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]

[Replying to post 529 by Mithrae]

Perhaps unless one were attempting to justify a Che Guevara?

True enough, Jesus makes a great Che, just as Socrates makes a great... well, a great Socrates I guess, an idyllic philosopher figure right up to his death. I suspect that most notable figures of history could be shoehorned into one kind of archetypal mould or another, yet we don't generally say that they are "just too perfect" to be believed.

---

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.

A mere empty tomb is laughable evidence, as you note. It was the claim to have seen Jesus alive again which is crucial, and a group of women chosen to spread that story would have been open to much more ridicule than male 'witnesses.' It makes no sense.

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.

But from what we know, James did not become radicalized or strike back in anger at all; he lived peacefully in Jerusalem until he was unlawfully killed c. 62CE. According to Paul in Gal. 2 his community of Jewish believers followed the law of Moses (unlike Peter), and were particularly concerned about providing for the poor. The only radical thing about James was his newfound belief that Jesus actually was the Messiah, which makes absolutely no sense after his execution - unless he'd somehow become convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

[Student]

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.

Mark wrote that women were the first to visit the tomb [and to discover it empty], not for reasons of historical accuracy, but out of narrative necessity:

Firstly, he [Mark] wrote that the women were the only disciples to witnesses where Jesus was buried; the male disciples had run away, so were not at the crucifixion and they would not have known where to find the tomb.

Secondly, the pretext for the womens visit was to anoint Jesus body with herbs and spices; this was womens work - to tend the body of the deceased, to wash it and to anoint it with herbs and spices. It would have been considered unthinkable [in first century Judaea] for men to carry out this duty. Any version of events which involved men undertaking this kind of work would have scandalised Marks readership and have resulted in the account being rejected out of hand as being too ridiculous to contemplate.

Mark ends his account by relating that the women ran away and told no-one nothing so neatly avoiding any issue of the women being unreliable witnesses, and providing the reason for the lack of any early tradition for the empty tomb.

The fact that the subsequent evangelists felt at liberty to vary the number / names of the women illustrates that they were unconstrained by any earlier tradition i.e. they [the women] were Marks literary invention.

[East of Eden]

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.

Mark wrote that women were the first to visit the tomb [and to discover it empty], not for reasons of historical accuracy, but out of narrative necessity:

Firstly, he [Mark] wrote that the women were the only disciples to witnesses where Jesus was buried; the male disciples had run away, so were not at the crucifixion and they would not have known where to find the tomb.

Secondly, the pretext for the womens visit was to anoint Jesus body with herbs and spices; this was womens work - to tend the body of the deceased, to wash it and to anoint it with herbs and spices. It would have been considered unthinkable [in first century Judaea] for men to carry out this duty. Any version of events which involved men undertaking this kind of work would have scandalised Marks readership and have resulted in the account being rejected out of hand as being too ridiculous to contemplate.

Mark ends his account by relating that the women ran away and told no-one nothing so neatly avoiding any issue of the women being unreliable witnesses, and providing the reason for the lack of any early tradition for the empty tomb.

The fact that the subsequent evangelists felt at liberty to vary the number / names of the women illustrates that they were unconstrained by any earlier tradition i.e. they [the women] were Marks literary invention.

If the Gospel was really made up they could have easily changed it to have men witness the empty tomb first.

[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?

The point, which appears to be lost on you, is that Saul has this vision which his companions do not see,

No, but they heard Jesus' voice.

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.

Why would he be vulnerable if there was no vision?

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.

Nonsense, Paul was the biggest persecutor of Christians there was. That would be like Barney Frank taking ill and being cared for by Republicans and as a result becoming a Republican.

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.'

LOL, you're funny. Since Paul allegedly had a huge ego, why not make himself the hero of the religion he 'invented' instead of Jesus Christ? You can throw out as many fanciful scenarios as you want, but unless you have evidence they won't be taken seriously. Got any? Maybe documentation of some top secret payoff as compensation for his persecution and eventual death?

What you propose is that if Paul and the Apostles had had a good shrink there would have been no Christianity. Its about as silly as if Christians were to say if atheists had a shrink they would become Christians. Would that be an acceptable debating technique?

[Danmark]

The point, which appears to be lost on you, is that Saul has this vision which his companions do not see,

No, but they heard Jesus' voice.

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.

Why would he be vulnerable if there was no vision?

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.

Nonsense, Paul was the biggest persecutor of Christians there was. That would be like Barney Frank taking ill and being cared for by Republicans and as a result becoming a Republican.

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.'

LOL, you're funny. Since Paul allegedly had a huge ego, why not make himself the hero of the religion he 'invented' instead of Jesus Christ? You can throw out as many fanciful scenarios as you want, but unless you have evidence they won't be taken seriously. Got any? Maybe documentation of some top secret payoff as compensation for his persecution and eventual death?

Not surprised you are confused. My scenario is based upon my knowledge of human nature. History, as well as personal experience is replete with examples of people who go 180 degrees from the path they were on, due to guilt and trauma. Paul's companions heard a noise, perhaps Saul yelling or falling off his horse. These companions are not named and they do not report hearing words or sharing in Saul's vision.

It is more plausible that this guilt ridden Saul, who cannot eat or drink for 3 days and is cared for [brainwashed while vulnerable] does an about face while ill; than that he had a vision of the supernatural.

There is no 'evidence' for either, other than that Saul's companions definitely did not experience what he did, and this is as reported by Christian historians.

Are there any neutral historians who report ANY of this alleged event?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The point, which appears to be lost on you, is that Saul has this vision which his companions do not see,

No, but they heard Jesus' voice.

What you are failing to understand, EoE, is that this story in Acts is PAUL'S version of events, the way PAUL remembered them, and not that of his traveling companions. The traveling companions left no version at all. In Paul's version of events, as he remembered them after his recovery, Paul believed that he and everyone around him heard Jesus' voice. But you see, PAUL WAS THE ONE WHO, AT THE TIME, WAS SICK, BLIND AND DISORIENTED! During his illness Paul was cared for and prayed over by a Christian man. After his recovery Paul underwent a life changing conversion and became a devout Christian. An interesting little tale with a rather predictable outcome, and hardly miraculous. Given the circumstances it would have been rather more surprising if he hadn't converted.

[assisigirl]

Hi All,
sickness can effect people in strange ways. Look at this guy, Martin Luther, wiki states:
In his later years, in deteriorating health, Luther became increasingly antisemitic, writing that Jewish homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed


Paul does not have to do a U Turn He does not have to have an epiphany as such. It is more likely that a mentally astute Paul starts to work with what is there already and bring it to purpose. No big deal. No Wow!

[Clownboat]

But from what we know, James did not become radicalized or strike back in anger at all; he lived peacefully in Jerusalem until he was unlawfully killed c. 62CE. According to Paul in Gal. 2 his community of Jewish believers followed the law of Moses (unlike Peter), and were particularly concerned about providing for the poor. The only radical thing about James was his newfound belief that Jesus actually was the Messiah, which makes absolutely no sense after his execution - unless he'd somehow become convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

Seriously, you cannot come up with another possible scenario in your mind? That's the "only" thing that makes sense to you?

How about popularity and power (with a specific group), or a change of employment?

Did you give this any thought?

[Student]

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.

Mark wrote that women were the first to visit the tomb [and to discover it empty], not for reasons of historical accuracy, but out of narrative necessity:

Firstly, he [Mark] wrote that the women were the only disciples to witnesses where Jesus was buried; the male disciples had run away, so were not at the crucifixion and they would not have known where to find the tomb.

Secondly, the pretext for the womens visit was to anoint Jesus body with herbs and spices; this was womens work - to tend the body of the deceased, to wash it and to anoint it with herbs and spices. It would have been considered unthinkable [in first century Judaea] for men to carry out this duty. Any version of events which involved men undertaking this kind of work would have scandalised Marks readership and have resulted in the account being rejected out of hand as being too ridiculous to contemplate.

Mark ends his account by relating that the women ran away and told no-one nothing so neatly avoiding any issue of the women being unreliable witnesses, and providing the reason for the lack of any early tradition for the empty tomb.

The fact that the subsequent evangelists felt at liberty to vary the number / names of the women illustrates that they were unconstrained by any earlier tradition i.e. they [the women] were Marks literary invention.

If the Gospel was really made up they could have easily changed it to have men witness the empty tomb first.

But that wouldn't explain why the empty tomb was such a late tradition. Had Paul known of it he would certainly have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians.

And what pretext could Mark possibly construct to account for the men visiting the tomb? He already had them run away at Jesus arrest, so by what means could he devise to have them know where the supposed tomb was located. Another dream sequence, or would Mark have them just casually pass the graveyard and happen to notice and investigate an empty tomb?

Washing and anointing the body of the recently deceased was the work of women and women alone. There was no possible reason for men to visit the tomb at any time immediately after the interment.

Consequently, any account of men visiting the tomb to anoint the body would have been totally incongruous to a first century CE Jewish audience.

[Student]

The point, which appears to be lost on you, is that Saul has this vision which his companions do not see,

No, but they heard Jesus' voice.

What you are failing to understand, EoE, is that this story in Acts is PAUL'S version of events, the way PAUL remembered them, and not that of his traveling companions. The traveling companions left no version at all. In Paul's version of events, as he remembered them after his recovery, Paul believed that he and everyone around him heard Jesus' voice. But you see, PAUL WAS THE ONE WHO, AT THE TIME, WAS SICK, BLIND AND DISORIENTED! During his illness Paul was cared for and prayed over by a Christian man. After his recovery Paul underwent a life changing conversion and became a devout Christian. An interesting little tale with a rather predictable outcome, and hardly miraculous. Given the circumstances it would have been rather more surprising if he hadn't converted.

The problem is that none of the [three] accounts of Pauls conversion in Acts conform exactly to Pauls own account of his conversion in Galatians:

Ga 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

So, immediately after Pauls conversion he went to Arabia and only latterly did he return to Damascus.

No mention of any companions, blindness, or three days without food and water, and no mention of contact with Ananias, or anyone of flesh and blood.

So, whos account are we to believe? Lukes (Acts) three differing versions or that of Paul?