Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Irkle Bersrkle has indicated that his Christian faith is true and valid because it is based on "a deep, mature faith and a genuine relationship with God." Are warm and fuzzy feelings sufficient to establish that a corpse actually returned to life and subsequently flew away? Or do warm and fuzzy feelings actually represent little more than subscribing to a childlike belief in make believe? Let's examine.
When last we left Jesus, according to the "evidence" presented in the Gospels, he had been executed, and his body had been claimed by one of his disciples, Joseph of Arimathaea.
Matt.27: [57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
John 19: [38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Nicodemus, another disciple of Jesus, is also indicated to have been present.
John 19:
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
And so, the body of Jesus, his corpse, was in the hands of his followers. And they had every legal right to bury the body in a place of their choosing. So what did Joseph and Nicodemus do next with the body of Jesus?
Matthew 27:
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Luke 23:
[53] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
[54] And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
They took the body of Jesus to Joseph's new rock hewn tomb. Why did they take the body of Jesus to Joseph's new tomb?
John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Because it was late in the day, and the "sepulchre was nigh at hand."
What did they do at the tomb? They prepared the body of Jesus. They would have washed the body, according to Jewish custom.
John 19:
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
They coated the linen covered body of Jesus in 100 pounds of a mixture of aloes and myrrh. Aloe and myrrh mixed together make a paste. Coating the body of Jesus with 100 pounds of aloe myrrh paste would not have prevented decay, but sealing the body from the air would have retarded the decaying process for a time. The myrrh would also have masked the odor of decay for a time.
So the disciples of Jesus used the tomb as a convenient place to prepare the body. And they prepared it extraordinarily well, coated in a paste of one hundred pounds of very expensive aloes and myrrh. If their intent was to take the body on a journey, the body could hardly have been prepared better.
What do the disciples do next? They "rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."
Matthew 27:
62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
The next day the Jewish priests, suspicious that the disciples intended to hide away the body of Jesus and claim that he had risen from the dead, asked for and got permission to secure the tomb. The tomb was closed off by a great stone. Prevented from inspecting the tomb for the body of Jesus by the fact that it was a high holy day, Passover and the Sabbath, the Jewish priests placed seals on the stone and set a watch. So the tomb was secured until the high holy day had passed and the tomb could be opened and inspected. But had the priests secured the body of Jesus?
Mark 16:
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
The tomb was discovered open and empty the next morning. So the obvious answer to the question, "had the priests secured the body of Jesus when they secured the tomb," is obviously NOT! The body of Jesus was missing. Just what the Jewish priests suspected. Who were the last ones to be in clear control of the body of Jesus? His followers! The followers of Jesus were the last ones to be clearly in control of the body of Jesus.
What happened next? A few weeks later the followers of Jesus began to proclaim that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Again, just what the Jewish priests suspected they intended to do.
And so where was the "risen" man? Oh, he had flown bodily up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds and was gone.
Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus?
His followers and only his followers.
Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus be lifted bodily up into the clouds?
His followers and only his followers.
This is the "evidence" that has been presented by Christians for the last 2,000 years to assert that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. And yet we can see from the evidence that is being presented that the empty tomb and claims that Jesus was resurrected can easily be explained through actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse.
"Evidence?" Or 2,000 years of unsupported and insupportable claims, with a dash of slight of hand and a bit of misdirection thrown in?
The Resurrection as physical is entirely necessitated by the carnal minds of men who were terrified of Spirits and would have no ability to accept or even understand resurrection as a Spirit. The event itself is one of human consciousness being "born again: as Spirit within the collective human consciousness preparatory to joining God. When Jesus's HUMAN consciousness was "born again" as Spirit, He became the Comforter and permanently connected our collective human consciousness with God.
That is how He is the Way and our guide to the Truth God has "written in our hearts." As long as our hearts remain under the veil of wrath evoked by reading the OT and Moses, we will continue to misunderstand God and His Holy Spirit of agape love and forgiveness as revealed and demonstrated by Jesus on the Cross.
Tired (his close friends just call him Nonsense) apparently thinks he has a humdinger of an argument here. He’s repeated it verbatim on two threads in two days. I’m not sure why his original post here mentions me at all, but I suppose it’s flattering in an odd way. When atheists feel compelled to make these sorts of arguments and attack you by name for no apparent reason, you know they’re rattled.
This will be my one and only contribution to this thread. As the atheists who haunt these forums often do, Tired has handed me a teaching moment.
Tired’s arguments have been made repeatedly by atheists for hundreds of years. They are rather obvious arguments – are they not? It’s not as though Tired has broken any new ground. Indeed, there have been numerous threads right here at C-D dealing specifically with these arguments.
The atheist attack always proceeds as though the absurdity of someone rising from the dead and ascending into the sky were self-evident. In the abstract the likelihood of this occurring is nil. If you told me your Aunt Harriet did it, I'd laugh at you. This was philosopher David Hume’s analysis of the likelihood of all miracles, but even secular philosophers now acknowledge that Hume’s analysis is flawed. When the claim is a unique suspension of the ordinary laws of the universe by the creator thereof, the fact that 15 billion other humans weren’t resurrected is largely irrelevant.
Christian scholars of the caliber of Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, N. T. Wright, Michael Licona and many others have argued in favor of the historicity of the Resurrection and the rationality of believing it. They've often done so in published and video debates with atheists. Dr. Habermas in particular has devoted almost his entire career to the historicity of the Resurrection. I don’t suppose anyone will be interested, but if you are here’s his site: https://www.garyhabermas.com/.
I believe in a historical, real-world Resurrection in which Christ rose and ascended in a transformed resurrection body. To me, this belief is essential to being a Christian. There is no point in me debating the facts, which are set forth in the Gospels. I will simply note the following, which I believe make Tired's speculation implausible:
The initial witnesses were women, whose testimony carried no weight in ancient Judaism – rather an odd detail for a fanciful tale.
The Gospel accounts are quite weird and not entirely consistent – rather odd for a fanciful tale.
Even though Judas had sold out the living Jesus for a paltry 30 pieces of silver, not one person ever came forward and claimed the fortune that could have been earned by revealing the location of Jesus’ body and thereby destroying Christianity in its infancy. Not one follower ever cracked under persecution and revealed the fraud.
From the earliest days of Christianity, the Resurrection of Jesus was the central tenet of the faith. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which predates any of the Gospels, quotes a very early Christian hymn to this effect. Moreover, Paul says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 witnesses at once, “most of whom are still living” – rather an odd detail for a fanciful tale.
Whatever happened on Easter Sunday, it was sufficient to immediately transform a dispirited group of disciples into bold ones who were willing to suffer and die for the message they preached – rather odd if some or all of them knew the central tenet of their faith was a fraud.
Since first century Christians were mercilessly persecuted and tortured, it’s difficult to think of a plausible reason for creating and perpetuating a fraudulent Resurrection.
As I said on the other thread where Tired posted exactly the same thing, the Resurrection must be viewed in context. No one becomes a Christian because “The evidence for the Resurrection is just so compelling!” The Resurrection is something Christians believe, not something that compels unbelievers to become Christians because it carries such strong evidentiary weight. Here is the context in which I view it:
I believe, for many reasons, that God is the creator of the universe. If he can create the universe, why would I have difficulty with the notion that he could resurrect Jesus?
I believe God is the author of life. Why would I have difficulty with the notion that he could resurrect Jesus?
I believe God is spirit and exists in a realm of spirit. Why would I have difficulty with the notion of a resurrection body capable of ascending to and dwelling in the realm of spirit?
Jesus was not just some guy whose death gave rise to a religion because he was seemingly resurrected. In Christian theology, he was the unique Son of God (as he had claimed while alive) and his Resurrection was the central historical fact in God’s plan for humanity.
Since I have no a priori philosophical assumption that resurrections "just can’t happen," I have no reason to doubt that the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts as they claim. I accept their historical reliability.
I don’t quite understand what Tired means by the statement that I maintain my Christian faith is "true and valid" because I have a "deep, mature faith" or by characterizing my acceptance of the Resurrection as being based on "warm and fuzzy feelings." I have said - as the Bible repeatedly says - that things that seem foolish to unbelievers don’t seem so foolish once the eyes of faith have been opened and that they typically ripen into deep conviction as one progresses and matures in the faith. As a Christian, I find the Resurrection believable for all of the above reasons. If I were an atheist viewing the Resurrection from a perspective such as Tired’s, I’d probably ridicule it too because, like Tired, I really wouldn't know what I was talking about. I believe I didn't react as Tired does because, as unlikely as it seemed at the time, God had called me and the Holy Spirit had prepared me.
Throughout my spiritual quest, which sometimes took me far from Christianity, I consciously used the Resurrection as my visceral litmus test. I'd periodically ask myself, "Do I think Jesus' bones rotted to dust? Am I ready to take Christianity off the table?" The answer always was, and still is, "No, I don't believe that. At some deep level, I believe Jesus was resurrected." Why I had this anchor despite a multitude of questions and doubts was never entirely clear to me; I can only attribute it to God.
Tired (his close friends just call him Nonsense) apparently thinks he has a humdinger of an argument here. He’s repeated it verbatim on two threads in two days. I’m not sure why his original post here mentions me at all, but I suppose it’s flattering in an odd way. When atheists feel compelled to make these sorts of arguments and attack you by name for no apparent reason, you know they’re rattled.
This will be my one and only contribution to this thread. As the atheists who haunt these forums often do, Tired has handed me a teaching moment.
Like all your other teaching moments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Tired’s arguments have been made repeatedly by atheists for hundreds of years. They are rather obvious arguments – are they not? It’s not as though Tired has broken any new ground. Indeed, there have been numerous threads right here at C-D dealing specifically with these arguments.
The atheist attack always proceeds as though the absurdity of someone rising from the dead and ascending into the sky were self-evident. In the abstract the likelihood of this occurring is nil. If you told me your Aunt Harriet did it, I'd laugh at you. This was philosopher David Hume’s analysis of the likelihood of all miracles, but even secular philosophers now acknowledge that Hume’s analysis is flawed. When the claim is a unique suspension of the ordinary laws of the universe by the creator thereof, the fact that 15 billion other humans weren’t resurrected is largely irrelevant.
So actual data is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Christian scholars of the caliber of Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, N. T. Wright, Michael Licona and many others have argued in favor of the historicity of the Resurrection and the rationality of believing it. They've often done so in published and video debates with atheists. Dr. Habermas in particular has devoted almost his entire career to the historicity of the Resurrection. I don’t suppose anyone will be interested, but if you are here’s his site: https://www.garyhabermas.com/.
Habermas and Licona are small caliber who ignore evidence they do not like. For various reasons I do not trust WLC. I can not comment on N T Wright, but if he had any valid arguments, I am sure they would have been posted on the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I believe in a historical, real-world Resurrection in which Christ rose and ascended in a transformed resurrection body. To me, this belief is essential to being a Christian. There is no point in me debating the facts, which are set forth in the Gospels. I will simply note the following, which I believe make Tired's speculation implausible:
No doubt the usual apologetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The initial witnesses were women, whose testimony carried no weight in ancient Judaism – rather an odd detail for a fanciful tale.
There is no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence against it (such as the Misnah, the OT, John 4:39, and Josephus). Women may not have been allowed in court, but they could still present their evidence by proxy, but even that does not mean women's testimony carried no weight in ancient Judaism.
It is also irrelevant as the gospels say the first witnesses to pass on the message were men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The Gospel accounts are quite weird and not entirely consistent – rather odd for a fanciful tale.
The inconsistencies are where they 'correct' earlier accounts, rather odd for alleged independent eyewitness accounts, as is the fact that they were using the earlier gospels. And if you run a plagiarism detection script against the Greek scripts, the results point to them not being independent.
Here is Mark compared to Matthew (Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550).
Total 11644 trigrams. 9054 identical 22.24%. Reverse run 15778 identical 15.94%, with the largest trigram sequence being 33 words long.
Now that is what is called evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Even though Judas had sold out the living Jesus for a paltry 30 pieces of silver, not one person ever came forward and claimed the fortune that could have been earned by revealing the location of Jesus’ body and thereby destroying Christianity in its infancy. Not one follower ever cracked under persecution and revealed the fraud.
Using the later gospel accounts to prove the accounts is circular reasoning. You are also presuming the gospels are eyewitness accounts, which is contrary to the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
From the earliest days of Christianity, the Resurrection of Jesus was the central tenet of the faith. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which predates any of the Gospels, quotes a very early Christian hymn to this effect. Moreover, Paul says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 witnesses at once, “most of whom are still living” – rather an odd detail for a fanciful tale.
Paul also says the other appearances were like his, so that would be in visions. Even the Pentecost vision in Acts has something other than a bodily appearance. I will not go into the argument that the 500 might be a copyist error or deliberate change to the word Greek word for Pentecost, it does not effect the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Whatever happened on Easter Sunday, it was sufficient to immediately transform a dispirited group of disciples into bold ones who were willing to suffer and die for the message they preached – rather odd if some or all of them knew the central tenet of their faith was a fraud.
Again we have no early evidence this actually happened, only 2nd century and later Christian arguments. And according to the various accounts of the deaths of the alleged apostles, none of them died for their religious beliefs.
And the poor author of Mark died three times in three different places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Since first century Christians were mercilessly persecuted and tortured, it’s difficult to think of a plausible reason for creating and perpetuating a fraudulent Resurrection.
We have no obvious evidence for this other than 2nd century Christian claims. The earliest definite mention is Seutonius, who said Christians were arrested for breaking the law, not for their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
As I said on the other thread where Tired posted exactly the same thing, the Resurrection must be viewed in context. No one becomes a Christian because “The evidence for the Resurrection is just so compelling!” The Resurrection is something Christians believe, not something that compels unbelievers to become Christians because it carries such strong evidentiary weight. Here is the context in which I view it:
I believe, for many reasons, that God is the creator of the universe. If he can create the universe, why would I have difficulty with the notion that he could resurrect Jesus?
I believe God is the author of life. Why would I have difficulty with the notion that he could resurrect Jesus?
I believe God is spirit and exists in a realm of spirit. Why would I have difficulty with the notion of a resurrection body capable of ascending to and dwelling in the realm of spirit?
Jesus was not just some guy whose death gave rise to a religion because he was seemingly resurrected. In Christian theology, he was the unique Son of God (as he had claimed while alive) and his Resurrection was the central historical fact in God’s plan for humanity.
Since I have no a priori philosophical assumption that resurrections "just can’t happen," I have no reason to doubt that the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts as they claim. I accept their historical reliability.
Again it is not an assumption, it is a priori evidence that you admitted you ignore. Your a priori 'philosophical' assumption goes against that evidence, so you can not blame us for your problem.
Irkle Bersrkle has indicated that his Christian faith is true and valid because it is based on "a deep, mature faith and a genuine relationship with God." Are warm and fuzzy feelings sufficient to establish that a corpse actually returned to life and subsequently flew away? Or do warm and fuzzy feelings actually represent little more than subscribing to a childlike belief in make believe? Let's examine.
When last we left Jesus, according to the "evidence" presented in the Gospels, he had been executed, and his body had been claimed by one of his disciples, Joseph of Arimathaea.
Matt.27: [57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
John 19: [38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Nicodemus, another disciple of Jesus, is also indicated to have been present.
John 19:
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
And so, the body of Jesus, his corpse, was in the hands of his followers. And they had every legal right to bury the body in a place of their choosing. So what did Joseph and Nicodemus do next with the body of Jesus?
Matthew 27:
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Luke 23:
[53] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
[54] And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
They took the body of Jesus to Joseph's new rock hewn tomb. Why did they take the body of Jesus to Joseph's new tomb?
John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Because it was late in the day, and the "sepulchre was nigh at hand."
What did they do at the tomb? They prepared the body of Jesus. They would have washed the body, according to Jewish custom.
John 19:
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
They coated the linen covered body of Jesus in 100 pounds of a mixture of aloes and myrrh. Aloe and myrrh mixed together make a paste. Coating the body of Jesus with 100 pounds of aloe myrrh paste would not have prevented decay, but sealing the body from the air would have retarded the decaying process for a time. The myrrh would also have masked the odor of decay for a time.
So the disciples of Jesus used the tomb as a convenient place to prepare the body. And they prepared it extraordinarily well, coated in a paste of one hundred pounds of very expensive aloes and myrrh. If their intent was to take the body on a journey, the body could hardly have been prepared better.
What do the disciples do next? They "rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."
Matthew 27:
62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
The next day the Jewish priests, suspicious that the disciples intended to hide away the body of Jesus and claim that he had risen from the dead, asked for and got permission to secure the tomb. The tomb was closed off by a great stone. Prevented from inspecting the tomb for the body of Jesus by the fact that it was a high holy day, Passover and the Sabbath, the Jewish priests placed seals on the stone and set a watch. So the tomb was secured until the high holy day had passed and the tomb could be opened and inspected. But had the priests secured the body of Jesus?
Mark 16:
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
The tomb was discovered open and empty the next morning. So the obvious answer to the question, "had the priests secured the body of Jesus when they secured the tomb," is obviously NOT! The body of Jesus was missing. Just what the Jewish priests suspected. Who were the last ones to be in clear control of the body of Jesus? His followers! The followers of Jesus were the last ones to be clearly in control of the body of Jesus.
What happened next? A few weeks later the followers of Jesus began to proclaim that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Again, just what the Jewish priests suspected they intended to do.
And so where was the "risen" man? Oh, he had flown bodily up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds and was gone.
Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus?
His followers and only his followers.
Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus be lifted bodily up into the clouds?
His followers and only his followers.
This is the "evidence" that has been presented by Christians for the last 2,000 years to assert that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. And yet we can see from the evidence that is being presented that the empty tomb and claims that Jesus was resurrected can easily be explained through actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse.
"Evidence?" Or 2,000 years of unsupported and insupportable claims, with a dash of slight of hand and a bit of misdirection thrown in?
When did he say after three days he would rise again?...
If this person received the baptism of Holy Spirit through Jesus then this person, was there at the cross of Christ and is a true witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as God promised that people can receive Holy Spirit after the cross of Christ, so If this person has got the true Holy Spirit than His claim is right ........... People who did not receive the baptism of Holy Spirit would based their faith in legalism of faith, or they could have a blind faith, where people who deny thousands of witness to receive the promise of Holy Spirit would dishonor these people and be blind of truth........ The in John 2;19 Jesus said ``Tear down this temple, and in three days I will build it again, Jesus said again tear down this temple, and I'll rebuild it in three days `` ............... Christians are to protect their temple of the Holy Spirit for God
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Resurrection Claim: Act of God, or Act of Men?
