Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Zzyzx]

.
Part 4 of 6

You do understand, those that have claimed to have "found peace" are dying at this very moment, right? What is it they are dying from? You may say, "it is simply the circle of life" while the Bible tells us "we are all dying from a condition called sin," so who is right? And how could either side prove such a thing?

Medical personnel who indicate that a person is dying due to certain conditions, illnesses, injuries can cite EVIDENCE to support their conclusions.

Those who maintain that "sin" is a cause of death can cite WHAT? Ancient tales? Religious beliefs? Personal opinions?

Of course, many are not interested in seeking evidence of actual causes but are content believing what they have been told about "sin".

You continue to use this phrase, "that cannot be shown to be anything more than imaginary." Well let me ask you, is the New Testament we have, "imaginary?"

The book itself, in its many forms, is not imaginary. What I ask for is EVIDENCE that the TALES it tells are anything more than imaginary.

Gone with the Wind is an actual book that exists. However, its characters and stories are imaginary.

I am not talking about what is written in the New Testament, rather I am speaking of the actual letters contained in the New Testament. If they are real, (and they are) then it seems as if real people, claimed that real events, occurred in real time, and in real space.

Agreed. Copies of copies of gospel letters exist and may or may not be faithful representations of what was originally written. Real people (whoever they may have been) apparently made claims that events reported were real. So what?

Now none of these things may be true,

Agreed. That seems to be a rather important issue. However, it might be convenient for Apologists to avoid the issue since they cannot demonstrate that said letters are truthful and accurate.

but the fact that we have these letters demonstrates there were those who claimed these things were true, and went to the effort to write about these things in letters addressed to others at the time.

Agreed. People wrote letters making certain claims that may or may not have been real. Again, so what? If people believed what they wrote is that assurance it was truthful and accurate?

Now you claim we do not know who the authors may have been, and that it is possible these letters may have been written decades, or generations after the fact, but this does not wash with the letters attributed to Paul, or Luke. You see, there is no denying the fact that Paul authored letters,

Agreed. Paul/Saul evidently wrote SOME of the letters that bear his name.

He admittedly did not know Jesus personally or witness any words or deeds – but "learned" what he wrote about after having a "vision" (or whatever it was) that he says VERY little about but which is detailed in Acts.

He also evidently wrote the letters considered authentic two decades after Jesus died.

This proves or indicates exactly what? It isn't even assurance that Paul/Saul believed what he wrote.

[Zzyzx]

.
Part 5 of 6

or that Paul was one of the main reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the world,

Some scholars and theologians give Paul/Saul great credit for the spread of Christianity by making it acceptable to Roman officials. I do not disagree.

and his letters, along with the letters of Luke, clearly demonstrate there were those who believed these things, and also lived their life accordingly at the time.

Okay. We have established that some people 2000 years ago wrote letters indicating that they believed certain things.

As we are well aware, people can believe and write about believing all sorts of weird things – as the Internet verifies. Some of those weird ideas gain quite a following – particularly if put forth by good promoters.

Okay. Condense it to "Whose opinion about what is taught in scripture is authoritative" and who granted that authority?

Allow me to ask you, why do you believe there has to be some sort of authority? We all know there are those who will use written documents, (not simply the Bible) to prey upon weak minded people. But you are certainly not weak minded in the least, so why do you believe there must be some sort of authority to determine the meaning of what is contained in the Bible?

If I say that a given scripture means "A" and you say that it means something different "B" and others have their own versions, which takes precedent over others? Who is right (if any) and how is that determined?

In reality, isn't it simply a matter of OPINION? Is a religious person's opinion "better" or more accurate than that of a non-religious person? Is one religious person's opinion "better" than another religious person's?

This is exactly how cults, begin

Christianity is composed of tens of thousands of cults which over time gain size and/or popularity enough to become known as denominations. In fact, Christianity was a cult / splinter group from Judaism.

because there are those who allow others to be an authority over what is said in the Bible, instead of taking the time, and effort to read it for oneself, and using ones own mind.

Those who lead splinter groups, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Joseph Smith and many others did not follow those in authority and evidently read the Bible and used their own mind.

In fact this is exactly what the Catholic Church did, and it is one of the reasons for the reformation. At that point in time, not only did no one have a Bible, the Bible was in the Latin language, so even if you owned a Bible you could not read it. This left the Church alone as the authority of not only what the Bible said, but also the interpretation. This left the people totally dependent on the Church.

Agreed. The advent of printing and translation into common languages allowed common people to read the Bible – and was important in the Reformation.

But you see, the reformers believed it best for people to read and determine for themselves what the Bible actually had to say, which is why they went to the trouble to have the Bible translated into the language of the people. The point is, most of us have sound minds, and are able to read, and interpret language.

It appears as though all of us read and interpret differently. Is there a "right way" or is it a matter of opinion? If the former, which one (if any) is right. If the latter, Bible stories can mean whatever the person "interprets" them to mean.

[Zzyzx]

.
Part 6 of 6

With this being the case, then why do we need an authority? If you and I come to a different conclusion concerning the meaning of a particular passage, we have the ability to sit down together, to discuss, and compare our differences. So again, why do we need an authority?

Okay, as thinking people who are capable of reading and understanding the English language we can discuss and compare our views regarding what the Bible says / means – exactly as we are doing here. Often we disagree. Others join and may disagree with both of us.

Has that process somehow identified the "real meaning" of Bible stories? Does it show that the stories are anything more than imagination?

A good example of the above is when you simply throw a passage of Scripture out there concerning, "faith moving mountains." Your point seemed to be, "how can we determine the way in which this passage should be read?" Well, the first point is, you cannot simply take one sentence from a passage, (whether the Bible or any other written material), and believe you can understand it. However, once I placed this one sentence in it's surrounding context, it was easy to determine we were overhearing a conversation between Jesus, and His future Apostles, and when we compared this to other passages in the Bible, we find the author of "Acts" records the Apostles performed mighty works, and goes to the trouble to be sure to distinguish between what the ordinary believer was doing, compared to the Apostles, to ensure the reader understands, the Apostles, using their faith were the only ones who were performing these mighty works.

Okay. Is there evidence (or even claims) that the apostles moved mountains or caused mountains to "cast themselves into the sea"? What "mighty works" DID the apostles accomplish? Kindly provide a list from scripture.

If the ordinary believers were not performing mighty works during the Apostolic age, then what would now make us believe the ordinary believer would be performing faith based miraculous works? At any rate, as you can clearly see, without twisting the meaning at all, and without changing the meanings of words, and without forcing a meaning upon the sentence you cite, Jesus never intended to say, "anyone, anywhere, anytime, should, or would, be moving mountains with their faith" and to cause this passage to mean this, would necessarily entail twisting, and forcing a meaning upon it, that is not there! It is not that difficult.

If the "faith" of people other than apostles is not said to be able to move mountains (or perform "mighty works" as per the tales), what is the "faith" supposed to be able to accomplish according to scripture? According to doctrine?

The point is, do you really believe we need an authority to determine what a written document is saying, or do you believe you have the ability to read and understand yourself?

There appears to be a great difference in what people "read and understand" themselves of the Bible. Who is right and why? If / since there are potentially (or practically) thousands of different interpretations WHAT is the meaning conveyed?

Although there are creeds and confessions I adhere to, because I believe them to be in line with the clear meaning of Scripture, they are not authoritative over me, which allows me to continue to use my mind, as I read, study, and examine evidence.

The same is true for everyone – and everyone is free to find whatever "meaning" they decide using their mind. Thus, any given text can be "interpreted" by any person to mean whatever they say it means to them.

This means I am not bound to defend a certain belief, that goes against the clear meaning, and common sense.

Of course, none of us are bound to defend any beliefs or convictions BUT many seem to feel obligated to defend all of Christendom or all of any ideology (a very difficult undertaking). It is wise to defend only our own personal views and let others defend theirs.

The point is, we can examine what is said in a passage, talk and discuss certain meanings, and come to a conclusion in this way, or we can lazily sit back, and allow someone to tell us what we need to believe.

A common "conclusion" is that people DISAGREE about the meaning of passages – and there is no assurance that any opinions are correct. They are just opinions and are at least as common as belly buttons.

I have no desire for anyone to be interested in reading, and studying Scripture, because I understand it is hard work. However, if someone is going to attempt to comment on what is recorded in the Bible, enough to give an opinion on the meaning, or to comment that it is all nonsense, or to tell me what I must, and should be doing, and believing as a Christian,

WHO is attempting to tell you what you must or should be believing and doing as a Christian?

I realize that many preachers attempt to do so for their "flock", but do not see anyone here attempting such things. If I am wrong, kindly cite examples.

then it would seem as though such a person giving such opinions would at least attempt to intently study the subject, they seem to want to be an expert in.

Many different opinions are expressed here and elsewhere regarding Christianity. Many people seem to consider themselves experts in such things.

[rikuoamero]

RealworldJack says

The point is, we can examine what is said in a passage, talk and discuss certain meanings, and come to a conclusion in this way, or we can lazily sit back, and allow someone to tell us what we need to believe.

But that is what Scripture IS! It's a collection of writings from many disparate authors on what they believe. They believe that there is a God, and some of them describe this God to be X, others describe him as Y, and so on.
In your other responses to me RWJ, you say I shouldn't follow other men, other authorities. Instead...I should follow THESE men, THESE authorities, because the authorities in the councils of the 300s and 400s AD decided that these books and letters were to be bound into a single volume.
You say you follow common sense. My common sense says that a character conjuring up food with what looks to be magic is just a fairy tale (ya know, what Professor McGonagall did towards the start of the second Harry Potter book, when she's talking to Harry). Fiction. I am able to recognise that story of McGonagall as fiction because conjuring up food with a wave of a stick of wood and a word simpy has not been shown to be possible; just like the story of Jesus feeding a crowd.

[KenRU]

So all doctrinal differences are simply the result of one side being lazy. Really?

I never said this at all,

Then I am confused by your point. Do you agree that different interpretations of the bible is the direct cause for the many (but not all) varying sects of Christianity?

but tell you what, why don't you give me one of the many doctrinal differences you are talking about, right off the top of your head without going to look them up. If there are all that many, and you are sure of it, then you should be able to throw one out quickly.

-Differences on the Holy Ghost/the Trinity.
-Interpretations of just what Hell is.
-Hell's significance and necessity.
-Good works vs faith.

Shall I go on?

So lets look at this more closely. There are certainly those that claim to be Christian, that are not considered to be orthodox. But the question becomes, can they defend their position from the Bible. Of course your position is they can, and you will allow this, but then the question becomes, have you really put forth the time and effort it would take, to determine what the Bible actually teaches, as compared to what these sects claim to teach.

This sounds awfully a lot like you saying: the differences between the varying sects of Christianity are just a result of one denomination not putting forth the time and effort.

But you’re not saying that are you?

Please clear up my confusion. Thanks!

It would seem, if you want to give any sort of opinion on the subject at all, then you would at least be prepared to discuss what it is they claim to believe, and how it can be defended from Scripture, instead of simply saying, "yeah, they can believe anything they like, and continue to refer to themselves as Christian."

That’s a cheap and unfair way of shifting blame, my friend.

Let’s look at that more closely, shall we. I offer the respect to those of other denominations saying that I believe they have put fort the effort to truly understand why they believe they believe.

Do you?

Now, as we get to other doctrinal differences between the different sects, lets see how far off they are. The Church I was raised in, taught and believed the "sleep of the dead," and "conditional immortality," while most other sects would disagree. However, we were not considered outside the realm of orthodoxy by the other sects. In fact, there were women in our Church, who were actually married to men who were members of Baptist Churches.

So, why would these Churches be split, instead of uniting together? Well, it is to keep away from confusion in the Church.

Do you feel this is the norm? That most denominational differences are just a means to avoid this confusion?

The difference between, say, a Roman Catholic, and a Evangelical Protestant is a bit larger I would think.

In other words, even though these differences do not in any way deter from the essential message of the faith, and even though we may be united over the essentials, it may be confusing to hear different teachings concerning these minor differences. Therefore we divide, while continuing to consider each other brothers, and sisters in the faith. So go ahead, lets discuss some of the differences.

Do you consider members of the RCC your brothers and sisters?

I know some faiths do not.

Unless you can correct me, I believe whenever I referred to being lazy, it was in reference to the interpretation of a certain passage, as opposed to doctrinal differences between the different sects.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding occurring, which I would like to avoid.

I simply asserted that varying interpretations of the bible result in the many denominations (not all) of Christianity that exist today. Hence, the bible is not as straightforward as you stated, otherwise there would be far less denominations out there.

Doctrinal differences are a direct result of varying interpretations, are they not?

An example is when someone takes the passage concerning, "faith moving mountains" and simply assuming from this simple phrase, it has to mean we as Christians today, should, could, and would be, "moving mountains." That is extremely lazy!

I agree with this.

The bible is plain to understand on its face? Even Revelations?

In the end, you can see I qualified this by saying,

In other words, while there are some passages that may be difficult to understand, by in large, the overwhelming majority of the Bible is in plain language, and while it may take some effort to understand, which is no different than any other written form of communication, it is not difficult, unless of course as I said, you are simply a lazy reader, I do not care, of desire to take the time to understand!

This means I understand that there are somethings that are hard to understand, and when I come to some of these things, I will simply admit that, "at this time I am not sure of the meaning." However, simply because there may be SOME, does not in any way mean THE WHOLE OF THE BIBLE cannot be understood, and if one does so, is certainly a lazy position!

I never meant to imply that I thought the whole bible cannot be understood. Aopologies if I was not clear. Clearly some passages are plain. Clearly there are many that are not. Hence the many denominations that exist.

But to your point, yes, I believe the intent is for it to be taken quite literally.

Okay, we agree here.

: )

However, since NO scientific data supports such a global flood, this kind of takes away from its credibility.

Even if what you say here is true, (and is far from the truth, I just watched a video featuring a NASA scientist giving evidence for a global flood), it is completely beside the point, and I do not care to discuss it since it would veer us of course. The point is, what was the intention of the author, and you and I agree it was to be taken literally, and since this is the case, to interpret it differently would go against the clear meaning. Therefore anyone attempting to change the intent, is doing so outside the bounds of normal communication, and more than likely has an agenda to do so!

Fair point. I was just curious as to your thinking regarding the scientific evidence that supports the global flood idea. But I agree, it will veer us of course. Thank you for responding.

Apologies if I missed that. My point, though, was there are a lot of passages in the bible, imo, that can reasonably be considered to have different possible meanings. IE: Catholicism (of which I spent many years as one) claims biblical authority for its interpretations (sacraments, the trinity, etc).

They’re just lazy and/or dishonest?

Again, you tell me!

No, you made the assertion, it is on you to defend or recant.

Have you ever heard of the, "Reformation?" At that point in time, no one owned a Bible, and even if they did, they could not read it because it was in the Latin language. Therefore, the Church was the sole authority over not only what was said in the Bible, but also what it meant. The reformers believed people should be able to read the Bible for themselves, and this is why they translated the Bible into the language of the people. So you tell me?

Again, no. It was your assertion. Do you stick by it or not?

If there are those who want you to adhere to their particular interpretation, over and against your own ability to read and understand, then what is that?

I have heard their arguments and find them quite credible interpretations. And certainly see no reason to believe they go against anything in the bible stated “plainly� as you say.

You made the assertion, so I reasonably expect you to defend it. Am I wrong to expect this?

I’ve no desire to debate the veracity of the different possible interpretations of biblical texts. Me, the atheist and ex-Catholic, find it the epitome of arrogance on such a topic to say: “my way is right, you are just being lazy and/or dishonest.�

Oh, okay? So you have no desire to determine in the least if there may be an absolute way to interpret different passages

Sorry, that didn’t come out as intended. I meant to say that I have no desire to go through all the passages that could be interpreted differently. That seems a rather pointless exercise.

or not, but you want to be able to go on to say, "those that may have put forth such efforts, and can explain, and demonstrate their position by using a common understanding of the use of language, are arrogant."

Emphatic no. Roman Catholics priests and scholars can and have “put forth such efforts, and can explain, and demonstrate their position by using a common understanding of the use of language�.

I am saying that unless you are willing to say that their interpretations are lazy, then this is an example of the bible being subjective and not as plain as asserted.

There is a major difference between someone simply saying, "my way is the right way," compared to someone putting their interpretations out there for all to see, and allowing others to read, object, and debate.

Agreed. What way do the Catholics have it wrong? Put it out there then.

It seems to me, once someone does the above, and someone else comes along and says, "I am not interested in that," then that is certainly fine. But if that is indeed the case, then it would seem this person would leave the rest of their opinion on that subject to themselves, seeing as how they are not interested enough to have an opinion.

I hope I cleared up the misunderstanding above. I have an opinion. But it is not on random passages from the bible and how they can be interpreted differently. It is, however, on the ones that cause differing sects to exist.

Care to weigh in on how the Catholics got it wrong?

So lets see what has transpired here. "Zzyzx" puts forth a sentence from the Bible, as an example of how the Bible can be interpreted in different ways. I take the sentence, and place it back into it's context, and go into detail explaining how this passage can only be interpreted in one way, and I go on to do this by referring to other passages as well. I do this for everyone to see, which demonstrates I am not simply saying, "my way is the right way." No one responds to this interpretation, or attempts to explain where I could be wrong, to the point I basically begin to beg.

This may surprise you, but I agree with you here. Hopefully, we are moving closer to an understanding.

You respond by saying you, "are not interested,"

False. I respond by repeating that different interpretations from the bible result in different denominations. And not from one of lazy interpretations, as you seem to suggest.

which is certainly fine, and I understand that, but you then go on to refer to me as, "arrogant" because I have put forth the effort. Now you tell me, which position, is "arrogant?"

False again. I never referred to you as arrogant. I referred to the opinion that other interpretations are lazy is arrogant. BIG distinction.

Agreed. However, to say that those who spent years in seminary school studying their religion who are clearly not lazy and are of a different denomination than you, to call them lazy or dishonest for not coming up with the same conclusions you did seems pretty arrogant to me.

I never said anything close to this!

Is Catholicism a result of a different interpretation of the bible, and if so, is it a lazy one?

You're right. Documents written long ago with imbedded multiple meanings and translated multiple times is totally irrelevant to our current conversation.

Really? You don’t get the relevance?

I do not, and for a number of reasons. First, Hamlet is a play that has been performed thousands of times throughout the years. If this play has been performed then certainly it was understandable, otherwise how could one perform it?

False. Hamlet’s sanity is subject to many interpretations. Which do you think is Shakespeare’s intent?

Next, since Hamlet is a play, it was not intended to be a report of actual history, however you and I agree the Bible did intend to report actual historical events, such as the flood.

Irrelevant when discussing the author’s intent, wouldn’t you agree?

Again, whether these reports are true is beside the point, our point is the intent of Hamlet, as opposed to the Bible.

Agreed. Intent is important. Did Shakespeare intend for Hamlet to be insane? If so, and you believe that he has lost his mind, how does one explain that the guard saw the ghost in the beginning of the play as well as Hamlet?

My point, is that both can be subjectively interpreted.

All the best,

[Saint_of_Me]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I tend to agree with most of what you said, Divine.

I always wondered why, if God wanted to forgive Mankind for Falling into Sin, that is, realize that he had been way too harsh on His peoples, as is depicted in many of the Old Testament "Tales of Horror" fables--like having Moses and Arron slaughter a few thousand Hebrews for worshiping a Golden Calf cuz they were getting impatient waiting for Moses to come down from Mt. Sinai--well, why did not God simply "forgive them."
Without having to send His beloved Son down here to die a cruel and painful death. (Which, BTW, did nothing to save is from Sin in and of itself, since we have to Believe in that, and then accept JC as a Savior to get that Divine Forgiveness, anyway.)

After all, God has, according to Genesis, done tis before. That is, laid down his wrath--in the from of a Rainbow, which as we know supposedly depicted a metaphorical weapon--a bow.

So why not do it again? IN view of His "New Covenant" which the Passion and Death of JC was supposed to signify anyway?

I used to toy with the idea that the whole Jesus thing was an allegorical gesture from God, saying that, "Hey guys, I don't want your sacrifices anymore. You burnt offerings. SO THIS is MY FINAL Sacrifice to you: to show you how it's done. And this will be the end of all that. So let's kiss and make up."

Like I said, I toyed with that notion for awhile. But it never rang completely logical to me. Nor was it especially satisfying.

So I vacated that idea.

I am now of the belief, and have been since I was Saved almost two years ago, that the Resurrection of JC was a Spiritual one. NOT a physical one. A physical one would be sort of pointless anyway, since according to God our corporeal body is not that important. It is our Spirits that are. And more so, melding our spirits with His. And His penultimate goal for us is to achieve a Spiritual Afterlife with Him after we die. As Jesus did.

JC's Resurrection was of a Spiritual nature. And it was in the minds of His followers. After He died. It came to them. Peter, one night, deep in prayer or meditation on his old buddy Jesus. What did it all mean? Pete looks out over a moonlit lake, and....viola! He is beset by the Holy Spirit! Has a "Eureka!" moments. Has an epiphany: "So THAT'S what ol' Yeshua was trying to tell us all along! That He WAS the SON of GOD, yeah..but that also WE can be SONS of God as well!"

That is the True Resurrection.

Look, brothers, It is no accident that as thew writings of the OT progressed in time, as they got further and further away from JC's death, and as the persecution of the Christians grew in ferocity, that so did JC's Mythos. His Legend. He went from a humble teacher (his followers even called him "rabbi")--to a Divine God.

Notice how Paul's early letters mention no virgin birth? No physical resurrection? No "Jesus was God" Theology?

Either does Mark, which was the first Gospel. (They put Matt first because of how he cited all those OT passages that supposedly were prophecies of Jesus' coming.)

And, lo and behold, by the time we get to John's Gospel, a good 70 years have passed since JC died. And all of a sudden John has JC talking about how he is the alpha and the omega. The light. How nobody gets to the Father, except through Him. He is The Logos. The Word.

As we get further from JC's life...he grows more divine. This is so true as to almost be a mathematical and diametric equation.

JC's Resurrection was NOT Physical. He was most likely buried in a common grave with other enemies of the State. His corpse rotted.

But His Message Lived one. Lives on. And through following it and using it to get to know God better, and by His Grace be Saved, we too can have our Spirits remain Eternal. With the Father.

God Bless.

[marco]

I am now of the belief, and have been since I was Saved almost two years ago, that the Resurrection of JC was a Spiritual one. NOT a physical one. A physical one would be sort of pointless anyway, since according to God our corporeal body is not that important.

I like your flippant "according to God." Physical resurrection would be a bit more than "pointless". I think I'd be more impressed by a walking corpse than a vivid dream.
I don't see that "spiritual" resurrection has any more point to it. It has less glamour. In what way did the spirit die? You could use that idea about Plato -he lives on in his Republic; or Shakspeare - dead but spiritually still entertaining us, as he said he would in his sonnets. You've cut Jesus down to the size of Tom Thumb.

JC's Resurrection was of a Spiritual nature. And it was in the minds of His followers. After He died. It came to them. Peter, one night, deep in prayer or meditation on his old buddy Jesus. What did it all mean? Pete looks out over a moonlit lake, and....viola! He is beset by the Holy Spirit! Has a "Eureka!" moments. Has an epiphany: "So THAT'S what ol' Yeshua was trying to tell us all along! That He WAS the SON of GOD, yeah..but that also WE can be SONS of God as well!"

So in a way the resurrection WAS a historical event: the night Pete hit on the idea that, like Archimedes, he was the possessor of a brilliancy. From that particular moment in history the resurrection became fact. Amazing.

I think I prefer the miracles, agony, "Father forgive them", pierced side, Joseph of Arimathea and the scrupulously folded funeral garments. That's a better story than Pete shouting "I had a dream." Or maybe singing it operatically?

My best wishes to you.

[Claire Evans]

Follow up question: If Jesus "Died" for my sins, but then he came back... do my sins come back too? I mean he was dead for a couple of days, yes? That doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. Basically he had a bad long weekend for my sins. Is that still enough to cancel my sins out?

Dying for one's sins when one has the chance to be redeemed if one truly repents. It does not mean we become perfect. Not only was Jesus dead, He descended into hell taking on all evil in the world and being responsible for it. That means, He knows what it is like to be subjected to all evil and be the perpetrator by taking on the responsibility of sin committed by humans.

[Claire Evans]

Follow up question: If Jesus "Died" for my sins, but then he came back... do my sins come back too? I mean he was dead for a couple of days, yes? That doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. Basically he had a bad long weekend for my sins. Is that still enough to cancel my sins out?

No. Jesus sacrificed his perfect HUMAN life. He was resurrected as a spirit and will never reclaim that human life again. (You are right if he were to reclaim his life as a HUMAN it would render null and void his sacrifice).

Hope that helps,

JW

No, that doesn't help at all.

In fact, if spiritual life is far superior to human life, then Jesus didn't sacrifice anything at all.

The problem with Christianity is that Jesus actually got the reward that every Christian dreams of getting. In fact, Jesus even got better than that. Jesus not only received eternal life, but he gets to be the lord over everyone for the rest of eternity. That's far better than merely being given eternal life as an eternal slave to God.

So there is no way that Jesus could have paid for the sins for anyone. Jesus supposedly got a reward far greater than any human saint who ever lived.

So no, your apology doesn't help. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense at all.

Jesus didn't get the reward. He is the truth and the life. If we accept Him then we share this eternal life. And being Lord for eternity doesn't mean He controls people.

Matthew 20:28

"...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

What is so bad about God wanted people to share eternal life with Him in paradise? What good is it for Him to have slaves there who don't love Him? Would you want to have slaves that only worship you because they are scared of you?


Taking on the sin of the world means that we have chance to be redeemed if we truly repent because God forgave the sins that where inside of Jesus when He was in hell. Jesus doesn't have a wonderful time now. He suffers today.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

Jesus was crucified and supposedly was raised from the dead in about 30 AD. But the first report we have was written by Paul, a nonwitness, in 53-55 AD to prople living 817 miles way from Jerusalem where the event is claimed to have occured.

If there were witnesses to Jesus's resurrection (Paul claims 500 people), is it creditable that none of these nor any of the people they would have told wrote anything about it until Paul's writing 25 years or more after the fact?

Have you ever wondered why there are no Jewish sources that denied the resurrection of Christ back then? They anticipated that the disciples would try and steal the body to make out that Jesus resurrected in accordance with His prophecy.
Here's an example:

"To give an analogy, did you know that after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, there was actually a plot to steal his body as it was being transported by train back to Illinois? Now the historian will obviously want to know whether this plot was foiled or not. Was Lincoln’s body missing from the train? Was it successfully interred in the tomb in Springfield? Did his closest associates like Secretary of War Stanton or Vice-President Johnson claim to have seen appearances of Lincoln alive after his death, and so on? These are questions any historian can investigate."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there ... z3vtM5CyLT

The Pharisees, the Romans, the Sanhedrin would all want the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be thoroughly investigated. So they must have yet did deny Jesus' resurrection. They didn't even say His body was stolen. If the body had been produced, the disciples would have been exposed as frauds and that is where the story would have ended. The Pharisees must have seen Jesus if Jesus was on earth for a while after His death.