Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

polonius
Subject: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a story?
Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the messiah in about 32 AD. Acts of the Apostles tells us he spend 40 days on earth and then ascended into heaven.

But the first writing claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead is in Paul's 1 Corinthians which dates from about 53 AD. Paul was in the east and was not a witness, but claims there were 500 witnesses none of whom nor the hundreds they would have told wrote anything about it nor did any of the four gospel writers.

Were there any witnesses during the 40 days Jesus spent on earth, and if so why didn't they leave any records (nor did any of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem who would have been aware of the event have told Pilate)?

Was this just a story or a historical event?

brianbbs67
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
polonius wrote:

Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the messiah in about 32 AD. Acts of the Apostles tells us he spend 40 days on earth and then ascended into heaven.

But the first writing claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead is in Paul's 1 Corinthians which dates from about 53 AD. Paul was in the east and was not a witness, but claims there were 500 witnesses none of whom nor the hundreds they would have told wrote anything about it nor did any of the four gospel writers.

Were there any witnesses during the 40 days Jesus spent on earth, and if so why didn't they leave any records (nor did any of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem who would have been aware of the event have told Pilate)?

Was this just a story or a historical event?


Since none of the extant writings exist today, its hard to tell. Curious we have only 4th century copies to go by. I believe he was. But thats different than proof.

Checkpoint
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

Quote:
Was this just a story or a historical event?


Good question, one that has been asked and answered for nearly 2000 years.

The answer usually given has been either of the two you have stated, in somf form or other.

Each of us is on the highway of life. The road we take, and/or its direction, may change as we grow and mature.

Our answer will be based on how we see life, and on what we value the most and why we do so.

Which answer do you give, and why was that one your choice?

The resurrection of Jesus: was it just a story or was it a real historical event?

Divine Insight
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
Checkpoint wrote:

Which answer do you give, and why was that one your choice?


I have concluded that the stories are not believable. As far as I can see they aren't even consistent, or compelling. Especially considering that the entire story is based on the idea that Jesus was supposed to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament. A God that Jesus was clearly not even in agreement with.

I understand that this is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, and the Bible is supposed to be taken as "authoritative" on these matters. But I don't see where that changes the fact that these stories are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and not compelling.

I don't question anything the Bible has to say. In other words, I accept that the Bible is the ultimate authority on what the Bible has to say. But that doesn't mean that I need to accept that what it says is actually true.

In other words, does the Bible claim that Jesus is the Son of the God of the OT?

Yes, I don't contest that.

Does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven?

Yes, I don't contest that.

Does the Bible say that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his son?

Yes, I don't contest that.

Do I see any reason to believe any of these things?

No. I don't find these Biblical stories to be compelling in the least.

So I don't contest anything the Bible has to say. I simply see no reason to believe any of it. It's filled with self-contradictions. Not the least of which is that Jesus wasn't anything at all like Yahweh. And even the Bible has Jesus rebuking Yahweh's commandments.

The Bible has Yahweh commanding men to stone adulterers to death.

Jesus rejected that directive and teaches people not to cast the first stone.

So yes I accept that the Bible's authority to contradict itself. And I see no reason to believe that anything it has to say about gods or supernatural events represents any truth.

Just because it represents the "authority" of what it actually says, doesn't mean that it represents truth.

brianbbs67
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
Divine Insight wrote:

Checkpoint wrote:

Which answer do you give, and why was that one your choice?


I have concluded that the stories are not believable. As far as I can see they aren't even consistent, or compelling. Especially considering that the entire story is based on the idea that Jesus was supposed to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament. A God that Jesus was clearly not even in agreement with.

I understand that this is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, and the Bible is supposed to be taken as "authoritative" on these matters. But I don't see where that changes the fact that these stories are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and not compelling.

I don't question anything the Bible has to say. In other words, I accept that the Bible is the ultimate authority on what the Bible has to say. But that doesn't mean that I need to accept that what it says is actually true.

In other words, does the Bible claim that Jesus is the Son of the God of the OT?

Yes, I don't contest that.

Does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven?

Yes, I don't contest that.

Does the Bible say that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his son?

Yes, I don't contest that.

Do I see any reason to believe any of these things?

No. I don't find these Biblical stories to be compelling in the least.

So I don't contest anything the Bible has to say. I simply see no reason to believe any of it. It's filled with self-contradictions. Not the least of which is that Jesus wasn't anything at all like Yahweh. And even the Bible has Jesus rebuking Yahweh's commandments.

The Bible has Yahweh commanding men to stone adulterers to death.

Jesus rejected that directive and teaches people not to cast the first stone.

So yes I accept that the Bible's authority to contradict itself. And I see no reason to believe that anything it has to say about gods or supernatural events represents any truth.

Just because it represents the "authority" of what it actually says, doesn't mean that it represents truth.


Rest assured as the adulteress passage was added later. Syntax and history show it. But , I agree the NT is hard to accept from a scientific point of view. Unless it can be harmonized with the old, which I believe it can, it should be disregarded.

Divine Insight
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
brianbbs67 wrote:

But , I agree the NT is hard to accept from a scientific point of view.


For me, it has absolutely nothing to do with science at all. I can embrace the idea of a supernatural God who can do anything at all including violating all laws of physics.

So scientific arguments that miracles could not be performed. Or that Jesus could not have died and been raised from the dead 3 days later. Or that long dead saints could not have climbed out of graves that had been jostled open by an earthquake are not a problem. I grant that if there exists a supernatural omnipotent creator God that none of those things would be a problem for the God to perform.

So none of those are the slightest problem for me. The reason I dismiss the entire thing as nothing more than poorly thought out superstitious nonsense is because the things they have this God doing are, IMHO, utterly ignorant and not even remotely in line with how I would expect an infinitely intelligent supernatural God to behave.

As far as I can see the God of the Bible behavior more like an extremely unintelligent uneducated barroom drunkard. It's just not compelling behavior for a supposedly infinitely intelligent God. It's far more in line with the absurd things men would make up about superstitious Gods.

So that's the reason I don't believe it. Not because it violates known science. Violating science should be a piece of cake for the creator of the universe.

However, having said the above, there I do hold that we have obtained knowledge of the world through scientific discoveries that also reveal the fallacy of the Biblical stories.

For example, the Bible has God creating the earth and seeing that everything is "Good". It wasn't supposed to turn bad until Adam and Eve fell from grace. The problem with this is that we know that the world was riddled with disease, animals eating each other, and dying, and even entire species becoming extinct, long before humans ever showed up on planet Earth. Yet the Bible has human's falling from grace as the reason the earth has deteriorated. It even makes specific statements that God caused thorns to grow on plants after the fall from grace. But we now know that thorns grew on plants long before humans ever appeared on earth.

So it's not so much that the Biblical God violates science when doing miracles. But scientific knowledge has already revealed the fallacy of the basic premise of the Bible which is the idea that human's fall from grace is what caused all the imperfections in the a world. A world that the Bible claims God had created and proclaimed to be "Good".

So yes, unfortunately for the Bible, science reveals it's fallacies as well. Even if we allow for all the miracles claimed within the Bible.

Biblical mythology is just a fantasy that has long outlived its proper place on the selves with all the other ancient mythologies.

It simply has no serious merit. There are no credible arguments for it. Even arguments that God could raise Jesus from the dead if he wanted to, simply aren't enough to salvage these ancient myths. These arguments are simply too little too late.

Difflugia
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
polonius wrote:
Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the messiah in about 32 AD. Acts of the Apostles tells us he spend 40 days on earth and then ascended into heaven.

But the first writing claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead is in Paul's 1 Corinthians which dates from about 53 AD. Paul was in the east and was not a witness, but claims there were 500 witnesses none of whom nor the hundreds they would have told wrote anything about it nor did any of the four gospel writers.

Were there any witnesses during the 40 days Jesus spent on earth, and if so why didn't they leave any records (nor did any of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem who would have been aware of the event have told Pilate)?

Was this just a story or a historical event?

Divine Insight wrote:
I understand that this is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, and the Bible is supposed to be taken as "authoritative" on these matters. But I don't see where that changes the fact that these stories are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and not compelling.

What I think is an interesting way to look at this that may even be suitable for TD&D is to discuss the theological implications of each story and author without needing to harmonize them. Each author is authoritative about his own "gospel" (in the sense that Paul uses the term), but there's still room to discuss what each author meant in contrast with the others.

As an example, it's not straightforward what resurrection means in the physical sense. If we discount the longer ending of Mark, for example, the body of Jesus just disappeared from the tomb and was potentially never seen again on Earth (the women didn't tell the disciples, so they didn't seek him in Galilee). Paul thought the resurrection was into a different kind of body that was heavenly and perfect; was this perfect body physical or spiritual? John's Jesus was raised into a physical body with scars, but that could also teleport into a locked room.

Red Wolf MPG Recipient
Subject: Proof Matt's Gospel is Fiction...so is the resurrection.
In Matthew's Gospel, there is a passage, which contains several proofs that Matthew's Gospel is Fiction.
Matthew 28:11-15 (New American Standard Bible)

11Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.

12And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,

13and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.'

14"And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble."

15And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.


List of Proofs.
Here is my list of proofs.
1) The Jewish Priests and Elders tell the guards to say "" 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep."" This is a ridiculous story to tell. Everyone knows that if the guards were asleep they would be unconscious and not know what happened. The ruling Jewish Sanhedrin was 71 members, seventy elders and the High Priest reputed to be amongst the wisest men. It is not believable that these very smart Jews would concoct such a dumb story.

2) In the Roman world, the penalty for sleeping while on guard duty was death. It is doubtful that even with a "good word" from the High Priest [Matthew 28:14] to the Roman Governor, he would have suspended the death sentence. It is not believable that the guards would have lied and said they were sleeping and subject themselves to the death penalty. Can't spend money if you're dead.

3) The Priests and Elders were very religious men. According to Jesus they were very careful about observing every point of the law, but were missing the spirit of the Law. Matthew 23:23-23-24 It is not believable that these religious men would suborn false witness and commit such a grave sin.

4)The Roman Governor would never believe such a dumb story ""'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep." One did not get to rule an entire country by being an idiot.

5) This conspiracy to tell this lie, that the disciples stole the body, involves, the guards, the Jewish leadership, and even the office of the Roman Governor. It is not believable that a conspiracy based on such a poor lie would have held together. But that is what Matthew asks his readers to believe. "And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day." Matthew 28:15 Matthew would have his readers believe the conspiracy lasted for years after the event. Not believable.

6) We have the witness of the four gospels. But only Matthew's gospel mentions a guard on the tomb. Not even a hint from the other gospels. The guard on the tomb is a vital element of the Jesus resurrection story. Had the guard existed the other gospel writers would have most assuredly mentioned it. To fail to mention such an important aspect of the story would be to miss the point of the story. Jesus was in the tomb, the guard was on duty, the tomb was now empty, so Jesus must have resurrected. The other gospel writers didn't mention the guard because this was Matthew's fiction.

onewithhim
Subject: Re: Was Jesus really raised from the dead or is it just a st
polonius wrote:

Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the messiah in about 32 AD. Acts of the Apostles tells us he spend 40 days on earth and then ascended into heaven.

But the first writing claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead is in Paul's 1 Corinthians which dates from about 53 AD. Paul was in the east and was not a witness, but claims there were 500 witnesses none of whom nor the hundreds they would have told wrote anything about it nor did any of the four gospel writers.

Were there any witnesses during the 40 days Jesus spent on earth, and if so why didn't they leave any records (nor did any of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem who would have been aware of the event have told Pilate)?

Was this just a story or a historical event?

I'm wondering what Bible version you are reading. All of my versions that I have in my library (and I have dozens) show that Matthew, an apostle with Jesus, wrote about Jesus' resurrection, around the year 41 A.D.. That was before Paul's contribution to the fact.

Anyway, if the apostles and others weren't convinced and didn't believe that Jesus had been brought back from the dead, would they have gone on to expose themselves to indescribable torments and deprivations and difficulties to get the Gospel truth out to all the nations?

Peter and the others had gone back to their former jobs after Jesus was crucified. It took at least a second meeting with him after his resurrection to get them motivated again to carry on Jesus' work. But after that breakfast on the beach, they were fired up. They wouldn't have carried on, and the movement would have stopped in its tracks, if Jesus had not been resurrected.


.

onewithhim
Subject: Re: Proof Matt's Gospel is Fiction...so is the resurrection.
[Replying to post 8 by Red Wolf]

I see that you don't have a very realistic view of people's tendency to be willing to do just about anything if they are offered enough money. I find the account about the Jewish big-wigs arranging with the soldiers to lie about Jesus' body very believable.

You also seem to have no understanding of the power that the Jewish religious leaders had in Jerusalem and round about. Roman authorities didn't like the Jews but they tried to have a somewhat peaceful and symbiotic relationship with them. Politics and religion have gone hand-in-hand for millennia. The Pharisees wielded quite a bit of power and authority around Jerusalem. They also had wanted to kill Jesus for a long time. They wanted to wait until just the right time. It happened, it seemed, in their favor. And it can be pointed out that their power in the city was demonstrated when they were able to convince Pilate to let a murderer go free but kill Jesus.

Power and money---that's what runs this world. The Jewish religious leaders had both, and they used it.

BTW, the Pharisees weren't interested in what Pilate believed about Jesus' body. He had already disagreed with them about finding Him guilty of anything. He wasn't really an idiot. The Jews wanted it to go down in their nation's lore that Jesus' disciples stole his body. They didn't care what the Roman authorities thought. They wanted their own people to believe the lie. They were successful at that.



.

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Page 1 of 3


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this subforum
You cannot reply to topics in this subforum
You cannot edit your posts in this subforum
You cannot delete your posts in this subforum
You cannot vote in polls in this subforum

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Full Version