Resurrection

[atruthseeker]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

[fredonly]

From a historical stand-point, however, it can be reasonably asserted that the man lived and was probably crucified. What happened after that though, no historian can honestly say with certainty. Was there an actual tomb set aside for him, or did he end up in a typical gravesite? If the former, someone removing the body would certainly seem a more reasonable explanation than him coming back to life.

There's another very important point that we know: there were people who believe he was resurrected within a relatively short period after his death. Paul of Tarsus, writing in the 50's, believed this and he got this idea from others who preceded him. It's likely that some of his disciples taught this.

[atruthseeker]

Another part of the crucifixion story that makes me chuckle is the part about the Roman soldier who speared Jesus in his side. Story claims that this soldier was blind, and when the blood of Jesus fell into his eyes that his sight was restored.

My information on the Roman army suggests that blind soldiers was not the norm. This story makes no sense at all. Why would the Roman army give a blind soldier a spear. Did I read this story wrong?

The normal criminal that was crucified by the Romans was left on the cross to rot and be eaten by scavengers. Jesus spent a couple of hours up there according to my interpretation. Not even long enough to die.

Once again, if my info is incorrect or I have misread, please set me straight.

I can hardly wait to discuss Noah's ark, or the Arc of the covenant.

[Flail]

The resurrection, the virgin birth etc are absolutely foundational to the Christian belief system. Unless Jesus was God there is no religion as such,no salvation and no Jesus to relate to for forgiveness of sin. Only thru indoctrination can anyone come to such beliefs since there is no evidence whatsoever that these supernatural events occurred. Yet the belief system flourishes. The power of mass indoctrination by dogma, ritual and societal acceptance is amazing.

[Zzyzx]

.

The resurrection, the virgin birth etc are absolutely foundational to the Christian belief system.

That is true as Christianity is presently construed and generally regarded.

However, Christianity usually appears to be in a state of flux – with new splinter groups emerging and with old-line denominations changing dogma.

Perhaps a “reconstructed� or “evolved� Christianity could recognize Jesus as a preacher who talked about god – BUT without claims of “divinity�.

His words could well have been misunderstood or misremembered by any who heard or distorted by retellings until recorded by those who recorded the stories decades later. He may have NOT claimed to be “god� or “THE son of god� (perhaps just “A son of god� (as all could be considered).

He may have been glorified and deified by his followers after he died – and “given� supernatural powers by writers rather than by any “god�. There is no indication (aside from tales by followers) that he “came back to life� or “ascended into heaven�.

Removing supernatural and divinity claims from the Jesus story could put emphasis on “god� (not that I personally think that such things exist) rather than on the preacher from two thousand years ago.

Unless Jesus was God there is no religion as such,no salvation and no Jesus to relate to for forgiveness of sin.

Perhaps those who wish for “salvation� and “forgiveness of sins� could think of that as coming from “god� rather than through Jesus. Or, theories about an “afterlife� or “salvation� or “forgiveness� could be set aside to be replaced with a concept of living in the present, making the most of life for all concerned, and not wishing for “life after death� (or “seeing Grandma in heaven�).

Only thru indoctrination can anyone come to such beliefs since there is no evidence whatsoever that these supernatural events occurred.

Agreed, with the stipulation that some can come to accept the supernatural tales (and “find religion�) in times of personal need (trauma, difficulty, feelings of hopelessness, etc). If unable to deal with personal difficulties, it might be comforting to “turn it over to god� (and accept whatever happens as being “what was intended�).

Yet the belief system flourishes.

Religions flourish when there exists (or is manufactured or amplified) 1) fear of the unknown, 2) fear of death, 3) adversity or hopelessness

The power of mass indoctrination by dogma, ritual and societal acceptance is amazing.

Agreed

[fredonly]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

Most responders are telling you their opinion about the resurrection, which is that it didn't occur. Although I share this opinion, I'd like to address the points within your original question.

You mention that there are discrepancies among the Gospels. This is certainly true, and there are important implications of this. For example, the Mark gospel was used as a source by both Luke and Matthew, and other sources were also used (such as the Gospel "Q"). More importantly, this demonstrates that the Gospels were written by humans, each of whom had a story to tell, with theological objectives, an audience they were addressing, and imperfect source information. I point this out to argue that the discrepancies do not constitute evidence against the actual historicity of Jesus' resurrection. It only argues against the gospels as being the exact literal truth. One could sort through the discrepancies and still find what the core common elements are, and argue they are true. The single most important common element is the Resurrection, or (at minimum) the concept of the empty tomb.

As I mentioned in my prior brief post, it is also true that early in the historical life of Christianity, there were people who believed in the Resurrection. Paul of Tarsus believed it, and he clearly didn't make it up - it was an important part of the "good news" he received from others. In fact, since Paul refers to Peter and James in his epistles, we know their lives overlapped and they interacted- so it is most plausible to assume these two believed in the resurrection: one was a close friend and disciple, the other was his brother. Any hypothesis for what actually transpired must take into account how Peter and James came to believe this.

One possible answer is that the Resurrection actually occurred. The evidence is consistent with this. However, this doesn't prove it occurred. The primary reason to doubt it actually occurred is that in all our experiences, dead bodies to not spontaneously reanimate. We can certainly build any number of rational scenarios to explain the Gospels and early beliefs, but these constructions are based on the base assumption that when a person dies, he stays dead.

[Zzyzx]

.

One possible answer is that the Resurrection actually occurred.

Of course that is a possible answer, another a possible answer might be that "Satan" took the body of a dead preacher to divert people's attention away from "god". Can either be shown to be true? Both are "possible" in theory but cannot be shown to be truthful, so people choose which "possible" they prefer based upon whatever they believe a priori.

The evidence is consistent with this. However, this doesn't prove it occurred.

The ONLY "evidence" that has been presented is a series of tales and claims in a SINGLE source. NO verification of the stories and claims that Jesus "came back from the grave" has been presented. That some people claim to have seen him is part of the story -- it is NOT verification.

The primary reason to doubt it actually occurred is that in all our experiences, dead bodies to not spontaneously reanimate. We can certainly build any number of rational scenarios to explain the Gospels and early beliefs, but these constructions are based on the base assumption that when a person dies, he stays dead.

Biblicists use the claimed "resurrection" as proof that Jesus was divine. If he stayed dead, he was just another human being -- so to promote worship of him (and his "father-self"), they MUST claim a supernatural event occurred that directly contradicts what we know of the real world.

[Flail]

Jesus was by all accounts a good man with a wonderful philosophy of life. However, he didn't and wouldn't have anything to do with Christianity but abolish it...IMO...and there is no evidence he or anyone else is a God.

[atruthseeker]

This argument could go on forever. There can never be any hard evidence or proof of God or that Jesus was anything other than a man, if one does not rely on the only source that makes these claims (Bible). Furthermore, we atheists seem to be unable to prove that the God and Jesus claims are untrue, just as I can't prove that Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy don't exist even though I know it to be true.

I made up my mind a long time ago to believe none of it, and that won't change. What really interests me is how believers can rationalize all of this stuff. I understand that these beliefs are passed on to children, and we all want to believe our parents when we are young. I wonder if you took a group of people that were isolated from both religion and science until they were adults, and then gave them both sides of the argument,evolution verses creation. I'm not talking about some natives of some country with absolutely no education. I'm talking about educated people who understand the laws of physics and nature. What percentage of the group do you think would accept religion and what percent for science?

[Mohana]

Diane Stein, in her book Essential Reiki, says that some believe that Jesus did indeed survive the cross.

It is said that Jesus was born a reincarnated Bodhisattva. The three wise men followed the atrological conjugation that heralded his birth... I am assuming this was the Star of the East... and took Jesus and his family to Egypt (and later to India) where he was instructed in the heritage of his reincarnated lineage as a Reiki Master.

The ability to heal that Jesus gave to his apostles is believed to be Reiki.

It is also believed by some that Jesus traveled to India sixteen years after the resurrection and lived, taught, and healed there till his death in 110 CE. No one says what he did or where he lived in the sixteen years before he traveled to India. You would have thought that he would have needed to hide out somewhere as not to be recognized.

I've read several accounts that the idea of karma and reincarnation were written out of early church scripture.

[fredonly]

First off, I hope you realize that I'm agnostic. I don't believe Jesus' corpse actually rose from the dead...

One possible answer is that the Resurrection actually occurred.

Of course that is a possible answer, another a possible answer might be that "Satan" took the body of a dead preacher to divert people's attention away from "god". Can either be shown to be true? Both are "possible" in theory but cannot be shown to be truthful, so people choose which "possible" they prefer based upon whatever they believe a priori.

Consider what you’re saying: assuming Jesus rose from the dead – we should then consider two alternative forces behind this resurrection: God did it, or Satan did it. But that’s irrelevant to my contention. I simply contend that people believed Jesus rose from the dead and their contemplation of this, in the context of their historical knowledge of Jesus the teacher, led them to construct the theologies that eventually developed into Christianities.

The evidence is consistent with this. However, this doesn't prove it occurred.

The ONLY "evidence" that has been presented is a series of tales and claims in a SINGLE source. NO verification of the stories and claims that Jesus "came back from the grave" has been presented. That some people claim to have seen him is part of the story -- it is NOT verification.

It’s more than a single source.
The Gospels of Mark and John are regarded by scholars as representing independent traditions. Paul’s belief seems to be based on a third tradition. Paul also relates having contact with Peter and James in Jerusalem and refers to them as the “pillars of the church� – it seems unlikely that they would not have shared Paul’s belief in the resurrection (Paul relates his dispute with Peter about judaizing; it’s grossly implausible to suggest they disagreed about the resurrection). All I’m saying is that the weight of historical evidence supports the notion that people believed Jesus rose from the dead. And from this belief – one thing led to another, theologically.

The primary reason to doubt it actually occurred is that in all our experiences, dead bodies to not spontaneously reanimate. We can certainly build any number of rational scenarios to explain the Gospels and early beliefs, but these constructions are based on the base assumption that when a person dies, he stays dead.

Biblicists use the claimed "resurrection" as proof that Jesus was divine. If he stayed dead, he was just another human being -- so to promote worship of him (and his "father-self"), they MUST claim a supernatural event occurred that directly contradicts what we know of the real world.

I think you have it backwards. It’s far more likely that people believed Jesus rose from the dead long before they decided he was divine. The oldest documents in the Bible, Paul’s epistles, do not say that Jesus is divine. The oldest 3 Gospels do not do so either. Only in John, written in the 90’s, refer to Jesus as divine. There was an evolution in thinking about Jesus among one or more communities of Christians. Some of the communities never deified him (the Ebionites/Nazarenes).