don't really believe it happened though, do you?


And remember, too none of this actually got written down until more than a half century later. Paul never wrote about seeing a bodily Jesus. The Jesus he saw was a celestial being. He's always said so.

All I said was that while secular scholars don't actually believe that Jesus rose, they recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

And you don't know what you are talking about as usual. Scholars do NOT subscribe to the explanation you gave. And that was made clear in my posts on the other thread which I linked to in my first post on this thread. Nor did Paul believe that Jesus' resurrection was a non-physical resurrection. Among the Jews, as well as the early Christians, resurrection was always understood to be physical and bodily. And N. T. Wright goes into great detail on that fact in his book, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God.'

Had you bothered to actually read my posts in the other threads you would have realized that I made it clear that naturalistic explanations do not explain why they believed they saw Him. The best explanation why they believed they saw the resurrected Jesus because they actually did.

Now apparently I have to say it again. People are just going to have to refer to my posts on the other threads as I have no intention of wasting my time on this thread. Refer to post #4 for the links to those other threads.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Livelystone

No they did not. That proves they are not interested in learning anything........ just being trolls doing their best to keep Christians from having a place to worship and fellowship in peace

Why does "learning anything" always equate to agreeing to what you Christians have to say? Isn't it a two-way street? Isn't it possible you could learn a thing or two or three from us non-Christians? Or are your blinders that tightly fitted to your ears and eyes?


Try opening your ears a little to listen to some reliable historical evidence that we put forth. It could change your outlook if you have an open mind.

[JerZ]

Come on. For heaven's sake (no pun intended), if this had really happened people would have been SCREAMING about it. At the time.

There were many, many, many literate people at that time. Jews. Greeks. Romans. Somebody would have been writing, "You won't BELIEVE this...I saw some guy die last week and today he was walking around in the marketplace!" Or even taking things one step back, "You won't BELIEVE this...I heard some guy died last week but a whole bunch of people say they saw him walking around!" This wouldn't have been the biggest news anybody had ever heard in the course of their lifetimes? There should be dozens of accounts earlier than the first Gospel was written. Perhaps more than dozens. There should at least be copies of copies of copies of original notes, commentary, something saying "Jesus of Nazareth died on Day X but was seen wandering around on Day Z."

It wouldn't have taken 30 years for someone to write about it. It wouldn't have taken 20 years for someone to write about it. It probably wouldn't have taken one year for somebody to write about it.

Nobody did. Until well after the fact, or rather, well after the story.

I mean really folks. Come on, think about this.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Mike555

All I said was that while secular scholars don't actually believe that Jesus rose, they recognize that the early disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

And you don't know what you are talking about as usual. Scholars do NOT subscribe to the explanation you gave. And that was made clear in my posts on the other thread which I linked to in my first post on this thread. Nor did Paul believe that Jesus' resurrection was a non-physical resurrection. Among the Jews, as well as the early Christians, resurrection was always understood to be physical and bodily. And N. T. Wright goes into great detail on that fact in his book, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God.'

Had you bothered to actually read my posts in the other threads you would have realized that I made it clear that naturalistic explanations do not explain why they believed they saw Him. The best explanation why they believed they saw the resurrected Jesus because they actually did.

Now apparently I have to say it again. People are just going to have to refer to my posts on the other threads as I have no intention of wasting my time on this thread. Refer to post #4 for the links to those other threads.

Mike, anyone can see you paint yourself into an illogical corner with your line of reasoning. It's simple to explain:


You say most secular scholars don't subscribe to Jesus' bodily resurrection

While secular scholars obviously don't believe that Jesus was actually resurrected, they recognize that the disciples believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus.

So far so good. But here's where you go off the rails:

However, the best explanation as to why the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus is because they really did.

No, no, no. It's YOUR explanation, not the best explanation. After all, why would secular scholars say in one breath they don't believe Jesus bodily resurrected and then in the next breath say that Jesus MUST have bodily resurrected because the disciples BELIEVED he did and so it must be true, Jesus did in fact resurrect. That doesn't make any logical sense. Scholars are too smart to shoot themselves in the foot like that.


The BEST explanation---one that doesn't clash with reality is that the disciples BELIEVED they saw the resurrected Jesus. "BELIEVED" is the key word. Whether it happened or not is anybody's guess, but the fact they BELIEVED he resurrection doesn't make it a fact. That's why I presented the Fatima example and which I noticed you didn't bother to reply to, where thousands of people BELIEVED they saw the sun spin like a top. Did their belief it happened make it factual? NO! No, no, NO! Same with Jesus' resurrection.