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?

[OpenedUp]

Wow. I like the way you put that together.

That would never hold water. Try presenting that case to a court.

[cnorman18]

There is a good deal of extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Best known is a mention of him in Josephus. Though the relevant passage that is extant today is obviously an interpolation, there is enough context to indicate that Jesus was mentioned in some fashion.

It should be remembered, too, that the NT itself is a collection of historical documents, after a fashion. The letters of Paul--the oldest part of the NT--were written and widely circulated at a time when people who had seen Jesus in person were still living. There seems to be no indication that his existence was ever questioned, even at that early date.

Perhaps the best evidence is that contemporary and near-contemporary Jewish writings, e.g., in the Talmud, never take the position that Jesus never existed. It's clear that the writers didn't like him much, and probably would have jumped at the chance to assert that there had never been such a person; but that never happened. The matter was apparently never in doubt.

No serious or reputable historian or Bible scholar, Christian, Jewish or other, takes seriously any longer the 19th century speculation that Jesus did not exist. He clearly did.

On the business of the Resurrection--well, as a Jew I naturally have no comment.

[Goat]

There is a good deal of extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Best known is a mention of him in Josephus. Though the relevant passage that is extant today is obviously an interpolation, there is enough context to indicate that Jesus was mentioned in some fashion.

It should be remembered, too, that the NT itself is a collection of historical documents, after a fashion. The letters of Paul--the oldest part of the NT--were written and widely circulated at a time when people who had seen Jesus in person were still living. There seems to be no indication that his existence was ever questioned, even at that early date.

Perhaps the best evidence is that contemporary and near-contemporary Jewish writings, e.g., in the Talmud, never take the position that Jesus never existed. It's clear that the writers didn't like him much, and probably would have jumped at the chance to assert that there had never been such a person; but that never happened. The matter was apparently never in doubt.

No serious or reputable historian or Bible scholar, Christian, Jewish or other, takes seriously any longer the 19th century speculation that Jesus did not exist. He clearly did.

On the business of the Resurrection--well, as a Jew I naturally have no comment.

Well, I have a problem with having an interpolation from the 4th century be evidence that someone existed. And, of course, the Talmud was put down in writing in the later part of the second century to the 4th century. Most of those references that are supposed to point to Jesus are to people named Jesus, but that was a common name. It looks to me that the Talmud references were a reaction to
Christian beliefs and claims.

It is my personal opinion that if a person named Jesus was the inspiration for the Jesus of the Gospels, so many stories were made up ABOUT him that he did not resemble the Jesus in the gospels at all

[jamesearl]

There is a good deal of extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Best known is a mention of him in Josephus. Though the relevant passage that is extant today is obviously an interpolation, there is enough context to indicate that Jesus was mentioned in some fashion.

It should be remembered, too, that the NT itself is a collection of historical documents, after a fashion. The letters of Paul--the oldest part of the NT--were written and widely circulated at a time when people who had seen Jesus in person were still living. There seems to be no indication that his existence was ever questioned, even at that early date.

Perhaps the best evidence is that contemporary and near-contemporary Jewish writings, e.g., in the Talmud, never take the position that Jesus never existed. It's clear that the writers didn't like him much, and probably would have jumped at the chance to assert that there had never been such a person; but that never happened. The matter was apparently never in doubt.

No serious or reputable historian or Bible scholar, Christian, Jewish or other, takes seriously any longer the 19th century speculation that Jesus did not exist. He clearly did.

On the business of the Resurrection--well, as a Jew I naturally have no comment.

Are you saying that jews were 'enslaved' in Egypt?

There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Actually, all accounts would say there is not even a speculation of such an event. Are you claiming it to have happened?

[Assent]

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.

[OpenedUp]

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.

Sure is easier when you have some seemingly extra-human figure to put the weight on, huh?

[cnorman18]

Well, I have a problem with having an interpolation from the 4th century be evidence that someone existed. And, of course, the Talmud was put down in writing in the later part of the second century to the 4th century. Most of those references that are supposed to point to Jesus are to people named Jesus, but that was a common name. It looks to me that the Talmud references were a reaction to
Christian beliefs and claims.

It is my personal opinion that if a person named Jesus was the inspiration for the Jesus of the Gospels, so many stories were made up ABOUT him that he did not resemble the Jesus in the gospels at all

For the record, Jesus is virtually never referred to in the Talmud by name, neither the Greek "Jesus" nor the Aramaic "Yeshua," nor yet the Hebrew "Joshua." He is invariably referred to by various "coded" phrases, the best known of which is "Ben Pantira," or "son of the Panther." (one well-known bit of first-century Jewish gossip is that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, to which this is an allusion. Perhaps the panther was thought to be the emblem of his unit; no one today really knows what the name meant at the time.) in context, the references could mean no one else; this person claimed to be God and King, was crucified in Jerusalem, and was said to have risen from the dead. Again, the allegation that he never existed simply does not appear, though it would obviously have been a preferred point of view had it been available.

I'll stand by what I said; no reputable historian, of any faith or none, takes the idea seriously that Jesus never existed.

If you want to assert that the real, historical Jesus had little in common with the Jesus presented in the NT, you'll get no argument from me--and you wouldn't have when I was a minister, either. That view is all but taken for granted in liberal Christian seminaries today, though few pastors choose to discuss it from their pulpits.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you want to assert that the real, historical Jesus had little in common with the Jesus presented in the NT, you'll get no argument from me--and you wouldn't have when I was a minister, either. That view is all but taken for granted in liberal Christian seminaries today, though few pastors choose to discuss it from their pulpits.

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

[MikeH]

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.

Sure is easier when you have some seemingly extra-human figure to put the weight on, huh?

That was not the point. The point was not that it is "easier" to accept that Jesus existed, but that it is the same as accepting the existence of any other historical figure. It is a sound argument.