Let's cut to the chase: did the resurrection happen?

[Haven]

Recently, there have been a lot of threads on topics related to the resurrection of Jesus (empty tomb, supernaturalism vs. naturalism, historical records, and so on). I think it may be helpful to discuss the big picture: did the resurrection of Jesus happen or not? This thread is the place to discuss it: offer any argument for or against the resurrection. Hopefully this will be a good discussion.

Debate question: Was Jesus resurrected from the dead?

_________
Thread rules:
1) Offer evidence or logical argument. Simply providing Bible quotes isn't sufficient.
2) Faith, while valid on a personal level, isn't evidence for a claim. Provide empirical evidence from history, textual criticism, physics, and so on, not simply statements of faith.
3) Be kind to each other. All of us, regardless of our religious position, are conscious beings deserving of respect and civility.

[Inigo Montoya]

I'm as certain as I can reasonably be that the dead do not come back to life. Not three days later. Not three weeks later. I'm reasonably certain everyone else is reasonably certain of this seemingly obvious fact as well.

The problem seems to be in this one instance. If the texts where this story originated wasn't also seen by some to be influenced by a god, we wouldn't be having this discussion I don't think.

Reason and probability are muted or squashed to make way for this one instance. This exception to what we generally think about the dead coming back to life.

So no. Call me crazy. I don't suspend a lifetime of observation and study to make the exception in one case.

[Inigo Montoya]

Ps. It makes me wonder...

If the resurrection story was exactly the same as it is now but the new testament was never believed to be or associated at all with a god or be in any way divine...

Would we have any of these so called "inferences to the best explanation" or cries of outrage that we weren't treating the story the same as that of Alexander the Great or the much loved example of Caesar?

I reckon not. And for damn good reason! It'd simply be another fantastic story among thousands.

[Willum]

[Replying to Haven]

The Jesus (JeZeus) story is a Roman transplant of the story of Theseus (TheZeus) and many other stories of resurrection.

The Pharisee, who were pro-resurrection, pro-messiah, pro-redemption and pro-Roman. The Romans, tired of this warrior-messiah, constantly drumming up the Jewish moral, invented one who would render to Caesar what was Caesars and forgive the tax-men.

On the other side were the Sadducee, anti-messiah, anti-ressurection, anti-redemtion and a footnote in history. That's what you get for opposing Rome.

The Pharisee led a Roman insurrection of Israel, implanting Jesus as the Son of God and Jehovah (ee-o-vah), or I-O-V-E of Jove as the papa-god.

There is proof: Say you were a promising young novate to the Judao-Roman institution of God. You doubt me, you say once per year the letters of God's name are rearranged to show his true power.

Well Jove = Jehovah = EIOVA, if we take the A and put it on the end we get AEIOU, or the newfangled, for the time, Roman vowels, one of the greatest powers of the Roman Empire.

It works for Yaway as well. Yawey becomes Ie o w a, the double "u" does it's trick and becomes the "u" written "v" because curves were hard to draw in stone, and again we are left with Jove or I-ov-eh (ee-ov-eh).

Pretty cool huh? Understanding that the Romans were the resurrectionists from Greek origin, then understanding etymology, you understand one of the greatest stories never told.

[Haven]

[Replying to Haven]

The Jesus (JeZeus) story is a Roman transplant of the story of Theseus (TheZeus) and many other stories of resurrection.

The English name Jesus comes from the Hebrew Yeshua, not any Greek origin. It has nothing to do with Zeus.

The Pharisee led a Roman insurrection of Israel, implanting Jesus as the Son of God and Jehovah (ee-o-vah), or I-O-V-E of Jove as the papa-god.

The Pharisees were never in favor of Christianity, and YHWH (Yahweh, a Hebrew god named after a phrase meaning 'to be') has no linguistic connection to Jove. Where are you getting this information?

There is proof: Say you were a promising young novate to the Judao-Roman institution of God. You doubt me, you say once per year the letters of God's name are rearranged to show his true power.

Well Jove = Jehovah = EIOVA, if we take the A and put it on the end we get AEIOU, or the newfangled, for the time, Roman vowels, one of the greatest powers of the Roman Empire.

It works for Yaway as well. Yawey becomes Ie o w a, the double "u" does it's trick and becomes the "u" written "v" because curves were hard to draw in stone, and again we are left with Jove or I-ov-eh (ee-ov-eh).

This is not how linguistics works. You can't just take similar sounding words and say they're related; there has to be some actual historical connection between the words shown by regular sound changes (English hound and Latin canis are etymologically related, but English dog and Mbabaram dog are not).

Also, Judeo-Roman concept of God? The Jews and Romans were enemies in the first century, and Rome actively persecuted Christians under Nero. Again, where are you getting this information?

Your post consists of pseudolinguistics and pseudohistory. I'm all for good arguments against the resurrection, but the arguments you've proposed here seem to have no basis in reality.

[DefenderofTruth]

did the resurrection happen? Good question, lets explore that.

First off, I have never claimed to have witnessed the resurrection myself, I would like to be clear about that point. That said, neither has any of us. So thats that.

I also would like to address naturalism vs supernaturalism. Is nature all there is? While some people have closed their minds to that which is the miraculous, I think there is plenty of evidence available to support the idea that we haven't even came close to explaining all the mysteries of the universe. There are mysteries everywhere we look, including science, just as there are mysteries of the miracles that Christ is believed to had done.

Look at the Crucifixion, which isn't a supernatural event in itself but at the same time fulfills the role of a mystery of God. The Crucifixion is accepted has a literal event but when studied has many unexplainable miracles imbedded in it. How come Christ Crucified fit the role perfectly? Thats an important question and i think it points to an explanation of a Holy God being behind it. And if the Crucifixion can be accredited to a Holy God then the resurrection likewise could be a result of a Holy God.

But for the resurrection itself, what evidence is there? Of course we have the written testimony of the Gospels which won't be accepted as evidence but thats one source of the resurrection. We can look to the "empty tomb" to establish a physical representation of the resurrection, but like we have pointed out in other debates the early apostles and the other 500 who witnessed Christ Resurrected did so by "visions" of Christ.

So either these witnesses fabricated the entire resurrection or they really believed Christ had risen.

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament Scholar, he is agnostic, and he has said that this belief that the first apostles held was a genuine belief. Dr. Ehrman says that the apostles "really did believe that Christ was resurrected". You can see evidence of that kind of spirit in Paul.

In fact, another piece of evidence that would need to be explained would be Paul's conversion. We believe Paul didn't even believe in Christ until he witnessed a "vision" of the resurrected Christ. Thats literally why Paul converted, so if there was no resurrection why in the world would Paul convert? He even persecuted Christians.

Why would a man who persecuted a certain religion, convert to that same religion? Take all you atheist and nonbelievers, look at your own beliefs. What would make you convert to Christianity? Practically nothing, right? There is no way you'd believe... Maybe unless you witnessed a miraculous event that changed your minds about it. In fact many of you say "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence", then and only then maybe would you believe. But let Paul be your witness, that was his purpose in Christianity, to be the witness to the Gentiles. Paul might had very well received the evidence that you are looking for. I would suggest taking his message seriously and really giving the words that he wrote an open mind. Paul very well might had received that knowledge in which you look to for evidence of, and Paul is exactly what Dr. Ehrman was talking about when he said the early apostles really did believe that Christ rose from the dead.

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."~Jesus

[Haven]

Is nature all there is? While some people have closed their minds to that which is the miraculous, I think there is plenty of evidence available to support the idea that we haven't even came close to explaining all the mysteries of the universe. There are mysteries everywhere we look, including science, just as there are mysteries of the miracles that Christ is believed to had done.

No informed naturalist would ever claim that we've solved all the mysteries of the universe. Of course we haven't. However, mystery isn't the same thing as supernatural. The fact that something is unexplained doesn't mean it's beyond nature (people once thought lightning, which was unexplained, was supernatural, but now we know it's natural). Separate evidence would be needed to show that an unexplained phenomenon is supernatural.

Look at the Crucifixion, which isn't a supernatural event in itself but at the same time fulfills the role of a mystery of God. The Crucifixion is accepted has a literal event but when studied has many unexplainable miracles imbedded in it.

What miracles took place at the crucifixion of Jesus? How do you know these miracles took place? The Romans executed thousands by crucifixion, were those also miracles?

How come Christ Crucified fit the role perfectly?

The role of what? How did Jesus fit this undefined role?

Thats an important question and i think it points to an explanation of a Holy God being behind it. And if the Crucifixion can be accredited to a Holy God then the resurrection likewise could be a result of a Holy God.

Where is the evidence that the crucifixion was caused by a "holy" (what does that mean?) god?

But for the resurrection itself, what evidence is there? Of course we have the written testimony of the Gospels which won't be accepted as evidence but thats one source of the resurrection.

The gospels are the claims. Where is the evidence that the gospels' claims are true?

We can look to the "empty tomb" to establish a physical representation of the resurrection, but like we have pointed out in other debates the early apostles and the other 500 who witnessed Christ Resurrected did so by "visions" of Christ.

1. There likely was no empty tomb. Roman crucifixion victims were rarely buried, and most found themselves either let to rot on the cross or taken to the city dump to experience a dishonorable end. Jesus was likely no different, and the gospels' burial narratives (which all contradict each other) were likely later embellishments meant to counteract the stigma of Jesus crucifixion.

2. There's no evidence that there were 500 witnesses to Christ resurrected. That claim comes from Paul, citing an unknown source. There's nothing else supporting this claim. I could claim that 500 people saw Elvis today, but that wouldn't make the claim true. Where is the evidence?

3. The visions were probably legendary accretions: again, the gospels were written by anonymous authors decades after Jesus' death. Notably the vision stories differ greatly between the gospels, suggesting separate, and the earliest gospel, Mark, contains no vision stories at all. This suggests legendary accretion.

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament Scholar, he is agnostic, and he has said that this belief that the first apostles held was a genuine belief. Dr. Ehrman says that the apostles "really did believe that Christ was resurrected". You can see evidence of that kind of spirit in Paul.

I don't dispute this at all: early Christians believe Jesus was, in some sense, resurrected. The questions are:

1. What evidence did they have for this belief?

2. What did they mean by "resurrected" (was it a physical rising or merely a spiritual rebirth?)? Paul's works, the earliest extant Christian writings, don't seem to suggest a belief in a physical resurrection, only a spiritual one (1 Corinthians 15 clearly indicates this).

In fact, another piece of evidence that would need to be explained would be Paul's conversion. We believe Paul didn't even believe in Christ until he witnessed a "vision" of the resurrected Christ. Thats literally why Paul converted, so if there was no resurrection why in the world would Paul convert? He even persecuted Christians.

Again, Paul's experience--if it happened at all (the two accounts in Acts contradict each other, and there's no other evidence for it--was likely hallucinatory (especially since those with Paul did not have the same experience). Paul, a minor Hellenistic Jew before his conversion, also stood to benefit from joining the nascent Christian movement (in terms of gaining power over churches, and so on).

How does this demonstrate a resurrection?

Why would a man who persecuted a certain religion, convert to that same religion?

Why? Guilt, money, and power are three possible reasons.

Also, it's not as though Paul was the only person to convert from one religion to another.

Take all you atheist and nonbelievers, look at your own beliefs. What would make you convert to Christianity?

Strong evidence that Christianity is true.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to Haven]

The Jesus (JeZeus) story is a Roman transplant of the story of Theseus (TheZeus) and many other stories of resurrection.

The Pharisee, who were pro-resurrection, pro-messiah, pro-redemption and pro-Roman. The Romans, tired of this warrior-messiah, constantly drumming up the Jewish moral, invented one who would render to Caesar what was Caesars and forgive the tax-men.

On the other side were the Sadducee, anti-messiah, anti-ressurection, anti-redemtion and a footnote in history. That's what you get for opposing Rome.

The Pharisee led a Roman insurrection of Israel, implanting Jesus as the Son of God and Jehovah (ee-o-vah), or I-O-V-E of Jove as the papa-god.

There is proof: Say you were a promising young novate to the Judao-Roman institution of God. You doubt me, you say once per year the letters of God's name are rearranged to show his true power.

Well Jove = Jehovah = EIOVA, if we take the A and put it on the end we get AEIOU, or the newfangled, for the time, Roman vowels, one of the greatest powers of the Roman Empire.

It works for Yaway as well. Yawey becomes Ie o w a, the double "u" does it's trick and becomes the "u" written "v" because curves were hard to draw in stone, and again we are left with Jove or I-ov-eh (ee-ov-eh).

Pretty cool huh? Understanding that the Romans were the resurrectionists from Greek origin, then understanding etymology, you understand one of the greatest stories never told.

The word Jehovah is actually a mistranslation. In ancient Hebrew, they didn't write the vowels, so when the actual name of God is written in the Torah, it is written using the hebrew letters Yud Hey Vav Hey, or YHVH - with no vowels.

With most words, this isn't a problem, because you would know the appropriate vowels and how to pronounce the word anyway, but jews are forbidden to speak the name of God, so how do you say it when it's in a prayer? You say Adonai, the other main word for God in the Torah. In order to make this more clear, the vowel marks for 'adonai' ( 'a' 'o' 'a' ) are written with the word YHVH.

And so, upon translation, the vowel sounds that appeared to be written with the consonants for YHVH were used, and if you pronounced the word YHVH using the vowels for 'adonai', you get Ya-Ho-Va-h, or yahovah, which then becomes Jehovah.

And at this point, knowledge of the correct vowels has been lost.

[Willum]

[Replying to Haven]

Why not?

Linguistics, if you care to pursue the subject, does work that way, and the connection to Yeshua is far more tenuous than the connections I've made. The "sh" looks like an "s" but the hard "s" or z-sound have no relation, and have no basis, other than propaganda to transform. Concentrat upon your mouth movements as you say them, they do not align, despite the modern English letter used to represent them.

The thing you can not deny, is that if you passed a person educated in or near 0AD, and said "Jesus" to them, they would hear you say "Ie Zus" which means "Hail Zeus."
Are you really going to tell me that's a coincidence?
Heck, the name in Spanish speaking countries remain "Hey Zeus."

Here is another one: In all romanic-language speaking countries: Dios, Deus, Dieu etc., all mean God right? Well they are all derived from Deus, from Latin. Deus is really Dzeus. Which is really Zeus, of course. Dzeus and Dzupiter, or Jupiter, which is Dzeupater, or Father Zeus, or father God.

The Romans created the name game as well.

Think about it: The name of the Jewish god WAS Eilohim, not Jehovah.

Jehovah was a Canaanite war god, who by coincidence had the same assonance as Jove, or Ie O Veh.

Eilohim, is even today in Arab countries pronounced "Allah-eem."

We've been deceived, and this deceit was well hidden by the dark ages.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by FinalEnigma]

Are you really saying that the word "Adam," was kept, but the name of God was lost? LOL.

I am not the first one to make the suggestion. Indeed deeper research will show you that many scholars, respectables ones to, not like me, have been making the same discovery on and off for the last 2000 years.
http://hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html

Here is another: You know Spanish for God is Dios. French, Dieu, Italian, etc.. Well these are all derived from Deus, the Latin for God.

Well, Deus is really Dzeus, or Zeus. So most of the Catholic world prays to Zeus. Check it out.

Is it any real surprise that, then Jesus is Ie Zeus? God is Zeus.

And, God, the English is derived from the German "Goot" which is the name of a long lost Pagan God.

Pick your poison.