He came back to life

[Zzyzx]

.
He came back to life

A book was written about the execution of a preahcer a hundred years ago on trumped-up charges of crimes against the state. His body was put into a mausoleum. A few days later the mausoleum was opened and the body was gone. Some of his parishioners said they saw him a few times then he was gone for good and hasn’t been seen since. The book describes the event.

Before one accepts the story as true, perhaps it would be wise to ask a few questions.

1. Are there records that the person lived at the time in question?

Yes, there are church records.

2. Are there any non-church records (civil records, historical accounts, impartial witness accounts)?

No answer

3. Are there records of the execution?

Yes, there are church records

4. Are there any non-church records?

No answer

5.Did anyone examine the body to insure that death had occurred?

Someone probably did

6. Who did and what were their qualifications to determine the presence or absence of life?

No answer

7. Into which mausoleum was the body placed?

No answer

8. Who witnessed the body being placed in the mausoleum?

There were witnesses

9. Who?

No answer

10. How does one know that the body was not removed?

There was a large stone over the door and there was a guard

11. Was the stone ever moved by humans?

Yes, but . . . . . . .

12. If it was moved once by humans is it possible that it was moved again by humans?

Yes, but . . . . . it was moved by an angel

13. How do we know that?

It is written in the book

14. Is there other evidence?

No answer

15. Other than the stone, is there any reason to believe the body was not removed?

There were guards

16. Who were the guards?

They were soldiers

17. Can you identify them, their unit or their commander?

No answer

18. Are guards completely reliable?

Yes

19. Can you say that no guard has allowed something in his care to be taken, stolen or moved?

No answer

20. How do we know that the body was gone?

There were eyewitnesses

21. Who were they?

I don’t know but some people said that they knew the people and wrote about it in letters.

22. Can you identify the witnesses?

No answer

23. Can you identify the people who wrote for the book?

I can give you their first names

24. Can you provide credible identification of the writers?

No answer

25. Did the witnesses leave any written record of what they saw?

No answer

26. What evidence is there that the preacher came back to life?

He appeared to some members of his congregation

27. Did people other than members of his congregation see him alive and make a record of their account?

No answer

28. Where is he now?

He went to heaven

29. How do we know that?

It is written in the book.

30. Is there any other evidence?

Lots of people believe it

31. Does wide acceptance guarantee truth?

It should count for something




Now. Would you believe the above account on the basis of the information provided?

[Zzyzx]

.

You know, the only proof we have that Genghis Khan existed is from biased Mongolian sources, and those who came into contact with Mongolians and took their word for it. We know of people who claim to have seen him or be descended from him, but we only have their word for the matter; they could have lied because a single, uniting leader would have been in their best interests.

You know, the only proof we have that Spartacus existed is from biased Roman sources. We know that a slave revolt occurred in the Italian peninsula, but Spartacus' body was never found; the Romans could have lied because a single, uniting leader would have been easier to hold responsible.

You know, the only proof we have that Mohammad existed is from biased Arab sources. We know that the Arabs created a new religion and then conquered the surrounding area, as well as a short-lived group of people who claimed to be related to him, but they could have been lying in order to gain power in a changing environment.

If I can demonstrate verification of the existence of Genghis Khan, Spartacus, or Mohammad from sources other than the “biased sources” you cite, will you concede that acceptance of historical figures is based on more evidence than reports from people who are likely to be biased?

Will you attempt to defend the existence of Jesus Christ with similarly impartial sources?

[McCulloch]

Will you attempt to defend the existence of Jesus Christ with similarly impartial sources?

There is no such thing as an unbiased impartial source. However when all the evidence you have for the existence of Jesus comes from sources which are highly biased, the evidence is less compelling.

Will you attempt to defend the existence of Jesus Christ from a variety of different sources?

[cnorman18]

.Why would pastors choose to NOT discuss from their pulpits what is taken for granted in seminaries?

Probably because that, as well as some other things that are known to serious scholars of the Bible, would get them run out of town. In the rural South, tar and feathers might be involved.

Here's another: the NT, by and large, does not teach the immortality of the human soul. It teaches resurrection, which is quite a different thing.

There is, and has been since the Middle Ages, a tendency in the Christian church to allow the lay people to remain ignorant of genuine scholarship and leave them to the simple and even childlike beliefs with which they are comfortable. The process of educating people about the true content of the faith as known to professionals is not considered worth the trouble of overcoming the inevitable resistance.

Hey, you didn't think doubts about Jesus were the only reason I left the church, did you?

[Zzyzx]

.
Interesting. Yours is the first open acknowledgement that I have seen from a person in a position to know the issue from the inside. I had long surmised that was true, but could not support the idea with inside information.

In reference to concealing information from the public, the actions of the church in this regard are little different from those of corporations and government. There is an advantage in giving the public “simple and childlike beliefs with which they are comfortable”. Conformity is simplistic, unquestioning behavior. Complex ideas are distracting and may not be understood.

We see evidence of this policy in news of corporations and government (particularly from non-mainstream sources) and we see the effects in the naiveté of the public. Religious childlike simplicity is demonstrated by sermons and by some posts to these threads (that are often a form of preaching sermons as though to the choir).

Is the Jewish religon free from these deceptive practices?

[cnorman18]

.
Interesting. Yours is the first open acknowledgement that I have seen from a person in a position to know the issue from the inside. I had long surmised that was true, but could not support the idea with inside information.

In reference to concealing information from the public, the actions of the church in this regard are little different from those of corporations and government. There is an advantage in giving the public “simple and childlike beliefs with which they are comfortable”. Conformity is simplistic, unquestioning behavior. Complex ideas are distracting and may not be understood.

We see evidence of this policy in news of corporations and government (particularly from non-mainstream sources) and we see the effects in the naiveté of the public. Religious childlike simplicity is demonstrated by sermons and by some posts to these threads (that are often a form of preaching sermons as though to the choir).

In regard to the church, I don't know that the issue could properly be called "concealing" information. Scholarly books are out there for anyone to read, and if one asks one's pastor about these issues (at least in liberal denominations), one will get answers.

In fundamentalist circles, it's my impression that the professionals are as ignorant as the laymen. One can hardly be accused of concealing information of which one is unaware. Of course, there we must deal with the issue of willful ignorance. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" seems to be a rather common attitude on many matters, and evolution seems to be foremost these days.

For the rest, you'l get no disagreement here. It seems to be a rather common assumption among the cultural elite that most Americans are morons (particularly those who do not live in New York, L.A., or inside the Beltway), and that it falls to the cognoscenti to tell the rest of us how and what to think.

Is the Jewish religon free from these deceptive practices?

That would depend on one's congregation, but from what I've seen, pretty much.

Many, even most, Jews are not particularly concerned with matters of theology or scholarship, like most Christians; they observe the holidays and practice their religion as they choose (generally without interference or criticism from other Jews, even in the same congregation), and just go about their business. For them, Judaism is less about matters of doctrine or belief, and more about identity (when I was going through conversion, and still today, I made it a practice to ask people, "What does it mean to you to be Jewish?" whereas Christians will begin speaking of what they believe, Jews will invariably begin speaking of who they are).

For the very many Jews who are interested in questions about theology or Bible scholarship, these issues--the "documentary hypothesis," the nonhistoricity of the Bible, the bloody massacres apparently commanded by God, and so on--are discussed openly and without any effort to appeal to simplistic explanations. I have never been in a lay Torah study that avoided these things, and I have never heard a sermon from a rabbi that avoided them, either. The line about the Torah in my signature comes from my rabbi, who quotes it often in a Saturday morning study before services that consists mostly of older people.

I see more deep reflection, study, and questioning among the lay Jews in my synagogue than I saw among the ministerial students at my liberal seminary. That may be because the reputation of Jews for being argumentative is not just a joke; it is quite real, and when it concerns religion, a Jew is expected to hammer out his own beliefs for himself and not to simply accept what he is taught.

I once remarked that the difference between a Christian Bible study and a Jewish Torah study is whereas a Christian is likely to say, "Thank you for teaching me this, Pastor," a Jew is far more likely to say, "Now wait just a damn minute, Rabbi..."

[justifyothers]

Here's another: the NT, by and large, does not teach the immortality of the human soul. It teaches resurrection, which is quite a different thing.

I know of only a couple of references to everlasting life.
Can you elaborate on the meaning of resurrection - as in what is your view of life or occurances after it ?

[cnorman18]

Here's another: the NT, by and large, does not teach the immortality of the human soul. It teaches resurrection, which is quite a different thing.

I know of only a couple of references to everlasting life.
Can you elaborate on the meaning of resurrection - as in what is your view of life or occurances after it ?

Well, I'm no longer a Christian, but as I recall, I learned in seminary that the Bible teaches that the dead will be raised on the Last Day to be judged; after that, they will enter Paradise or perdition, or perhaps oblivion. Until the Last Day, the dead are simply dead. Not a comfortable teaching when one is conducting funerals, and so it is generally avoided by ministers. Subjectively, I suppose the effect would be the same anyway; one sleeps, then awakens. The intervening time is of no account.

As a Jew, I no longer care to speculate. The next life is God's business, and I'm content to trust Him.

[Easyrider]

In fundamentalist circles, it's my impression that the professionals are as ignorant as the laymen. One can hardly be accused of concealing information of which one is unaware. Of course, there we must deal with the issue of willful ignorance. "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" seems to be a rather common attitude on many matters, and evolution seems to be foremost these days.

Greetings.

Having spent a great deal of time in "fundamentalist circles," there are some who, as you say, have their minds made up and please don't confuse me with the facts. But there are plenty more who have their minds made up based on the facts , and will be glad to debate their views with Orthodox Jews who think the same way. And then again there are, no doubt, fundamentalist Jews who don't want to be confused with the facts either. You have to take all that on a one-to-one basis.

[justifyothers]

Here's another: the NT, by and large, does not teach the immortality of the human soul. It teaches resurrection, which is quite a different thing.

I know of only a couple of references to everlasting life.
Can you elaborate on the meaning of resurrection - as in what is your view of life or occurances after it ?

Well, I'm no longer a Christian, but as I recall, I learned in seminary that the Bible teaches that the dead will be raised on the Last Day to be judged; after that, they will enter Paradise or perdition, or perhaps oblivion. Until the Last Day, the dead are simply dead. Not a comfortable teaching when one is conducting funerals, and so it is generally avoided by ministers. Subjectively, I suppose the effect would be the same anyway; one sleeps, then awakens. The intervening time is of no account.

As a Jew, I no longer care to speculate. The next life is God's business, and I'm content to trust Him.

Ok - I guess I didn't realize you were simply disputing the idea of going straight to 'heaven' as opposed to being dead until resurrection time.
So, this is interesting....you went from Christian minister to practicing Judism? Is that right? Was there something specific that led you away from christianity, theologically speaking?? I'm no longer a christian either. But it's hard to get away from those old ideas sometimes.
But I do still beleive there is a God - for me it was mostly the bible that initially made me leave that religion, so going into another one that uses the same book doesn't seem likely. I do leave all options open though and I realize it could be the christian perspective of the book that ruined it for me.....????

[Assent]

If I can demonstrate verification of the existence of Genghis Khan, Spartacus, or Mohammad from sources other than the “biased sources” you cite, will you concede that acceptance of historical figures is based on more evidence than reports from people who are likely to be biased?

Will you attempt to defend the existence of Jesus Christ with similarly impartial sources?

My point is that, aside from government records which were spotty up until around the Renaissance, nearly all historical accounts are biased in some manner. My other point is that I have seen an account in which the author pulled apart the Gospel accounts with an eye towards historical accuracy, and proved to my satisfaction that Jesus was a real human being who was followed by a small group of people who themselves built upon his legend after his execution.

That humans can do this is an easily verifiable fact. Most urban legends are based on unfounded fears, uninformed logic, or an exaggeration of real events. The legend of George Washington and the cherry tree is patently false, but it was spread about during Washington's lifetime and taken for truth. Similarly, the US Constitution was written only two hundred years ago, and the meaning of its words was argued by the people who had a hand in writing it.

Legends are built on real people. Misunderstandings happen between events only years apart.