Did Jesus Act like a resurrected person?

[Hakeem Alyazeedi]

I would like to see real evidence if Jesus acted as a resurrected that is once you die.

[paarsurrey1]

Not that I have much of a dog in this fight, but let me get this straight. You are relying on the words of Jesus correct? Who recorded those words? Was it not the gospel writers? Why are you trusting the writers for one thing (faithfully recording all Jesus's words) yet ignoring the rest when they describe a crucifixion, resurrection, etc. ?

Its not about trusting or not trusting the gospel writers – it’s about what the writers wrote. Firstly, to analyse the accuracy of what they wrote, you must have a base for comparison to begin with. That base for comparison is what God and/or His prophets said. In the case of the 4 Gospels of the NT, that base is mainly on what God said and/or what Jesus said. Secondly, the NT is a collection of books of narration. That means it records (1) events (2) what God said (3) what Jesus said (4) what other people said and (5) what other people said of what Jesus said. Most, if not all, the narrations of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection came from (4) and (5) categories. For them to hold any weights, they have to echo what God and/or Jesus said. So, in the case of the resurrection story, they don’t even come close to what Jesus said AFTER the supposedly resurrection despite the fact, as you pointed out, was recorded or written by the same writers.

Jesus did predict his own death in Mark 9:31 in his own words. So perhaps he was lying?

Was Jesus predicting his own death or was he expecting death to come to him considering the circumstances he was in?? One of the main characteristic of a prediction is that when a prediction is made, it is taken as HIGHLY UNLIKELY to happen and if it did happen, then, the prediction is said to be true and fulfilled. On the other hand, it cannot be said a prediction if what is said to happen is HIGHLY LIKELY WILL happen, in which case, we will say that is an EXPECTATION rather than a prediction. If someone said the end of the world will be next Monday, that can be categorized as a prediction as its HIGHLY UNLIKELY the world will end next Monday. Similarly, if someone throw an apple up into the air and say ‘I predict the apple will come down’ – well, that cannot be said a prediction but it is an EXPECTATION because its HIGHLY LIKELY, as to the point of certainty, that the apple thrown up WILL come down.

So, Jesus ‘predicting’ his death CANNOT be said a prediction BUT an EXPECTATION because Jesus knew the Jews hated him and were determined to kill him and in those circumstances, Jesus knew its HIGHLY LIKELY he will be arrested, put on trial under false charges, will be found guilty and under the laws of the day, will be sentenced to death. So, clearly, Jesus was not predicting his death BUT he was EXPECTING his death.

I'm not really sure of your angle to be honest and I'm agnostic. I'll grant that Jesus never says the words you are fishing for, but that hardly means anything.

Of course, it will also mean a great deal of what Jesus did not say as what he did not say would mean he never preach them in the first place. For example, Jesus never say anything about the doctrine of trinity or the original sin which would mean he himself never preach these doctrines.

Have you ever said the phrase "I did not accidentally cut my left pinkie toe off with an orange light saber" ? I guess JerryMyers is missing his left pinkie toe! Oh, and cool light saber by the way!!

Jesus never say anything about the doctrine of trinity or the original sin which would mean he himself never preach these doctrines

OK, so now we know you have a great sense of humor, perhaps now you want to tell us what exactly are the beliefs of an agnostic ??

Jesus never say anything about the doctrine of trinity or the original sin which would mean he himself never preach these doctrines

I agree with one here as I also don't find in the NT from the mouth of Jesus. It is Paul, his associates and the Church who are trying to put these in Jesus' mouth to their failure, however. Right, please?
Regards

[liamconnor]

I would like to see real evidence if Jesus acted as a resurrected that is once you die.

Two problems the OP faces: first, Considering that if Jesus had been resurrected, he would have been first of his kind. Thus with what are we to compare it? second, the only sources we have are Paul and the gospels, the former of which tells us nothing about the 'movements' of a resurrected person.

Luke most certainly attributes to Jesus characteristics which he lacked prior to the crucifixion. John as well. Most peculiar of the two is the inability on the part of some to recognize him at first.

[marco]

Quran is another source, please don't forget it.

If you think there is additional information from the Quran, then present it. For me, Jesus is a character who makes his appearance in the New Testament; we have no other source information about him. The Quran gives commentary 600 years later on Jesus being another prophet but this is contentious. Go well.

[marco]

Considering that if Jesus had been resurrected, he would have been first of his kind.

Well that could be disputed if we are simply discussing the behaviour of someone who has risen from the dead. So in Kings 17 we have : "“O Lord my God, have you brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by killing her son?� Then he stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the Lord, “O Lord my God, let this child's life[a] come into him again.� And the Lord listened to the voice of Elijah. And the life of the child came into him again, and he revived."

It is maybe not as spectacular as Lazarus, whose post mortem behaviour would make interesting reading. But I agree - there's not much to judge on.

Luke most certainly attributes to Jesus characteristics which he lacked prior to the crucifixion. John as well. Most peculiar of the two is the inability on the part of some to recognize him at first.

Behaviour is one thing; physical appearance another. If some didn't recognise him then that might suggest to the sceptic that it wasn't Christ at all - perhaps a sibling. Of course that's more far-fetched than resurrection.

[JerryMyers]

Let us ignore talk of clowns, shall we?

Sure, and I apologize for that temporary lapse of professionalism. Please accept my sincere apology.

I am taking the accepted view, whether or not I believe the resurrection happened. Your view is peculiar to you. It would gain some support from me if the sentences advertising its worth were coined in precise, grammatical language, a fair indication that one can analyse a text. I will quote some of your supporting phrases, shall I?

"The Bible never say Jesus was showing the holes in his hands - that was only the assumptions of the Christians. "

"wouldn’t you do the same if you were that someone whom everybody believed was crucified and killed ?? "

And this jumble .....

"So, yes, he did show his hands and side but not to show the wound marks or the 'holes in his hands' (as there are none) but rather to show that he was never crucify and thus, he’s unharmed and alive, which obviously is an astonishment and shock to his disciples as they saw 'Jesus' was crucified."

Or this .....

"For them to hold any weights, they have to echo what God and/or Jesus said. So, in the case of the resurrection story, they don’t even come close to what Jesus said AFTER the supposedly resurrection despite the fact, as you pointed out, was recorded or written by the same writers."

"Of course, it will also mean a great deal of what Jesus did not say as what he did not say would mean he never preach them in the first place."
Clarity, my friend, makes your point better than does the casting of aspersions on a poor, uneducated clown. I present your flaws as a useful caveat. Go well.

I thought the clarity of my key points are glaringly obvious. However, if they still miss you, here they are again in a nutshell:

1. Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.

2. There was no crucifixion wound marks on Jesus (hands, feet, side) but only assumptions that there was.

3. There’s not a single verse in the Bible that unequivocally confirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus but only the words of others claiming so, not Jesus.

For someone who seek clarity from others, what exactly are you trying to say here by quoting some of my supporting phrases ? What flaws do you see in those phrases ??

[marco]

I thought the clarity of my key points are glaringly obvious. However, if they still miss you, here they are again in a nutshell:

It isn't a question of hitting or missing me. If English is not your first language then I accept there are problems in expressing what you want to say. However, if you are taking issue with those who oppose you, then I'm afraid it is paramount that you express your phrases with extreme care.

Here is what you are claiming:

1. Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.

2. There was no crucifixion wound marks on Jesus (hands, feet, side) but only assumptions that there was.

3. There’s not a single verse in the Bible that unequivocally confirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus but only the words of others claiming so, not Jesus.


1. The original account we have of Jesus comes from the NT authors. They say he was crucified and describe his agony.
If you accept Jesus but don't accept the NT accounts, then from where do you get this additional information?

2. We would expect crucifixion marks and we would expect that a spear, plunged into his side, would leave a wound. If you deny this you are again getting information from a source denied to us. What is it?

3. John 19: 30 -33 seems to indicate quite clearly that Jesus died.

"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. "


Again, you have some new information that contradicts this. Where do you get it from?

We can argue that Jesus was just an ordinary guy, no prophet, no god. We can challenge Scripture. But I don't think we can accept Jesus as a divine prophet AND discard Scripture. That would mean we have information from a higher source when our original source, and only source, is the NT. How can we accept the appearance of Jesus and throw out the books that feature him?

[JerryMyers]

It isn't a question of hitting or missing me. If English is not your first language then I accept there are problems in expressing what you want to say.

I said ‘if they miss you’ in response to your earlier post in which you claimed I was not clear in my explanations, in which case, I would think the points I was making may have missed you. However, when you arrogantly responded with “If English is not your first language…�, it gave me the impression that English is your first language, so, I am surprised that you would miss the points I was making. However, if English is not your first language, then I accept you may be slow in understanding my words.

However, if you are taking issue with those who oppose you, then I'm afraid it is paramount that you express your phrases with extreme care.

No, I am not taking issues with those who opposed my views, I am just sharing my views just like any other members here (I hope). My views can be seen as for Christianity or they can be seen as against Christianity. So, there’s no reason why I should take up issues with those whose views are against mine. Have you consider that I am just sharing my views ?? Isn’t what this forum is all about ??

Here is what you are claiming:

1. Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified.

2. There was no crucifixion wound marks on Jesus (hands, feet, side) but only assumptions that there was.

3. There’s not a single verse in the Bible that unequivocally confirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus but only the words of others claiming so, not Jesus.

So, you DO get the points I was making ! Was that after I have summarized them ??

1. The original account we have of Jesus comes from the NT authors. They say he was crucified and describe his agony. If you accept Jesus but don't accept the NT accounts, then from where do you get this additional information?

Sure. But do you believe the NT authors are true to its original sources or are their accounts a combo from the original sources and the interpretation of what they understood ? Surely you know, every gospel begins with “According to..� their respective writer. What does ‘According to..’ means to you ?

2. We would expect crucifixion marks and we would expect that a spear, plunged into his side, would leave a wound. If you deny this you are again getting information from a source denied to us. What is it?

As you said, you would expect as did the disciples BUT ‘expect’ does not mean the wounds must be there, now does it ? Did the NT ever record there were crucifixion marks on Jesus AFTER the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection ??

3. John 19: 30 -33 seems to indicate quite clearly that Jesus died.
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. "

Again, you have some new information that contradicts this. Where do you get it from?

Try reading the 4 Gospels side by side on the crucifixion of Jesus and tell me if you see any differences in the details. For the story to be believable, beyond a shadow of doubt, the narrations of the writers, must not differ in the details. If they differed, then the narrations of the writers are suspected and you don’t have a case.

We can argue that Jesus was just an ordinary guy, no prophet, no god. We can challenge Scripture. But I don't think we can accept Jesus as a divine prophet AND discard Scripture. That would mean we have information from a higher source when our original source, and only source, is the NT. How can we accept the appearance of Jesus and throw out the books that feature him?

We do not throw out the books however, we need to validate what was written considering the fact that the gospels ‘are according to’ their respective writers’ understanding. Nevertheless, if you want to believe everything you read in the Bible, hey, no one is stopping you.

[marco]

We do not throw out the books however, we need to validate what was written considering the fact that the gospels ‘are according to’ their respective writers’ understanding. Nevertheless, if you want to believe everything you read in the Bible, hey, no one is stopping you.

I believe very little of what I read in the Bible. What surprises me is that you appear to believe Jesus was a prophet and yet you discredit those who might offer that information. If the writers couldn't even get their story about a crucifixion right (according to you) how can you believe ANYTHING they say about Christ? I have asked you several times - where do you get the CORRECT information?

[paarsurrey1]

We do not throw out the books however, we need to validate what was written considering the fact that the gospels ‘are according to’ their respective writers’ understanding. Nevertheless, if you want to believe everything you read in the Bible, hey, no one is stopping you.

I believe very little of what I read in the Bible. What surprises me is that you appear to believe Jesus was a prophet and yet you discredit those who might offer that information. If the writers couldn't even get their story about a crucifixion right (according to you) how can you believe ANYTHING they say about Christ? I have asked you several times - where do you get the CORRECT information?

where do you get the CORRECT information

We get correct ,truthful and most reasonable information from Quran, so we leave the fiction/myth created by Paul/Church/Clergy/Scribes about Jesus.
Right, please?
Regards

[marco]

We get correct ,truthful and most reasonable information from Quran, so we leave the fiction/myth created by Paul/Church/Clergy/Scribes about Jesus.
Right, please?
Regards

I agree with you that there is a lot of fiction and myth in the NT. But I also believe the same is true of the Koran and the hadith. Why discard one set of worshippers but completely believe another? What makes one seem like a lie and another seem like truth?

I can see that your belief makes you a good person, but by being nice to others, you'd be a good person too without prayer. God divides us. Our humanity makes us love each other. Best wishes.