Why believe in resurrections?

[marco]

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


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


Why are these stories believed by intelligent people?

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

[marco]

If people found them absurd and unconvincing most "intelligent" people would, one can reasonably assume, not believe them.

The accounts ARE absurd. The mystery is that they have convinced intelligent people.

Let us render the story in dialogue form:

"And who are you?" "I'm an angel."
"And where is our dead master?"
"He's gone on ahead to Galilee."


Laughter would meet this announcement today because it is farcically absurd. I wonder why it was accepted 2 millennia ago.

[marco]

Death may be the reality that the greatest number of humans desire to deny. Provide a reason for humans to deny it, and many will accept it no matter how absurd the claim is.

I can accept this when it is couched in serious language. But to have a story of women hurrying to a grave and meeting an angel; vestments neatly folded and a naked corpse on the move.... This is the stuff of pantomime.

I don't think intelligence derives comfort from this. It is as though intelligence is being toyed with, mocked, gulled like Malvolio into acting absurdly. One can almost hear the laughter of the gods resounding through the universe.

[marco]

But, I will agree that the re-education of the millenniums have tilted the scales (temporarily). Yet, as humans age and begin to reach the end of their lives, it only makes sense that they desire to stay alive or live after death will kick-in…

Often the opposite is the case, especially among poets who have grown weary of life. Victor Hugo wrote: "J'ai bien assez vécu…." I've lived quite long enough....

On the other hand poor Elizabeth 1 wanted to exchange her kingdom for an extra moment in time.


It is a beautiful thought to suppose we will meet again with friends who have left us and if such be the case one would have supposed that somehow a sentient ghost would have communicated this good news. If this was the sort of good news entrusted to Jesus, he didn't quite word it well enough.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

We have evidence for what might be a hoax,

What evidence would that be?

[marco]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

We have evidence for what might be a hoax,

What evidence would that be?

Haven't you heard? People were afraid that someone might steal Jesus from the tomb and as a precaution soldiers were set up to guard a corpse. Would you know? - the corpse vanished, as was feared. The tomb was empty.

(a) Was this some trickery?

(b) Was this a miracle?


I think the reports point to (a). Add the churub and we get pretty certain. Do we need his name and address?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]

Laughter would meet this announcement today because it is farcically absurd. I wonder why it was accepted 2 millennia ago.

That is the question why was it accepted 2 millennia ago. Death was just as final as it is today. People were more associated with death because it was all around them. So why was it accepted?

Why would a bother who thought Jesus was crazy while living become a "slave of the Lord Jesus Christ" after His death?

These are the questions that do need to be answered.

[Tcg]

Death may be the reality that the greatest number of humans desire to deny. Provide a reason for humans to deny it, and many will accept it no matter how absurd the claim is.

I can accept this when it is couched in serious language. But to have a story of women hurrying to a grave and meeting an angel; vestments neatly folded and a naked corpse on the move.... This is the stuff of pantomime.

Can any language be consider serious when it describes human resurrection? I can't imagine it ever being taken as a serious claim.


Apparently pantomime is acceptable when there is enough motivation to believe it. Human desire to deny the reality of death seems to qualify as that motivation. Are there other candidates I have overlooked?



Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 15 by marco]

Haven't you heard? People were afraid that someone might steal Jesus from the tomb and as a precaution soldiers were set up to guard a corpse. Would you know? - the corpse vanished, as was feared. The tomb was empty.

(a) Was this some trickery?

(b) Was this a miracle?


I think the reports point to (a). Add the churub and we get pretty certain. Do we need his name and address?

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

Matt. 28:13-15

"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’…"

They did not kill them. So how would they have taken the body. And then why would they die for a lie that they knew about. Muslim's die for something that they believe in. They do not die because they believe it is a lie. No body would die for a lie.

[marco]

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

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


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

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

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

[tam]

Peace to you,

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

Why would it be absurd that the One who could heal people from disease, restore or give sight to the blind, who cure (and so reverse the effects of) leprosy and other diseases of the flesh... could not restore a man to life and reverse any effects of death that had begun to set in after three days?



People will be resurrected after having been dead much longer than three days.

Jesus went a step better and, having died, rose up.

It was a step better in a couple of ways, including that He rose up into the new and glorified body (the spirit body, also referred to as the white robe in Revelation).

The effect is spoiled by silly details: he folded his funeral vestments up and left an angel in the sepulchre to explain his absence.

Why would those be silly details? Most especially about the angel, who did more than just explain his absence? Although just explaining His absence so that His followers would know what happened to Him would be an act of love from Him for them, would it not? And an angel is a messenger, is he not? So this seems to be right on par with something an angel would do.

Next he played hide and seek, disappearing somewhere and returning through walls.

Are people playing hide and seek when they visit people and speak with them, and give them hope... but then perhaps leave to visit more people and speak with them and give them hope?

Would it have been less hide and seek if he had opened a door and walked into a room (then opened the door again to walk out)?

People still believe this all happened in the time when Rome was building roadways across Europe and North Africa, and doing so without a wand.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Why are these stories believed by intelligent people?

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

I will speak for myself (though I am sure at least some of the following is shared by others):


Truth.

And love.

And faith (which is a gift).

Truth in everything that Christ spoke (and speaks). Truth that I could hear in His words, that I recognized, that resounded in me. Truth that always comes from love. If Christ told the truth in everything He spoke (that we have written), it is absurd to me to think that He lied about the rest (about who He was and about God). Especially considering not only what He said, but also what He did: giving His life out of love, for many.


So it was not so much the stories of miracles that did it for me, nor the prophecies and genealogies (I am not at all knocking those things for anyone else). And it was certainly not a fear of death. It was the truth (and the love) in and from Him and His Father. Love which inspires love in return, and truth which stands on its own.


I had always believed in God. Always. I simply had not known what was true about Him (and how could I serve Him or know what I was supposed to be doing without knowing what was true about Him or what He wanted?). I asked God to lead me to HIS truth (not what I wanted to be true, not companionship with other believers, not religion - unless religion was true, but my Lord has shown me that no religion is true).

God led me to His Son, of course.


And that Son has kept every promise; that Son has never lied or led me wrong; that Son LIVES and speaks. His sheep hear and listen to His voice. He is guiding us into all truth, teaching us, disciplining us, training us in love and righteousness. All of this makes His resurrection proven, at least for His sheep (of which I am one), whose faith is not based on what they see, but on what - and on Whom - they hear.


How could He speak to us and teach and keep His promises if He were not alive to do so?



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, that you may also hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride SAY to you, "Come!" And may anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy