Question About Jesus Death

[Whindian]

Hi everyone. I'm 21 years old and have been raised in a christian home. Since I can remember I've experienced doubts, although I've always been able to find reasons to dispel them. Around 6 months ago, I was getting absolutely sick of living in doubt. You see there have been numerous times I have decided I would not live a christian life, but this would just result in internal strife and I've reasoned it as the abscence/grieving of the holy spirit (+ I would probably only last 1 month, maybe 2?). So I thought to put this whole thing to rest, I would study the Bible to the level of scholarly knowledge. It has so far pushed me into a deeper faith, although there are a few glaring errors I never saw before. The main one being the OT, the ridiculous laws that existed, and the dubious way the Bible deals with how they apply to the new covanent. All that is really mentioned is Jesus states he's here to fulfill the law, and Paul states we are under grace rather than law. But that doesn't help us to deal with which laws actually apply. Take for example the sexual laws, where christians will argue against incest, homosexuality, fornication, etc based on the OT law; yet they ignore other passages such as the requirement of virginity proof from women, the law preventing sex during a womans menstrual cycle etc.

 

Additionally there are some NT passages which have been written off as cultural (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11 - All women should wear head covering). However thats entirely based on the speculative opinion of the person stating the claim, not on a biblical basis. True fundamentalists should really be wearing head covering during church services.

 

Anyway that deviation is just to explain where I am at. The reason I posted this thread was because I have been taught that we know God through 3 major relevations. There is:

1. A general relevation to us through nature (Romans 1:18-20)

2. A relevation through Jesus Christ and his life/death/resurrection.

3. A personal revelation through the Holy spirit.

 

This is dealing with the 2nd of these points. Our university christian union openly deals with the subject of Jesus's resurrection. We've examined the coherence of the gospels in this matter, and the fact there is no glaring contradictions. We've looked at the fact that there were 500 witnesses that Jesus appeared to, and were willing to testify to this fact. The fact that the body was missing, and no one was able to explain how it went missing. The fact that the gospels have a very strong historical validity.

 

I probably haven't given this all justice, but I've just got home from uni and have to study for a test . Anyway I wanted to see what conclusion people have come to on these facts. It's only reasonable to hear out both sides of the argument, which I've struggled to find in my highly sophisticated google searchs hahaha. To be honest I just want to come to some kind of peace and certainty on this issue of God, the world, life...and I refuse to come to that place by ignoring reason in my life (on the counter-side, I refuse to come to that place by ignoring the possibility of God).

[mwc]

This is dealing with the 2nd of these points. Our university christian union openly deals with the subject of Jesus's resurrection. We've examined the coherence of the gospels in this matter, and the fact there is no glaring contradictions.

Have you heard of the Easter Challenge? Simply write up, using all of the 4 gospels (and Paul but even blowing him off it works), the easter story (the death, resurrection). Sounds easy until you try it. No fair "harmonizing" but using all four texts with their time lines and so on. It's impossible to do. I'll save you some time. Just try going to the tomb that Sunday morning. In Matthew the stone is still there and in the others it has already rolled away. Read the texts carefully because you cannot resolve this without harmonizing.

 

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has tons of contradictions. Some are pretty good and others are really pushing the envelope on what I'd call a contradiction.

 

We've looked at the fact that there were 500 witnesses that Jesus appeared to, and were willing to testify to this fact. The fact that the body was missing, and no one was able to explain how it went missing. The fact that the gospels have a very strong historical validity.

I know I broke up your quote but this isn't in the gospels. Ignoring that, if these 500 were so willing to "testify" where are their testimonies? Do you have a copy I can look at? No? No one else does either. So it may have well been 5000 or 50000 since the "evidence" is the same...one man's word.

 

The "missing" body. Classic. That empty hole is where they guy who magically came back to life used to be stored. Amazing. And the proof is the hole is empty. Doesn't that apply to every empty hole? They have tombs where Jupiter was buried but he's not there anymore either because, well, he's a god and god's don't stay in tombs. Does that make that story real? Or the tombs for Osiris? They don't contain Osiris because he's now somewhere else. And in Matthew they just knew we wouldn't believe he walked out under his own power so they included the secret conversation between guards (that were only in that version of the story) and the priests that could have gotten them all killed if revealed (thus the part of the story that says it's a good thing you guards came to us priests because this will be secret between just us) but for some reason word got out that it was a secret that wouldn't be believed.

 

Three of the gospels are from one source and then there's G.John. They are piss poor historical documents but since that's not their intent it's not surprise.

 

mwc

[Whindian]

Have you heard of the Easter Challenge? Simply write up, using all of the 4 gospels (and Paul but even blowing him off it works), the easter story (the death, resurrection). Sounds easy until you try it. No fair "harmonizing" but using all four texts with their time lines and so on. It's impossible to do. I'll save you some time. Just try going to the tomb that Sunday morning. In Matthew the stone is still there and in the others it has already rolled away. Read the texts carefully because you cannot resolve this without harmonizing.

Sure I've noticed that. But to me its not a glaring contradiction. I mean there is no explicit reference that the women were present when the earthquake happened. It's reasonable to suggest that the earthquake occurred while the women were on their way to the tomb.

 

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has tons of contradictions. Some are pretty good and others are really pushing the envelope on what I'd call a contradiction.

I'll have a read thanks.

 

I know I broke up your quote but this isn't in the gospels. Ignoring that, if these 500 were so willing to "testify" where are their testimonies? Do you have a copy I can look at? No? No one else does either. So it may have well been 5000 or 50000 since the "evidence" is the same...one man's word.

Yeah oops, didn't mean to imply it was. The passage is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter[a] and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

 

By the way, thats a really good point about the absolute lack of written testimonies by any of these people. You would think if they saw someone rise from the dead and claim to be God, at least some of them would write about it.

[Deva]

So someone writes a letter at least 50 years after the event in question and says 500 people saw something and testified about it. Something unprecedented in the history of the world, a dead body coming to life and changing into some nonphysical entity. Is that sufficient evidence?

 

This dead, now alive, body could apparantly walk through walls according to the Gospels, which were written even later after the supposed event. Parts of these document have been proven by modern scholarship to have been changed added to, and/or altered, the ending of Mark, for example.

 

Not to be unkind, but how do we really know the tomb was empty? Just because some people wrote decades after the event and said so. Not even any cameras in those days.

 

Aside from all that, what gives these stories a special historical validity? Are they more valid than other scriptures of the world? Could not the Hindu accounts of the god Krishna not be equally valid?

 

We do not find these books to be historically valid or persuasive. They are written by men and are not "God's word." Please ask yourself if God would really choose such a questionable method to reveal himself.

[mwc]

Sure I've noticed that. But to me its not a glaring contradiction. I mean there is no explicit reference that the women were present when the earthquake happened. It's reasonable to suggest that the earthquake occurred while the women were on their way to the tomb.

Well, there's reasonable and then there's what is written which is what we're discussing.

 

Matthew 28

 

1 Now late on the Sabbath, when the dawn of the first day of the week was near, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the place where his body was. 2 And there was a great earth-shock; for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, rolling back the stone, took his seat on it. 3 His form was shining like the light, and his clothing was white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the watchmen were shaking, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel said to the women, Have no fear: for I see that you are searching for Jesus, who was put to death on the cross.

 

Luke 24

 

1 But on the first day of the week, at dawn, they came to the place where his body had been put, taking the spices which they had got ready. 2 And they saw that the stone had been rolled away. 3 And they went in, but the body of the Lord Jesus was not there. 4 And while they were in doubt about it, they saw two men in shining clothing by them: 5 And while their faces were bent down to the earth in fear, these said to them, Why are you looking for the living among the dead?

That's just two. You can do the rest if you like but the results won't change. Matthew has the stone blocking the door and removed, by an angel, in front of the eyes of the women. The others do not. The stone is already moved with variations on how many angels/men, and where they are located.

 

This is not a simple contradiction but a major problem because it has issues with a number of "objects" within the story (the women, the stone, the angels/men, the guards, the "conspiracy," the general timing issue (dawn/just before), as well as their placement and statements which may or may not be explainable from the "multi-witness" viewpoint). Conveniently note the guards are unconscious during the key moments from "fear"...some guards/witnesses). It also highlights that jesus moved through the stone unlike the others that infer that jesus rolled back the stone upon his exit (or he "arose" in that split second) and this angel needed to move the stone so they could see for themselves as first witnesses (unlike the open tomb in the other stories where Mary then asks the "gardener" where they took the body in a variation of the "conspiracy" theory...she can't ask that question if both G.Matthew and G.John are true since the tomb was sealed and she watched an angel open it, and tell her what happened...not an insignificant "contradiction" at all but a story killer...if you wouldn't buy it in a movie or TV show then why here?).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

This is dealing with the 2nd of these points. Our university christian union openly deals with the subject of Jesus's resurrection. We've examined the coherence of the gospels in this matter, and the fact there is no glaring contradictions. We've looked at the fact that there were 500 witnesses that Jesus appeared to, and were willing to testify to this fact. The fact that the body was missing, and no one was able to explain how it went missing. The fact that the gospels have a very strong historical validity.

 

Regardin "no glaring contradictions", it's funny that somehow the contradictions that do exist between the Gospels are argued to be support for the stories to be true, and the non-contradictions are used the same way. Basically, you can't win when it comes to validating or refuting the truthfulness of the Gospels. They could be completely different and just have one item the same, and the arguments still would be "well, the contradctions in there prove they saw it from different point of view." So really, the amount of contradictions in there doesn't prove anything. Think about this, have one person write a story, and then have another person read that story and write a similar story. What do you end up with? The truth? Not really, you end up of two versions of a story and that's it.

 

The Gospels read like a fiction novel and not like a deposition from an eyewitness. I've been in court, and people don't tell their stories in the style the Gospels are written. And no, that was not in fashion back then either. There are a whole bunch of other Gospels, written in the same style, but removed from the canon, because they were not considered to be "real" eyewitness accounts. How come? How can it be that the early Church did actually remove "true" and "honest" eyewitness reports based on some arbitrary rules? If you want the complete story about Jesus, shouldn't the other Gospels be included too, even the Gospel of Judas?

 

And how is 500 witnesses a fact? Is Acts really a fact or a fiction? People make up things all the time to boost their own ego and to support their own beliefs. I've seen it, many times. Truth isn't as solid and absolute when it comes to people. And we really do not know exactly what their testimonies would have been, since we don't have them written down. Maybe 400 of them would testify to that Jesus died, but they might have testified that the disciples did take Jesus body from the grave and made up the story. Now, would the Christian chose to them if we found something like that? Probably not, because he believes beause he wants to believe, not because the evidence is there. (Faith is blind, and believes in things you can't see or prove.)

 

There are alternative explanations, many of them, and just as much as I can not prove that God doesn't exist, the same was Christians can not prove the other alternative explanations to be wrong. The easiest explanation is to bring up all the other mythological deities that died and rose again. These gods existed before Jesus existed, so he wasn't the first one, and he wasn't unique. The only difference was that he was Jewish version of these other gods.

 

People lie, people steal, people can do very evil things, just to protect what they believe in. Just think about how honest the Catholic Church was when it created a whole industry around pieces of the cross, two different heads of John the baptist, and the shroud that even after the Church said itself that it was a fake, a large amount of people still believe the shroud was real, and even worse they still do! The worst thing is that people lie to themselves. They make themselves believe. I have books about these kinds of stories, and I've seen it firsthand, so I do not put trust in people who write or tell fabulous stories. I'm a bit of a hardcore skeptic now.

 

And btw, the Gospels do not have a strong historical validity. The earliest any of the Gospels could have been written was 40 years after the events. A lot could have changed, and maybe the books were written to make it look like the stories they told were real. We really don't know who or why the authors wrote what they did, and even the early Church admits they didn't know who wrote them, so today people believe more about these Gospels than even the early Church by believing that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote them, but we don't really know. People fool themselves to think this is a fact, when it is not.

[Ouroboros]

This dead, now alive, body could apparantly walk through walls according to the Gospels, which were written even later after the supposed event.

Don't forget he was a zombie, and a shape shifter too. (The shape shifter thing is from the "fact" that he walked on the road to Damascus and they didn't recognize him until he chose to.)

 

Not to be unkind, but how do we really know the tomb was empty? Just because some people wrote decades after the event and said so. Not even any cameras in those days.

And how do we know if the tomb even had his body to begin with? It was some anonymous guy that took his body and "put" it there, and he wasn't even a close disciple, or even a disciple at all. I suspect the kind of accomplice the magicians use from the audience. "Can I have a volunteer?" ... Maybe he had conspired with the disciples to put him somewhere else, so they could make it look like a resurrection? Where is the testimony and evidence for this?

 

We do not find these books to be historically valid or persuasive. They are written by men and are not "God's word." Please ask yourself if God would really choose such a questionable method to reveal himself.

EXACTLY! Well put.

 

Is this way to "salvation" really the best way God could muster? Just another religion built on a shaky story, without any miraculous evidence around us every day? If I was God, I would make sure that anyone with an honest heart searching me, would get miracles to confirm and validate their belief. Simple as that. If you believe the right thing, I would reward you, if you believe the wrong thing I would not reward you, and if you did something really bad, I would punish you on the spot instead of waiting until you die. Simple, straight forward, and convincing.

[Ouroboros]

By the way, thats a really good point about the absolute lack of written testimonies by any of these people. You would think if they saw someone rise from the dead and claim to be God, at least some of them would write about it.

So very true.

 

Think about that Jerusalem was a center for travelers from Northern Europe down to Egypt. There must have been thousands of people of different nationalities that traveled there and stayed over. Now, how is it that we have no record or written stories or letters what-so-ever from anywhere in the rest of the Roman empire, from any eyewitness to any of these events? I mean, take some 100,000 travelers experience sun-black-out, earth shaking, dead people walking on the streets, and then the rumors that God's Only Begotten Son is risen from the dead. Well, that's nothing to write about home to your wife is it? What you would write would probably be something like:

 

"Yesterday I had the most amazing dish. It was fresh fish with cumin and it was so tasty. Next year, my dear wife, I will take you here so you can taste it too. Oh, and another thing there were some disturbance in the town today, I think it was the Son of God who rose from the dead, and there was an earthquake and the sun went totally black, and then the city was filled with zombies... but you know those things, they pass quickly so it was probably nothing."

 

Eeeh.... yeah, right...

 

People more likely would have been in ecstasy and told the rest of the world of these events the same hour. Some would flee from the city in panic. Some would dedicate their rest of their life to write about this event and how they were there, first row seat and got the T-shirt, kind of celebrity. There's no way, that people would so totally ignore these things (or the Pentecost) the way they did, unless those stories are exaggerations or myths...

[ShackledNoMore]

It's good that you're critically examining these questions.

 

Rather than provide you with arguments to persuade you that my point of view is right, I'll try to do better: I'll toss out a couple of thoughts related to you search for truth and your question.

 

Others have already questioned the validity of the claim that there were 500 witnesses. As pointed out, this is a claim that comes straight from the bible--if it's not a reliable source then it doesn't matter HOW many witnesses it says there were.

 

The best way to come to your own solid conclusions? Read the bible--its inerrancy or lack thereof should be a conclusion, not an initial premise. You'll come to conclusions about whether or not there are internal contradictions. Read carefully. In the version of xianity I was taught, it was claimed that the bible was inerrant, and absolute. All I had to do to negate the brand of xianity I was taught was to find one little contradiction. Details in the genealogy of jesus, the ancient Hebrews inability to measure the value of pi, a little thought about what it would take for the account of the great flood and Noah's experiences, any of these would have been pretty damning. Your mileage may vary from mine--you may or may not have taught differently, and to have different expectations. But even if you were taught differently...well...what IS "true" xianity? You've obviously been thinking about these questions, e.g., the head covering references.

 

Don't stop at just reading the bible. Is there corroborating evidence outside of the bible? What such history would you expect to find if the bible were true? What is actually available? What is the relationship between the bible and other ancient religions and schools of thought?

 

Joesphus is the most credible historian of the time-frame important to the new testament. What did he say? What would you expect to have heard from him if the gospels/NT gave an accurate account? Don't stop at reading his works. What do skeptics say about his writings? What do apologists say about them? How much might they have altered as they were copied by scribes?

 

Keep digging for answers!

[Whindian]

Is this way to "salvation" really the best way God could muster? Just another religion built on a shaky story, without any miraculous evidence around us every day? If I was God, I would make sure that anyone with an honest heart searching me, would get miracles to confirm and validate their belief. Simple as that. If you believe the right thing, I would reward you, if you believe the wrong thing I would not reward you, and if you did something really bad, I would punish you on the spot instead of waiting until you die. Simple, straight forward, and convincing.

 

Sorry to deviate but I've always wondered this, why God wouldn't perform signs and wonders on demand. After attended churches for the last 20 years, some of which were quite charasmatic, I can say I've never seen first-hand an obvious miracle be performed (although I've heard of a whole lot second-hand, including from family members who I would call very credible sources).

 

Explanations I have heard in the past include:

1. That it is prideful and arrogant for us to assume God serves our every whim, and we need to learn to trust and obey God as servants.

2. God doesn't believe in using miracles to prove himself. The evidence is already there. They are just an available gift to his people.

3. We don't have enough faith in Western culture, and all these signs & wonders are happening in the developing world where the gospel is spreading like wild-fire (They sight this because of some scriptures, which I won't add so the post isn't too long).

 

However I was doing reading on this, and noticed that Jesus said in John 10:34-38 when speaking to a doubting crowd (context: he's just made a blind man see, and apparently news has spread throughout the region. the pharisees have documented the evidence):

34 Jesus replied, “It is written in your own Scriptures[e] that God said to certain leaders of the people, ‘I say, you are gods!’[f] 35 And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people who received God’s message were called ‘gods,’ 36 why do you call it blasphemy when I say, ‘I am the Son of God’? After all, the Father set me apart and sent me into the world. 37 Don’t believe me unless I carry out my Father’s work. 38 But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works I have done, even if you don’t believe me. Then you will know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.”

 

So it seems Jesus himself was willing to use miracles to justify himself. Not dubious ones (i.e. my cancer went into remission), but pretty obvious ones as well. For example:

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

 

He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

 

Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. -- Matthew 12:9-12

 

So if Jesus is willing to make shriveled hands open to, as he stated, prove himself (that would be a pretty reasonable answer to the challenge at www.whywontgodhealamputees.com if done today), why can't we see these things happening today to bring people into salvation, even on a small-time basis? I mean he stated that the church would do greater things than he himself in John 14:12 (although IMO he was referring to church as a whole, not each individual christian).

 

BTW I have to go to work now, but I'll have some more time to answer everyones posts later thankyou.

[godlessgrrl]

Before I questioned Jesus' death, I would question whether or not he existed in the first place.

 

Is the Bible a trustworthy source for information about Jesus? Why? What backs it up? You make the claim that "the gospels have a very strong historical validity". What backs up your claim? What do you mean by "validity"?

 

What is the evidence, outside of the Bible itself, that Jesus existed? The Romans were sticklers for bureaucracy - they wrote everything down; hence, the time period is very well documented, so if there's something else out there to support Jesus' existence, it should be fairly easy to find. (Hint: I've only been able to find a few scant references to the existence of Christians, and a single paragraph about Christ, most likely a forgery. None of them are contemporary to Jesus' supposed lifetime. That doesn't bode well.)

 

If you can't find anything to confirm whether or not Jesus was a real person, then issues about the details of his death become moot.

 

My first degree was in history, and I highly recommend getting a basic grasp on the historical method to anyone looking into the accuracy of source texts (in this case, the Bible). I can tell you that, to me, the story of Jesus' life and death looks a lot like the story of King Arthur: a powerful mythology built for the masses around the life of a figure who may or may not have existed in the first place. In fact I'd say that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is just about as good as the evidence for the existence of King Arthur (though not as good as the evidence for the existence of Prince Alexander of Troy). It's possible Jesus was a real guy, but I think it's highly probable that the stories we have about him are so unlike whatever reality might have been that there's no way of telling what he might actually have been like as a person. Legends have grown up around Jesus the way they've accreted around Wong Fei-hung, and at least we know Wong was a real guy, living about a hundred years ago.

 

But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. And good luck.

[centauri]

Hi everyone. I'm 21 years old and have been raised in a christian home. Since I can remember I've experienced doubts, although I've always been able to find reasons to dispel them. Around 6 months ago, I was getting absolutely sick of living in doubt. You see there have been numerous times I have decided I would not live a christian life, but this would just result in internal strife and I've reasoned it as the abscence/grieving of the holy spirit (+ I would probably only last 1 month, maybe 2?). So I thought to put this whole thing to rest, I would study the Bible to the level of scholarly knowledge. It has so far pushed me into a deeper faith, although there are a few glaring errors I never saw before. The main one being the OT, the ridiculous laws that existed, and the dubious way the Bible deals with how they apply to the new covanent. All that is really mentioned is Jesus states he's here to fulfill the law, and Paul states we are under grace rather than law.

These are some addition comments to add to the responses you've already received.

From a Biblical aspect, all the law is everlasting and provides righteousness.

Psa 119 is entirely devoted to praising the law.

There is no provision for the law to be replaced by a new system revolving around faith in a human sacrifice.

Salvation is provided by repenting and obeying the law. (Ezek 18:20-27)

The "Old" Testament and New Testament are two different systems of belief.

They are not harmonious and they often conflict with each other.

But that doesn't help us to deal with which laws actually apply. Take for example the sexual laws, where christians will argue against incest, homosexuality, fornication, etc based on the OT law; yet they ignore other passages such as the requirement of virginity proof from women, the law preventing sex during a womans menstrual cycle etc.

Christianity cherry picks which laws are still binding and which are not.

However, all the laws are everlasting according to the Hebrew scriptures.

Additionally there are some NT passages which have been written off as cultural (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11 - All women should wear head covering). However thats entirely based on the speculative opinion of the person stating the claim, not on a biblical basis. True fundamentalists should really be wearing head covering during church services.

If a passage doesn't appeal to believers, they'll find a way to rule it no longer appropriate for them to observe.

Anyway that deviation is just to explain where I am at. The reason I posted this thread was because I have been taught that we know God through 3 major relevations. There is:

1. A general relevation to us through nature (Romans 1:18-20)

2. A relevation through Jesus Christ and his life/death/resurrection.

3. A personal revelation through the Holy spirit.

 

This is dealing with the 2nd of these points. Our university christian union openly deals with the subject of Jesus's resurrection. We've examined the coherence of the gospels in this matter, and the fact there is no glaring contradictions.

The fact there are no glaring contradictions?

How does this group define a glaring contradiction?

Does this group mentally rewrite scripture in order to rationalize problems away?

I can think of a couple problems:

Where did the risen Jesus first appear to the 11 disciples as a group?

Was Jesus arrested after the Passover meal or prior to it?

We've looked at the fact that there were 500 witnesses that Jesus appeared to, and were willing to testify to this fact.

The claim about 500 witnesses comes exclusively from Paul, a man that never met Jesus except in a vision.

Where do confirmations for this claim of 500 witnesses appear in the New Testament?

Why should Paul be trusted, when he admitted that he would change himself and his presentation in order to appeal to particular groups?

The fact that the body was missing, and no one was able to explain how it went missing. The fact that the gospels have a very strong historical validity.

Facts can be anything a person wants them to be when they resort to argument by assertion.

However, simply asserting that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact.

The risen Jesus only appeared to believers. That's rather convenient.

The gospels do not have very strong historical validity.

Where is evidence that when Jesus died, the bodies of dead people rose and later strolled in Jerusalem as portrayed in Matt 27?

Matthew 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

This would have been an event of greater magnitude than one body missing from a grave.

Where is this event confirmed by Luke the historian, or by any other Gospel writer?

I probably haven't given this all justice, but I've just got home from uni and have to study for a test . Anyway I wanted to see what conclusion people have come to on these facts.

Well, you keep calling these things facts, when they are only facts to believers.

Facts need to be distinguished from assertions.

It's only reasonable to hear out both sides of the argument, which I've struggled to find in my highly sophisticated google searchs hahaha. To be honest I just want to come to some kind of peace and certainty on this issue of God, the world, life...and I refuse to come to that place by ignoring reason in my life (on the counter-side, I refuse to come to that place by ignoring the possibility of God).

I'm not sure you can have certainty on a subject as subjective as "God".

For now, simply label it as a possibility that might be resolved with further information.

It's Christianity that wants to force you to decide and declare with certainty.

In my opinion, if you're feeling forced to make up your mind(with certainty) about this particular issue, then you're living in a state of nervous slavery.

That's certainly easy to understand because Christianity attempts to make people nervous and then offers them a bromide called "Jesus" to ease their anxiety.

[Taphophilia]

We've examined the coherence of the gospels in this matter, and the fact there is no glaring contradictions. We've looked at the fact that there were 500 witnesses that Jesus appeared to, and were willing to testify to this fact. The fact that the body was missing, and no one was able to explain how it went missing. The fact that the gospels have a very strong historical validity.

 

You are obviously very intelligent. Though, I'd like to ask why do you take other people's word for it, especially considering it's something as important as your beliefs. Just because someone tells you something, even if they believe it themselves, doesn't mean it's a fact. Have you read anything other than the Bible to validate these accounts? Have you read any Biblical criticism by scholars who study the texts so you have an informed opinoin?

 

The other thing I'd like to ask you is, does God mean the Christian God? Discounting the Christian concept of God doesn't nesscisarily mean discounting God altogether.

[thomas]

This is just a short response to a part of your post.

 

Anyway that deviation is just to explain where I am at. The reason I posted this thread was because I have been taught that we know God through 3 major relevations. There is:

1. A general relevation to us through nature (Romans 1:18-20)

2. A relevation through Jesus Christ and his life/death/resurrection.

3. A personal revelation through the Holy spirit.

 

This is dealing with the 2nd of these points.

 

Even when I was a christian, I did not see the point in the revelation through Jesus. A revelation is supposed to be something helpful, but how could a revelation through apperance given to people 2000 years ago be helpful to me? I would prefer a new fresh revelation for my generation, instead of rumors and stories about an old one.

 

As I studied things a bit closer, I understood, that the revelation through christ was ment as a revelation given to the church (a leat in the brand of christianity I was into). So the revelation was apperantly not supposed directly to help me, but to put the church in a position of authority. The church was still the middelman between me and god. I could, by looking at nature, wonder about god (your 1. point) and I could by listening to the church teaching get to a position, where I had the feeling, that the holy spirit confirmed my faith (your 3. point). But what was in between (ypur 2. point), here I had to have blind confidence in the church.

 

To me, since I was into a protestant brand, this was a really odd situation. How could I trust a protestant church, that basically had inherited the christ revelation, from the Roman Catholic Church, when this protestant church at the same time did not believe in the Roman Catholc Church. If there really was a revelation through Jesus (which I do not think), then this revelation has surely been lost thorugh forgery and Church conflict.

[Deva]

Explanations I have heard in the past include:

1. That it is prideful and arrogant for us to assume God serves our every whim, and we need to learn to trust and obey God as servants.

2. God doesn't believe in using miracles to prove himself. The evidence is already there. They are just an available gift to his people.

3. We don't have enough faith in Western culture, and all these signs & wonders are happening in the developing world where the gospel is spreading like wild-fire (They sight this because of some scriptures, which I won't add so the post isn't too long).

 

 

I see you are trying to reason this out. Good. Please see that these "explanations" don't wash.

 

1. This is just a reason people in authority in the church give you to make you feel pitiful and weak, so you don't have to think about things too deeply. Learning to "trust and obey God as servents" really means "do what we tell you and don't think about it."

 

2. What is your definition of a miracle? What is the definition of God? What evidence for God is this explanation referring to? This is not an explanation. This is very hazy and questionable to me. Also, I have not witnessed anything I would consider as a miracle among "his people" in the church.

 

3. Very covenient that the "signs and wonders" are happening in the so-called developing world, where we can't easily go to verify the truth of the matter for ourselves, isn't it?

 

As for the rest of your post, which I do not quote, it seems to me that you are still trying to maintain that the New Testament is an accurate, straightforward historical record of events of the past and contains "evidence." It is nothing of the kind. Please take some time to read some church history (other than google searches) and modern Biblical scholarship. Since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library and other early documents, we know for a fact that there were many different gospels in circulation in the early church. The early church itself was full of different practices. For example, women were leading some of the churches. The faction of the church that got the most power got together and assembled the gospels from the documents they wanted, omitting the "heretical" ones. This process took centuries. This is just an outline. You will see that the New Testament is actually propaganda, written by certain Christians to convince people. It has been altered and amended. It was crafted to make people believe that the New Testament fulfilled prophacies of the Old. It has been shown not to be historically accurate.

 

If the document that you consider as evidence is itself not accurate, nothing you argue from it is valid. It is as if I were trying to argue that Sauron from "The Lord of the Rings" exists by quoting from "Lord of the Rings."

 

Also, please ask yourself what these miracle stories have to do with your day-to-day life?

[Ouroboros]

The longer you're away from the Christianity, the more you realize that the "sacrifice" was totally based on human sacrifice in the same fashion most old religions sacrificed animals or humans to please the gods. The cruci-fiction is the same thing. A sacrifice to please God. And yet the Bible talks against this, and in the OT God kept on sending the armies against the "baby sacrificing" religions. It's such a vicked religion. Destroy the competition, and then preach the same thing under false flags. Black becomes white, white becomes black, and no one really knows the truth, but they're just fooled into believing they do.

[Grandpa Harley]

One of the interesting things for me is that Josephus, the primary 'external' source, doens't mention either an earthquake or the temple veil being rent... and his father worked there was the primary source of Josephus' history. TBH, Josephus makes a better case for Simon of Gitta as the Messiah...

[R. S. Martin]

Looking_for_truth, I've been where you are. So have many others. Some of us have concluded that the Bible is not true and we can provide lots of evidence and convincing arguments. But lots of people who have been where you are have come to beleive that the Bible is true. They, too, have lots of convincing arguments and they profess to have evidence, too.

 

I have not yet found Christians of any level of education who will attempt to answer all the questions one can bring against the faith and the Bible. What impressed me when I was in university was that the people who were really honest about religion were the agnostics and atheists. The Christians would come up with catch-all answers that cannot be proven either way. Or attacks on one's faith. Evasive answers. Anything to get out of answering unanswerable questions.

 

For example, I listened to the testimony of a husband-wife missionary team. They were great actors and good speakers. They "proved" that being Christian makes one a better person. When I heard them speak I already knew some of these atheists and agnostics. I challenged their statement and said, "Atheists and agnostics are every bit as much what you describe as are Christians."

 

What do you think the answer was? "God works in mysterious ways." This was said with sugary sweet voice.

 

She did not even acknowledge the relationship between my question and her claim. She conveniently disregarded it completely and gave an answer I could not very well disagree with, without causing some discomfort in public. I think that is the kind of vagueness Pat is pointing out in the post above.

[R. S. Martin]

One of my problems with Jesus' sacrificial death is that it was supposed to be for all time and for all people. Sacrifice makes no sense to me today so the sacrificial death does not make sense for all times to all people.

 

Sure, the Christians will say God uses the foolish things of the earth to confound the wise. That's one of those catch-all answers in my opinion. Doesn't stand up to logic.

 

Who's to say logic is good?

 

1. How do we decide what is real?

2. How do we decide what is true?

 

We need some basis from which to begin--a premise of some kind. I choose to believe that that which can be perceived with the senses is real. Based on that premise, if I can see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, and/or hear it, it must exist.

 

Once we determine that something exists, we determine what it is. Once we have determined the criteria by which we know what it is, we can decide the truth about the matter. But first we need to know if it is real.

 

Now some people do not trust logic and sense perception. They trust the word of authority above anything they can perceive or think of themselves. Such people choose their authority. Christians choose some version of Christianity. The Bible is a regular choice. Thus, if the Bible says it, it must be true. However, only a certain point of view can be true so this point of view is chosen according to the most trusted authority.

 

For such people it makes all the sense in the world not to trust logic or sense perception. After all, the Bible says God is so far above all we can think or imagine as the sky is above the earth. It says we cannot of our own selves think even one good thought. They go so far as to say that what seems like a tragedy can truly be good. This basically denies sense perception and human experience.

 

Which of these two criteria for truth do you adhere to? Or do you have yet another criteria, perhaps?

[מה טבו]

We've examined the coherence of the gospels in this matter, and the fact there is no glaring contradictions. We've looked at the fact that there were 500 witnesses that Jesus appeared to, and were willing to testify to this fact. The fact that the body was missing, and no one was able to explain how it went missing. The fact that the gospels have a very strong historical validity.

 

500 witnesses? Where are their statements? There aren't 500 books in the NT.

 

A very strong historical validity? Eh... no. The gospels were written a couple of centuries after Josh's death by Christian missionaries - not an unbiased source. The history described isn't that good either. For example, the NT routinely misquotes Jewish scripture or invents scripture out of thin air. (The "he shall be called a Nazarene" for example, does not exist in the Tanakh.) The portrayal of Pilate is also off. Far from being a cowering official, according to the historian Josephus, he was actually relieved of his command by the Romans for his brutality.

 

The Easter challenge is a good idea. Read each of the gospels and ask yourself questions like:

 

Who first went to the tomb?

Who did they see when they went to the tomb?

Who revealed the news of the resurrection?

How did they react to hearing the news?

 

The NT also claims the Josh was a sacrifice, but this "sacrifice" followed none of the rules for sacrificial offerings.

 

The missing body - remember that Josh promised the Sanhedrin that he would give them a sign and that it would be his resurrection. Yet he never reappeared to the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees. So much for a sign. Also research the Shroud of Turin - it was proven conclusively to be a fake.

 

A really great audio resource is "How to Answer a Christian Missionary" - an MP3 provided by Jews for Judaism. It elaborates a lot further on the information I've provided here.

[Japedo]

 

I haven't read the replies given to you yet and it's most likely already said, but I'll say it anyway. You sound like me at one point in my search. There are two roads you can go down. One is the road of faith.. which will prevent you from questioning... the other the road to Truth, which... be careful what you wish for after you go down this road there is no back tracking.

 

Unfortunately you can not take the road of Faith and Truth together as they fork at a certain point. I found myself that my 'faith' might have been misguided so I followed the road of "Truth". I back tracked thru different Christian dogmas, all the way back to the original one, being the Catholic Church. Before that was Greek and Roman pagan worship. I relearned the entire what was known to me as the "old testament" thru the actual writers of the books the Jews. I took Torah classes, got some books and read many many many sources and information. *IF* the Jewish messiah actually came.. how come Jews don't believe it? I found that Christians don't know jack about Jewish Laws, customs, messiahs or anything else. It was about a year after that... that I became an atheist when I held the same skeptical eye to the Torah. Rabbis have a saying... There are Two roads.. One yours and one Mine. I held on to this... as I felt at the time I needed some sense of god being real. Besides to doubt him breaks the first Mitzvah (commandment) To know God. I defied my fear and doubted anyway... after all how can I find truth without having doubt? Without asking hard questions? The truth was my mission, I didn't want to believe in something false.

 

Today, I might not know what the truth is.. but I sure as heck know what it's not. I don't have all the answers... I'll be looking for answers and wisdom for the rest of my life. Until then I label myself an agnostic Atheist.

[Ouroboros]

Japedo,

 

You know what I find most amazing with all this? That we all are coming to the same conclusions and ideas, without reading any common dogmatic books, or by going to same kind of churches or listening to the same teachers/preachers, but just we honestly try to find the truth, and we come to the same end point. I'm especially amazed by your last point. "Today, I might not know what the truth is.. but I sure as heck know what it's not. I don't have all the answers... I'll be looking for answers and wisdom for the rest of my life. Until then I label myself an agnostic Atheist." Because I feel I could have written that one, word by word.

[Whindian]

Hi everyone. Sorry for my late reply, I have spent some time considering what everyone has written. I'll try to give some of my thoughts (might be long).

 

This is not a simple contradiction but a major problem because it has issues with a number of "objects" within the story (the women, the stone, the angels/men, the guards, the "conspiracy," the general timing issue (dawn/just before), as well as their placement and statements which may or may not be explainable from the "multi-witness" viewpoint). Conveniently note the guards are unconscious during the key moments from "fear"...some guards/witnesses). It also highlights that jesus moved through the stone unlike the others that infer that jesus rolled back the stone upon his exit (or he "arose" in that split second) and this angel needed to move the stone so they could see for themselves as first witnesses (unlike the open tomb in the other stories where Mary then asks the "gardener" where they took the body in a variation of the "conspiracy" theory...she can't ask that question if both G.Matthew and G.John are true since the tomb was sealed and she watched an angel open it, and tell her what happened...not an insignificant "contradiction" at all but a story killer...if you wouldn't buy it in a movie or TV show then why here?).

 

mwc

 

I understand where you are coming from, and you do make a strong point. Nevertheless I wouldn't go as far as to say it is a story-killer. I agree that Matthew 28 is written in a chronological manner. However as I stated before, the account never makes any express statement that the women were present at the tomb during the time the angels rolled the stone away; it only refers to the guards. The chapter covers a period of a whole day, and between each verse large periods of time have passed. Additionally Matthew tends to switch in-and-out of scenes, as evident in the transistion between Matthew 28:10-11 (I won't quote all these here, as the post would be too long ). It seems reasonable that Matthew 28:2-4 is discussing what happened to the guards while the women were still on their way to the tomb. Matthew 28:5-7 then discusses the conversation that occurs once the women had reached the tomb. This also resolves the stone issue.

 

Guards conveniently fainting point - Matthew 28:11-14 discusses how the guards left after this event and informed the leading priests.

 

I found a good site which saved me going through the exercise of writing the whole story out myself (http://www.shoutingman.com/bible/harmony/index.html). Please ignore the highly presumptuous and arrogant paragraph that the author writes before they attempt to reconcile the texts. The point about wilful misreading is completely ridiculous, as personally its in my best interest to reconcile these stories, yet I still find this difficult.

 

The most difficult inconsistency I have found so far is the appearance of Jesus on the way back to the disciples (Matthew 28:8-10) v Jesus inside the tomb as the gardener (John 20:14).

[Whindian]

The Gospels read like a fiction novel and not like a deposition from an eyewitness. I've been in court, and people don't tell their stories in the style the Gospels are written. And no, that was not in fashion back then either. There are a whole bunch of other Gospels, written in the same style, but removed from the canon, because they were not considered to be "real" eyewitness accounts. How come? How can it be that the early Church did actually remove "true" and "honest" eyewitness reports based on some arbitrary rules? If you want the complete story about Jesus, shouldn't the other Gospels be included too, even the Gospel of Judas?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that we know the Gnostic gospels were written in the 2nd-3rd century. Even though there is some disputes as when the canonised gospels were written, it's generally accepted they were written towards the end of the 1st century AD.

 

And how is 500 witnesses a fact? Is Acts really a fact or a fiction? People make up things all the time to boost their own ego and to support their own beliefs. I've seen it, many times. Truth isn't as solid and absolute when it comes to people. And we really do not know exactly what their testimonies would have been, since we don't have them written down. Maybe 400 of them would testify to that Jesus died, but they might have testified that the disciples did take Jesus body from the grave and made up the story. Now, would the Christian chose to them if we found something like that? Probably not, because he believes beause he wants to believe, not because the evidence is there. (Faith is blind, and believes in things you can't see or prove.)

True. This is a very strong point, raised by some others that I embarressed to say I hadn't even considered. I try to read the scriptures critically, but I think its easy to get superstitous and fearful, hence subconsciously being more likely to accept what is written on the page, as opposed to if it had been written in some other non-religious account.

 

The whole 500 witnesses point MAY of been significant in those days, but it carries very little weight today. In fact in the absence of any kind of external record documenting this matter, or the zombies walking around and the like, its probably a point christians would want to suppress and not bring up .

 

There are alternative explanations, many of them, and just as much as I can not prove that God doesn't exist, the same was Christians can not prove the other alternative explanations to be wrong. The easiest explanation is to bring up all the other mythological deities that died and rose again. These gods existed before Jesus existed, so he wasn't the first one, and he wasn't unique. The only difference was that he was Jewish version of these other gods.

I've heard of this in relation to the Zooarastian religion, but not in any detail. Anyone have any knowledge in this area?

 

the shroud that even after the Church said itself that it was a fake, a large amount of people still believe the shroud was real, and even worse they still do!

The Shroud of Turin thing was pretty stupid. Even if we assume it was real (I know its not), what would that prove?

 

And btw, the Gospels do not have a strong historical validity...We really don't know who or why the authors wrote what they did, and even the early Church admits they didn't know who wrote them, so today people believe more about these Gospels than even the early Church by believing that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote them, but we don't really know. People fool themselves to think this is a fact, when it is not.

Again I don't really know a lot about this area. Does anyone have any decent links on this? (Would prefer more neutral sources over hardcore christian/athiest sites).

[Whindian]

The other thing I'd like to ask you is, does God mean the Christian God? Discounting the Christian concept of God doesn't nesscisarily mean discounting God altogether.

 

This is what I've been thinking. You see I am very skeptical about evolution, and its not just because I'm a 'religious person'. My first degree was in a scientific field, and I'm well educated on the theory. It's just a lot of it doesn't wash with me in a scientific sense, regardless of my religious beliefs.

 

But the thing is I've been thinking, maybe it is arrogant for us to assume we have all the answers as a human race. I mean who says that God necessarily wanted to reveal himself to us in such a descriptive manner? The funny thing is since I've been allowing my doubts of christianity to come to the fore, I've felt closer to God in a tangible sense. Because God is no longer an intellectual framework (i.e. God is this, because Verse X says so). Rather I appreciate God as the sustainer of the universe and as a spiritual force I can pray to.