Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Mithrae]

The Resurrection Proof #2: The Holy Women Eyewitnesses
The holy women eyewitnesses are further proof that the Gospels are accurate historical records. If the accounts had been made up, no ancient author would have used women for witnesses to Christ's resurrection. Women were second class citizens in Bible times; their testimony was not even allowed in court. Yet the Bible says the risen Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene and other holy women. Even the apostles did not believe Mary when she told them the tomb was empty. Jesus, who always had special respect for these women, honored them as the first eyewitnesses to his resurrection. The male Gospel writers had no choice but to report this embarrassing act of God's favor, because that was how it happened.

While it is true that the testimony of "mere" women was not allowed in court, we have no testimony of any "mere" woman to consult, because they left none.

This does not explain why women would be chosen as the first witnesses, either as decades-later fiction or in your conspiracy theory.

The Resurrection Proof #4: Changed Lives of James and Others
Changed lives are yet another proof of the resurrection. James, the brother of Jesus, was openly skeptical that Jesus was the Messiah. Later James became a courageous leader of the Jerusalem church, even being stoned to death for his faith. Why? The Bible says the risen Christ appeared to him. What a shock to see your own brother, alive again, after you knew he was dead. James and the apostles were effective missionaries because people could tell these men had touched and seen the risen Christ. With such zealous eyewitnesses, the early church exploded in growth, spreading west from Jerusalem to Rome and beyond. For 2,000 years, encounters with the resurrected Jesus have changed lives.

James the brother of Jesus who knew Jesus intimately his entire life, much like the rest of Jesus' family and neighbors in Galilee, was unimpressed with Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. Only after his brother was wrongly accused on trumped up charges and executed in the most ignominious fashion in Jewish society, did James take up the cause of his fallen brother.

This does not explain why James so drastically changed his views. In this vein you earlier referenced from Deuteronomy that any who are hung on a tree would be cursed; but that is simply additional reason why James (and Jesus' own disciples and mother) would disbelieve, or at the most simply cut their losses, rather than compel them to start fabricating stories to put them directly at odds with the ruling authorities.

-------

Re: the comparison of the historicity of Socrates with Jesus, there are glaring differences. One of the most striking is that with Socrates there is no claim that he was god or performed miracles or had other supernatural powers.

There is something about the descriptions of Socrates that has the 'ring of truth,' that is, the descriptions seem very human, as if a real person was described. A key example is his appearnce:

He was not the ideal of Athenian masculinity. Short and stocky, with a snub nose and bulging eyes, Socrates always seemed to appear to be staring. However, Plato pointed out that in the eyes of his students, Socrates possessed a different kind of attractiveness, not based on a physical ideal but on his brilliant debates and penetrating thought.
http://www.biography.com/people/socrates-9488126

In comparison, Jesus, tho' he lived about 400 years later, is portrayed very superficially in regard to his appearance. He was perfect, just too perfect.

You're serious? The gospels say absolutely nothing about Jesus' appearance to my recollection. But Christians believe that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus:
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

He's portrayed in various gospels as vindictive against a fig tree, vicious against the scribes and Pharisees, physically violent against money-changers, associate of prostitutes, sinners and tax collectors, supportive of Roman authority and all but blatantly violating Sabbath regulations.

All that is "just too perfect" in your view?
Portrayal of the disciples is even less flattering.





Regardless of how unbelievable miracles or the like are, I think on each of these three points there are some notable incongruencies which we wouldn't expect of a wholly fabricated story.

[Iam]

[Replying to post 529 by Mithrae]

Perhaps unless one were attempting to justify a Che Guevara?

[East of Eden]

We have several accounts of people who say they saw Jesus after He died. Are they somehow less credible than the people who say they knew Socrates?

http://christianity.about.com/od/easter ... ection.htm

Paul, the people recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, James, the women, the apostles.

Paul said he saw Jesus in a vision. Sounds like sleep paralysis to me. As for the rest, we don't have THEIR story , now do we. We have claims for them..but nothing from them.

We also have a lot of people claiming to have seen Elvis after he died. Are their reports reliable?

Why don't you check your facts and then get back to me. Really. Check out what you've said. Verify that it makes sense. Do some critical thinking to make sure you're not generalizing or taking the easy answer at the expense of the truth... then try again.

What facts do I have wrong?

What first hand accounts do we have?? Please, show what writings are from primary sources.

As for Paul.. that was a vision after being sick. That doesn't seem to reliabile to me.

You've got it backwards, the sickness came after the vision.

The vision was REPORTED and remembered after or during the illness.

[East of Eden]

We have several accounts of people who say they saw Jesus after He died. Are they somehow less credible than the people who say they knew Socrates?

http://christianity.about.com/od/easter ... ection.htm

Paul, the people recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, James, the women, the apostles.

Paul said he saw Jesus in a vision. Sounds like sleep paralysis to me. As for the rest, we don't have THEIR story , now do we. We have claims for them..but nothing from them.

We also have a lot of people claiming to have seen Elvis after he died. Are their reports reliable?

Why don't you check your facts and then get back to me. Really. Check out what you've said. Verify that it makes sense. Do some critical thinking to make sure you're not generalizing or taking the easy answer at the expense of the truth... then try again.

What facts do I have wrong?

What first hand accounts do we have?? Please, show what writings are from primary sources.

As for Paul.. that was a vision after being sick. That doesn't seem to reliabile to me.

You've got it backwards, the sickness came after the vision.

The vision was REPORTED and remembered after or during the illness.

Of course it was, do you expect it would be reported and remembered BEFORE the vision?

[Iam]

We have several accounts of people who say they saw Jesus after He died. Are they somehow less credible than the people who say they knew Socrates?

http://christianity.about.com/od/easter ... ection.htm

Paul, the people recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, James, the women, the apostles.

Paul said he saw Jesus in a vision. Sounds like sleep paralysis to me. As for the rest, we don't have THEIR story , now do we. We have claims for them..but nothing from them.

We also have a lot of people claiming to have seen Elvis after he died. Are their reports reliable?

Why don't you check your facts and then get back to me. Really. Check out what you've said. Verify that it makes sense. Do some critical thinking to make sure you're not generalizing or taking the easy answer at the expense of the truth... then try again.

What facts do I have wrong?

What first hand accounts do we have?? Please, show what writings are from primary sources.

As for Paul.. that was a vision after being sick. That doesn't seem to reliabile to me.

You've got it backwards, the sickness came after the vision.

The vision was REPORTED and remembered after or during the illness.

Of course it was, do you expect it would be reported and remembered BEFORE the vision?

As hard as I try, I can't make illness=vision. But go for it.

[aglassdarkly]

Re: the comparison of the historicity of Socrates with Jesus, there are glaring differences. One of the most striking is that with Socrates there is no claim that he was god or performed miracles or had other supernatural powers.

Well, let's focus on this most striking of details... how is it relevant to the historicity of the men? If we are historians looking for evidence, why would "Jesus claimed to be God" play a role in the evidence?

[Danmark]

We have several accounts of people who say they saw Jesus after He died. Are they somehow less credible than the people who say they knew Socrates?

http://christianity.about.com/od/easter ... ection.htm

Paul, the people recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, James, the women, the apostles.

Paul said he saw Jesus in a vision. Sounds like sleep paralysis to me. As for the rest, we don't have THEIR story , now do we. We have claims for them..but nothing from them.

We also have a lot of people claiming to have seen Elvis after he died. Are their reports reliable?

Why don't you check your facts and then get back to me. Really. Check out what you've said. Verify that it makes sense. Do some critical thinking to make sure you're not generalizing or taking the easy answer at the expense of the truth... then try again.

What facts do I have wrong?

What first hand accounts do we have?? Please, show what writings are from primary sources.

As for Paul.. that was a vision after being sick. That doesn't seem to reliabile to me.

You've got it backwards, the sickness came after the vision.

The vision was REPORTED and remembered after or during the illness.

Of course it was, do you expect it would be reported and remembered BEFORE the vision?

The point, which appears to be lost on you, is that Saul has this vision which his companions do not see, when he is delirious with his illness and deprived of sleep and under the care of a Christian zealot who influences him when he is vulnerable. These are ideal circumstances for brainwashing. Then he reports having had a 'vision' which no one else saw. The essential timeline is not from the moment of the 'vision' itself, but from the time he announces the 'vision.'

In other words, dear reader, there was no event, no vision. Paul simply took ill, got delirious, was deprived of food and was rescued by a Christian. That combined with his own guilt over Stephen's death resulted in his claim of a vision. Then he sits in, in earnest and constructs his revisionist history. I'm not saying he was not a true believer. But he was deluded. Then his delusion when combined with his colossal ego resulted in 'Paul' coming up with a scenario wherein HE was an apostle himself, one who had 'seen' Jesus. 'Paul' is not the type to take a back seat to anyone so he, albeit unconsciously, seats himself at the head of the table with his self serving 'vision.'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You've got it backwards, the sickness came after the vision.

The vision was REPORTED and remembered after or during the illness.

Of course it was, do you expect it would be reported and remembered BEFORE the vision?

I think the point here is that the whole story represents Paul's version of events. But then Paul was the one suffering from illness and delirium. According to Acts Paul was unable to drink for three days. He was therefore dehydrated by definition. Because his dehydration was so persistent you have to suspect another cause, such as dysentery or any illness whose symptoms include persistent vomiting.

Dehydration
Signs and symptoms
Symptoms may include headaches[7] similar to what is experienced during a hangover, decreased blood pressure (hypotension), and dizziness or fainting when standing up due to orthostatic hypotension. Untreated dehydration generally results in delirium, unconsciousness, swelling of the tongue and, in extreme cases, death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

[Tired of the Nonsense]

While it is true that the testimony of "mere" women was not allowed in court, we have no testimony of any "mere" woman to consult, because they left none.

This does not explain why women would be chosen as the first witnesses, either as decades-later fiction or in your conspiracy theory.

When approaching the question of what might actually have occurred, I often as myself, "What would I have done in a similar situation had I been calling the shots?" If we really are talking conspiracy here, then choosing the women to bring attention to the empty tomb was brilliant. That the followers of Jesus were probably responsible for his missing corpse would be obvious to everyone, but who would accuse "mere women" of moving the great stone and hauling off the body? And it wasn't just that the women were spreading the story of the risen Jesus, they were spreading the story, on the third day as promised, of the empty tomb for all interested parties to come and witness for themselves.

James the brother of Jesus who knew Jesus intimately his entire life, much like the rest of Jesus' family and neighbors in Galilee, was unimpressed with Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. Only after his brother was wrongly accused on trumped up charges and executed in the most ignominious fashion in Jewish society, did James take up the cause of his fallen brother.

This does not explain why James so drastically changed his views. In this vein you earlier referenced from Deuteronomy that any who are hung on a tree would be cursed; but that is simply additional reason why James (and Jesus' own disciples and mother) would disbelieve, or at the most simply cut their losses, rather than compel them to start fabricating stories to put them directly at odds with the ruling authorities.

The fact that James became radicalized over the manner of his brother's unfair trial and disgraceful execution, and the shame it brought to his family's good name is not so hard to understand. People seek to strike back in anger when they are deeply offended. More interesting is the fact that James was Jesus' own brother, knew Jesus, who was after all FULLY GOD according to Christian belief, intimately well his entire life and yet managed to be so unimpressed with him that He, James, did not become an ardent supporter until AFTER Jesus' shameful treatment at the hands of the Jewish priests.

[Peter]

I know I should be riveted by this bible debate. What it says, who says it and what it means should be extremely important but I just can't bring myself to take it any more seriously than a similar debate of Lord of the Rings.

Actually, wouldn't it be fun to compare Lord of the Rings with the Bible as to which one was more helpful as a guide to life? While I myself am totally unprepared to discuss the merits of either in depth I must admit it would be fascinating.