Why believe in resurrections?

[marco]

We learn that Lazarus was already decomposing when Jesus asked him to step back to life. And he did. This is so absurd that one wonders how anyone could accept it. But many do.


Jesus went a step better and, having died, rose up. The effect is spoiled by silly details: he folded his funeral vestments up and left an angel in the sepulchre to explain his absence. Next he played hide and seek, disappearing somewhere and returning through walls. People still believe this all happened in the time when Rome was building roadways across Europe and North Africa, and doing so without a wand.


Why are these stories believed by intelligent people?

What extra part in them turns them from absurdity into truth?

[polonius]

p=963953#963953]Goose[/url]"]

Why are these stories believed by intelligent people?

Well I can't speak for others and I don't know if I qualify as intelligent people but I believe Jesus rose from the dead because I believe there is good historical evidence for it.[/quote]

Well you qualify as an intelligent person, singular rather than plural. Your suggestion that we have "historical evidence" for the resurrection is interesting. We have evidence for what might be a hoax, and given the choice of miracle or earthly hoax, one would opt for the earthly explanation. So the question is: why do people desert this possibility in favour of divine interference with the natural order of things?[/quote]

RESPONSE: Jesus was crucified for insurrection in about 30-33 AD. What is the date of origin of the first claim (possible evidence) that he was raised from the dead?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 19 by marco]

So who are you saying came took the body from a group of Roman Soldiers? A group of untrained disciples? And what did they do to this group of Roman Soldiers. They did not kill them because that would have caused something for Tacitus to write about.

You are making up a story and then dismissing your story as unlikely. But you are accepting a story that would normally be counted NOT as unlikely, but impossible. You cannot use the normal reduction to absurdity because we start with an absurdity that needs explaining.

I was not telling a story simply relating the facts. Those are the facts that are related in Gospels.
1. A group of Roman soldiers were assigned to the Jesus tomb by Pilate.
2. They were not killed because the leaders of the temple talked to these soldiers after Jesus was raised from the dead.

The burden of proof is on those that believe the disciples stole the body of Jesus. How could this happen with Roman soldiers guarding the tomb?

e. Bultmann's form critics speak a lot about the experiences of the disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these causes.

Another possibility is that when Jesus picked his disciples, he picked simpletons. They were not in on whatever he was intended to do. He seems to have been working to some pre-arranged plan, even to the extent that he had arranged for a donkey to be picked up and rooms made available. Do we take this as miraculous or prearranged? If prearranged then we move towards an explanation that involved Jesus being placed in a special tomb. Yes - this is all surmise, but it has the virtue of needing no miraculous or divine intervention.

The disciples were simpletons. That is actually part of the problem for those that try to deny the resurrection. How would simpletons convince some of the leading minds of Israel to abandon Judaism and all of their power and prestige that they accumulated over the years to convert to a Christian religion that is being persecuted. And is including not only Jews but hated Gentiles also. That would be a hard sell for simpletons.

Quote:
And then why would they die for a lie that they knew about. Muslim's die for something that they believe in. They do not die because they believe it is a lie. No body would die for a lie.

I don't believe the apostles were "in on the act". We do not require them to be co-authors of a lie, merely people who have been deceived. Why? I don't know - but then I don't know why a human being would crash down from paradise and get himself crucified.

Again
e. Bultmann's form critics speak a lot about the experiences of the disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these causes.

Who deceived them?
Why would they deceive them?

Jesus said why He came to die.

John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

This is why Jesus believed He came into this world. So either He was crazy or He was who He said He was. If He was crazy how did He get anyone to follow Him.

[marco]

The burden of proof is on those that believe the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

I did not say the disciples had taken the body. Jesus may have chosen relatively thick people to accompany him, the better to deceive them when the time came. Others may have performed the resurrection service while the credulous disciples believed a miracle had happened. It would also be easy to have a non-deaf man or a non-blind man posted conveniently for Jesus to make him hear or see, to the astonishment of his chosen sages.

The disciples were simpletons. That is actually part of the problem for those that try to deny the resurrection. How would simpletons convince some of the leading minds of Israel to abandon Judaism

They were used to report the "good news" of miracles. Christ's collaborators did the work. Do we know much about the apostles?

This is why Jesus believed He came into this world. So either He was crazy or He was who He said He was. If He was crazy how did He get anyone to follow Him.

He wasn't intended to die. He became frightened that the scheme would go wrong. He believed he'd appear in a few weeks or months after he was "buried". I have no idea what the grand plan was, but there were plenty of folk at the time interested in some kind of rebellion. We don't know what went on in the background, but Christ clearly worked furtively with others not mentioned in the gospels.

Can a religion rise from trickery? Who knows? Man can be made to believe ANYTHING, it seems.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

So are you saying you believe in some sort of "swoon theory". (Jesus did not die) because the swoon theory has also been thoroughly refuted also.

Are you one of those that believe that Jesus lived in India after His "Death"? (one of the swoon theories)

Are you saying that Jesus died and then an imposter posed as Jesus? (this would be a hard sell but you can try. The disciples who had traveled with Jesus for more than three years.)

None of these scenarios are built on any type of factual documented evidence. Not even document myths from that time period.

Jesus never led a rebellion or talked about leading a rebellion and neither did his followers.

[marco]

[Replying to post 34 by EarthScienceguy]

I am not endorsing any theory. I believe there are explanations that are better than supposing Jesus was God, rose from the dead, left an angel in his tomb and ascended into the sky to get to some imagined physical locality he thought might be paradise. This is nonsense.


While the "swoon theory" may have been rejected, there is more reason to reject the divine explanation. As for us not knowing some details - surely that is the point of secrecy. If things were done in the background, in a clandestine way, we wouldn't know because those who are reporting to us are reporting on what they were intended to report. Virgin births, angels, walking on water.... the list is endless but the apostolic gullibility was as well. They were chosen not because they were Einsteins, but because they could be duped.

Yep - all speculation, with the advantage it needs no God, no angel, no walking corpse to explain it.... just people in the background working with Christ. Have we any evidence that Christ consorted with others, outside of the apostolic fellowship? We have.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 32 by EarthScienceguy]

I was not telling a story simply relating the facts. Those are the facts that are related in Gospels.
1. A group of Roman soldiers were assigned to the Jesus tomb by Pilate.
2. They were not killed because the leaders of the temple talked to these soldiers after Jesus was raised from the dead.

How likely to be true, in our reality, are these details? For one, only a single gospel mentions the soldiers - Matthew. Second, the story invents out of whole cloth the conversation between the priests and Pilate. Who would have told the author of G.Matthew this conversation? The fact it's in there serves as a sign to me (if nothing else) that the author of G.Matthew felt at liberty to make things up.
Think about the soldiers not being killed. Think about the legendary harsh discipline of the Roman soldiers, of Pilate's ruthlessness. Why would Pilate, a governor known for being ruthless and harsh, not kill soldiers who (from his point of view) failed to guard a tomb? What authority would Jewish priests have over Roman soldiers? It's like saying to me there's a story about some US soldiers messing up over guarding an important spot in South Korea, but they didn't face punishment from their US general because...they were talked to by South Korean religious leaders?
You've got to think critically about these stories, about the details, instead of accepting them at face value.

The burden of proof is on those that believe the disciples stole the body of Jesus. How could this happen with Roman soldiers guarding the tomb?

The burden of proof is to show there actually was a crucifixion, a burial and that there were Roman soldiers. My critique up above shows legitimate doubt as to just one aspect of that.
Anyway, there's all sorts of ways a body could be stolen. Just off the top of my head, I can hypothesise one possible way for a body to leave, assuming for the sake of argument that there was a crucifixion, a burial and Roman guards. There was a secret tunnel. Off course you'll reject that...but how can you? You don't know where the tomb is, or was.
Which is more likely to be true - a body was secreted out of a tomb via a secret tunnel that the Romans/Jewish priests knew nothing about, or that it somehow came back to life in complete violation of all natural laws?

The disciples were simpletons. That is actually part of the problem for those that try to deny the resurrection.

They were! Read Gospel John, read the last supper scene there. Jesus tells them who the traitor is, and no-one does or says anything. There's no reaction.
Do you have anything at all to suggest the disciples were wise or intelligent (not necessarily the same thing)?

How would simpletons convince some of the leading minds of Israel to abandon Judaism and all of their power and prestige that they accumulated over the years to convert to a Christian religion that is being persecuted.

Can you name some of these "leading minds of Israel"? Are you implying that it's impossible for someone in a position of power and authority to be fooled, or to make a mistake?

This is why Jesus believed He came into this world. So either He was crazy or He was who He said He was. If He was crazy how did He get anyone to follow Him.

Here's a challenge. Name me any famous crazy person throughout history. I can guarantee you that they had followers.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

I am not endorsing any theory. I believe there are explanations that are better than supposing Jesus was God, rose from the dead, left an angel in his tomb and ascended into the sky to get to some imagined physical locality he thought might be paradise. This is nonsense.


While the "swoon theory" may have been rejected, there is more reason to reject the divine explanation. As for us not knowing some details - surely that is the point of secrecy. If things were done in the background, in a clandestine way, we wouldn't know because those who are reporting to us are reporting on what they were intended to report. Virgin births, angels, walking on water.... the list is endless but the apostolic gullibility was as well. They were chosen not because they were Einsteins, but because they could be duped.

Yep - all speculation, with the advantage it needs no God, no angel, no walking corpse to explain it.... just people in the background working with Christ. Have we any evidence that Christ consorted with others, outside of the apostolic fellowship? We have.

Bultmann's Ideas of form criticism were rejected because it was shown that NT can be a reliable source factual information. You seem to be saying that this is not the case.

Bultmann also rejected use of the NT as a reliable source of information but it was rejected for the following reasons.

Bultmann's objection is that the New Testament authors cannot be compared to ancient secular writers since the latter attempted to write history, while Bultmann and form critics hold that biblical authors allowed their beliefs to significantly color their recording.

Oxford ancient historian A.N. Sherwin-White and Micheal Grant author of Jesus: An Historian''s Review. Level these seven criticisms against Bultmann's Historiography.

a. Historians work like Herodotus, Livy, and Tacitus all show similarities in several respects to the Gospels, including a moralizing intent. These ancient historians writings are all accepted as historical.

b. The type of literature that Bultmann believes that New Testament gospels to be. This type of literature is not found any where in ancient history.

c. The Gospels are quite close to the period of time that they record, while other ancient histories such as those by Plutarch and Livy often describe events that took place even centuries earlier. Modern Historians are able to successfully to delineate data even from these early periods of time.

d. Ancient histories sometimes, "disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion," Such as the four ancient sources that describe Tiberius Caesar, and yet accurate history can still be glean from these sources. Paul Maier makes the same point about the cause of the fire in Rome.

e. Bultmann's form critics speak a lot about the experiences of the disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these causes.

f. Portions of the NT like the book of Acts are confirmed by external indications of historicity.

g. The primary goal of the Gospel writers was spiritual, history was also very important. There is no reason why Gospel writers would pervert the historical in order to preserve the spiritual when both were so important and even complimented each other.

Simply believing something that we wish is true does not make it true. Some scientist believe that life came from non-life, even though there is no reason to believe that scientifically. There has never been an instance of this happening. The only evidence that we have of this is that there is life here on earth.

We have much more factual evidence for the resurrection and yet people say that they do not believe the resurrection because it is a scientific impossibility. Both are a scientific impossibility and yet the one with less evidence is believed and the one with more evidence is not.

The belief you proposed about the resurrection is not based in anytype of factual evidence. Your proposed theory does not explain the events after the resurrection. Therefore it must be rejected and has been rejected by most scholars.

You may wish the resurrection not to be true but it is the only rational explanation that explains all of the facts. That God entered into the realm of men to save men their sins.

[Zzyzx]

.

You may wish the resurrection not to be true but it is the only rational explanation that explains all of the facts. That God entered into the realm of men to save men their sins.

Correction: A rational explanation for the claimed 'resurrection' is that it is folklore, legend, myth, or pious tale.

There is NO verification of the 'resurrection' -- only TALES told in religion promotional literature. There are also religious tales about flying carpets and winged horses. Are they true because religion tells them?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 36 by rikuoamero]

How likely to be true, in our reality, are these details? For one, only a single gospel mentions the soldiers - Matthew. Second, the story invents out of whole cloth the conversation between the priests and Pilate. Who would have told the author of G.Matthew this conversation? The fact it's in there serves as a sign to me (if nothing else) that the author of G.Matthew felt at liberty to make things up.
Think about the soldiers not being killed. Think about the legendary harsh discipline of the Roman soldiers, of Pilate's ruthlessness. Why would Pilate, a governor known for being ruthless and harsh, not kill soldiers who (from his point of view) failed to guard a tomb? What authority would Jewish priests have over Roman soldiers? It's like saying to me there's a story about some US soldiers messing up over guarding an important spot in South Korea, but they didn't face punishment from their US general because...they were talked to by South Korean religious leaders?
You've got to think critically about these stories, about the details, instead of accepting them at face value.

Matthew tells us how this happen.

"11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."

Why should we not believe this account? Pilate sent the soldiers to the tomb for the Chief priest, so as not to have a riot on his hands. That is what Pilot wanted to avoid at all cost. Pilot was attempting to balance a delicate situation. So if Pilot could make the Chief priest of Israel happy by not killing the guard I am sure he would do that especially if he could make a little money on the deal.

Quote:
The burden of proof is on those that believe the disciples stole the body of Jesus. How could this happen with Roman soldiers guarding the tomb?

The burden of proof is to show there actually was a crucifixion, a burial and that there were Roman soldiers. My critique up above shows legitimate doubt as to just one aspect of that.
Anyway, there's all sorts of ways a body could be stolen. Just off the top of my head, I can hypothesise one possible way for a body to leave, assuming for the sake of argument that there was a crucifixion, a burial and Roman guards. There was a secret tunnel. Off course you'll reject that...but how can you? You don't know where the tomb is, or was.
Which is more likely to be true - a body was secreted out of a tomb via a secret tunnel that the Romans/Jewish priests knew nothing about, or that it somehow came back to life in complete violation of all natural laws?

This story does not explain why Paul would say that that Jesus rose from the dead.

Why the Pharisees believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?

Why Jesus' brothers believed that Jesus was raised from the dead?

They did not just believe that the tomb was empty but that they actually saw the Him. Why would they say that they saw Jesus when they did not. Why would Paul give up everything that He worked for to be persecuted by men that he once called friends? Why would the pharisees that believed that Jesus raised from the dead testify to a lie.




Quote:
The disciples were simpletons. That is actually part of the problem for those that try to deny the resurrection.

They were! Read Gospel John, read the last supper scene there. Jesus tells them who the traitor is, and no-one does or says anything. There's no reaction.
Do you have anything at all to suggest the disciples were wise or intelligent (not necessarily the same thing)?

Quote:
How would simpletons convince some of the leading minds of Israel to abandon Judaism and all of their power and prestige that they accumulated over the years to convert to a Christian religion that is being persecuted.

Can you name some of these "leading minds of Israel"? Are you implying that it's impossible for someone in a position of power and authority to be fooled, or to make a mistake?

Quote:
This is why Jesus believed He came into this world. So either He was crazy or He was who He said He was. If He was crazy how did He get anyone to follow Him.

Here's a challenge. Name me any famous crazy person throughout history. I can guarantee you that they had followers.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 38 by Zzyzx]

Correction: A rational explanation for the claimed 'resurrection' is that it is folklore, legend, myth, or pious tale.

There is NO verification of the 'resurrection' -- only TALES told in religion promotional literature. There are also religious tales about flying carpets and winged horses. Are they true because religion tells them?

If you are trying to say that the Bible is not a source accurate historical knowledge. You would be in a serious minority among both conservative and liberal New Testament scholars. I am not sure that there are any that would agree with you if that is your view of the Bible.

Bultmann tried deemphasize the Historicity of Jesus in his form criticism. But his form criticism was thoroughly rejected.

1. By deemphasizing the historical basis for the life of Jesus, Bultmann failed to provided both early and and modern Christians with the grounding that is indispensable for the founding and present existence of the Christian faith. The point is that without a historical core of knowledge concerning Jesus, Christianity would have little initial impetus to encourage faith in an otherwise unknown person.

A detailed description of why Bultmann's ideas were rejected can be found here:
viewtopic.php?t=35624&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

Post 25.