How Do You Explain The "resurrection"

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

How do you explain the beginning of Christianity?

 

It a questions, that while I know enough to know, that is was most likely no miracle(the resurrection). I can't quite shake the feeling I'm wrong. And also I'm not well read enough to put a naturalistic explanation on it.

 

So therefore I call out to those more well read then I to say

 

How do you explain the Resurrection by natural means.

[florduh]

How do you explain Luke Skywalker's defeat of Darth Vader?

[hereticzero]

valkyrie0010: What do you think happened concerning the resurrection? What do you know that would make you or me, for that manner, believe in a resurrection? You must believe something about it otherwise you would not have brought it up. If you think there was a miracle in some way, how? If a resurrection cannot be explained naturally and your own mind tells you that someone could not come back from the dead, what is that feeling? I can't really write what I think unless I know what you think first. Go into detail and give me your take on the resurrection.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

valkyrie0010: What do you think happened concerning the resurrection? What do you know that would make you or me, for that manner, believe in a resurrection? You must believe something about it otherwise you would not have brought it up. If you think there was a miracle in some way, how? If a resurrection cannot be explained naturally and your own mind tells you that someone could not come back from the dead, what is that feeling? I can't really write what I think unless I know what you think first. Go into detail and give me your take on the resurrection.

I don't believe it happened. But, I would like to get explanations on how it did happen. That the disciples and paul began to believe that Jesus rose. I bring it up not because I believe it, but because I want different views on it. There are plenty of smart people on here. So I figured I would ask. I don't believe the dead can come back to life. I just want to get a better understanding of why they did.

[Shyone]

I don't believe it happened. But, I would like to get explanations on how it did happen. That the disciples and paul began to believe that Jesus rose. I bring it up not because I believe it, but because I want different views on it. There are plenty of smart people on here. So I figured I would ask. I don't believe the dead can come back to life. I just want to get a better understanding of why they did.

Any explanation is going to be complicated, but let me give it a shot.

 

Some woman or women (read the differing accounts) went to the tomb and either sat outside or went inside before or after some angel or angels (1 or 2) was either sitting on the stone, sitting inside, or appeared next to the women. The angel or angels said one thing or another, or another, or another, and the woman or women went off. In one story, a woman actually saw Jesus! But maybe not since it wasn't in the other stories.

 

With me so far?

 

The disciples saw him, but they couldn't recognise him. One woman thought he was the gardner (maybe she was right).

 

Now, maybe there was a doubing Thomas, or maybe not (depends on which Gospel), but if you heard that the disciples believed a woman (or women) who saw something like that without doubting, you wouldn't believe it. So all of the disciples saw Jesus. Or maybe none... Why should Thomas have been criticized for wanting the same opportunity to see the risen Jesus as the others? Unless it didn't happen...

 

Anyway, Jesus appeared to the discipes. and 1 or more women. Oh, and a total of 500 people. Or maybe none...

Mark 16 [The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]

11. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.

13. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

 

Matt. 28

17. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

 

WTF!

 

I saw Elvis! But he looked like Michael Jackson... Or that guy at the filling station with the bottle of wine.

 

Isn't it clear? It never happened. It was a delusion to at least one person, and quite possibly every other account is contrived. Details were added. Jesus said more words, Jesus saw more and more people.

 

Suddenly it starts to sound a lot like Oral Roberts seeing a 700 Foot Jesus.

 

Now, How do YOU explain a 700 Foot Jesus!? He couldn't have been....lying? .....or delusional?

[ContraBardus]

Well, it's difficult for a rational person in the modern world to understand, but in simple terms...

 

We're talking about primitive savages here. Even the most educated people of the era were primitive savages. Just, slightly less so than most everyone else.

 

These are people who had magical explanations for everything. Why the sand in certain rivers was gold colored, why maggots appeared in rotten food, why the guy in the big hat got to be king, how the moon traveled across the sky, and what all those little shiny things up there with it were.

 

We're talking about a period in time where doctors had difficulty finding work, because most people summoned the local wizard/shaman/priest when they became ill.

 

There was very little in the way of natural explanations at the time, and what little there was, wasn't really trusted in favor of spiritual explanations.

 

That's pretty much why. It's what people were used to and the generally accepted explanations for any event tended to be the supernatural forces explanation.

 

Disease was the result of evil spirits, famine and drought was the Gods being angry, rain was the gods opening the a gate in the sky that let water through, maggots appeared in rotting flesh by way of abiogenesis, etc.

 

It's difficult to comprehend now, but they didn't have all our observations, evidence, or the benefit of all our years of study to deduce the things we now take rather for granted.

 

Early Christians had no trouble believing in the resurrection because similar supernatural claims were commonplace and generally accepted as true.

 

If someone you trusted told you something, even if it's something they heard from someone else, you generally just accepted whatever it was on face value.

 

It's really just that simple.

[chefranden]

How do you explain Luke Skywalker's defeat of Darth Vader?

 

The Emperor did it.

[florduh]

I don't believe it happened. But, I would like to get explanations on how it did happen.

That's a bit unclear to say the least. You're asking how something that didn't happen, happened.

 

My Darth Vader reference is to say it's just a story. It's not a factual or eyewitness account of a real event. Use the literary device of choice to resolve the mystery.

 

How do you explain the Resurrection by natural means.

The reason people of ancient eras may have thought resurrection was possible is that there are now known to be medical conditions which mimic death upon casual observation. People who recover from such episodes and would appear to have literally come back to life. Instances of this are plausible explanations for some of the "eyewitness accounts" of vampires rising from the grave. I really don't think this reasoning applies to the story about the Jesus character coming back to life, as his resurrection was viewed in the story as unique proof of divinity or special status as the only true messiah.

[Ouroboros]

How do you explain the beginning of Christianity?

 

It a questions, that while I know enough to know, that is was most likely no miracle(the resurrection). I can't quite shake the feeling I'm wrong. And also I'm not well read enough to put a naturalistic explanation on it.

 

So therefore I call out to those more well read then I to say

 

How do you explain the Resurrection by natural means.

Since we can't be sure the resurrection really happened, we can't say how it happened through material means.

 

But... there are some evidence that you can use certain neurotoxins to fake death. I'm not sure if they had the skills and knowledge back then to do it, but it's not impossible. One of the toxins is called Tetrodotoxin, another one is Botulinum (botox). They are natural toxins and can be extracted from plants and/or animals. The blowfish (puffer fish) is one example. But then again, we can't be sure they knew how to do it.

 

Another explanation could have been a body-switch con (remember that no one recognized Jesus when he was resurrected, he didn't have the same appearance), or it could be that he out cold, but not dead, and someone treated him, and the soldier story was an add-on to make it sound like he was dead for real.

 

We can find many explanations, but we can't know which one is the right one.

 

But think of this, the way physicians determined a death was by checking their pulse, and there are examples in history when people have been mistaken for dead and then woke up again later. One of the phenomenons is called the Lazarus Syndrome, which is that the person gains blood circulation a while after several failed attempts to resuscitate them.

[Guest end3]

We can find many explanations, but we can't know which one is the right one.

 

How about the possibility of none of the above. Why would the believers want to pull off a hoax? Just curious.

[ghost_warlock]

I explain the resurrection of Jesus the same way I explain how Athena sprung fully-formed from the head of Zeus: it's a myth and never actually happened.

[par4dcourse]

We can find many explanations, but we can't know which one is the right one.

 

How about the possibility of none of the above. Why would the believers want to pull off a hoax? Just curious.

To "justify" claims of divinity? To make a holy mountain out a very ordinary molehill? So rev. Schuller could someday have a crystal cathedral?

[mwc]

How do you explain the beginning of Christianity?

 

It a questions, that while I know enough to know, that is was most likely no miracle(the resurrection). I can't quite shake the feeling I'm wrong. And also I'm not well read enough to put a naturalistic explanation on it.

 

So therefore I call out to those more well read then I to say

 

How do you explain the Resurrection by natural means.

What do you want me to explain? It happened that way because it happened that way. *ta da*

 

Now that I've explained the resurrection let me explain the "walking on water" scene. It happened that way because it happened that way. *ta da*

 

It's a story. It plays out how the guys who wrote it wanted it all to play out just like movies do today. In the Matrix Neo dies inside the matrix and in real life but he comes back to life in real life and then the matrix. He's able to "see" things as they really are and kick ass. Why? Why can Neo do this? Because it's written that way. And it's a good thing too because his real life shipmates were in plenty of trouble. The strange thing is even though I use the term "real life" none of it was actually "real life" now was it? So Neo could have died, stayed dead, everyone in "real life" killed off and it wouldn't have effected us at all (other than maybe thinking the ending wasn't any good).

 

I could sit around and come up with a "naturalist" explanation for some how's and why's Neo could this, that and the other thing and, while that might be fun, it's useless overall. The same with old "jesus." I can speculate as to how a real life person might have pulled off such a stunt but the authors spell it out for us. The answer is that a supernatural "god" raised him back up from the dead.

 

Looking back at the OT (the LXX version of Psalms I believe) the xians were too ignorant to realize that when the text said things like "The lord said to my lord" that one "lord" should have been YHWH and the other was the psalmist (supposedly David) making it "YHWH said to David" or something along those lines (I may have the names reversed but the point is still valid). So they saw a "lord" sitting next to the right hand of another lord and guess what? Their magic god-man suddenly takes that position. Why? They're not looking at the Hebrew to know this doesn't work quite right. The LXX allows this "error" so they go with it and build on it. I think it's Psalms 30 that mentions the idea of being raised from the dead.

1 A Psalm; a Song at the Dedication of the House; of David.

2 I will extol thee, O LORD, for Thou hast raised me up, and hast not suffered mine enemies to rejoice over me.

3 O LORD my God, I cried unto Thee, and Thou didst heal me;

4 O LORD, Thou broughtest up my soul from the nether-world; Thou didst keep me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.

5 Sing praise unto the LORD, O ye His godly ones, and give thanks to His holy name.

6 For His anger is but for a moment, His favour is for a life-time;

weeping may tarry for the night, but joy cometh in the morning.

7 Now I had said in my security: 'I shall never be moved.'

8 Thou hadst established, O LORD, in Thy favour my mountain as a stronghold--

Thou didst hide Thy face; I was affrighted.

9 Unto Thee, O LORD, did I call, and unto the LORD I made supplication:

10 'What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?

Shall the dust praise Thee? shall it declare Thy truth?

11 Hear, O LORD, and be gracious unto me; LORD, be Thou my helper.'

12 Thou didst turn for me my mourning into dancing; Thou didst loose my sackcloth, and gird me with gladness;

13 So that my glory may sing praise to Thee, and not be silent;

O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.

That's the Hebrew (the all caps "LORD" is not in the original language but should have YHWH).

 

Here's a translation from the LXX:

30:1 I will exalt thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and not caused mine enemies to rejoice over me. 2 O Lord my God, I cried to thee, and thou didst heal me. 3 O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from Hades, thou hast delivered me from among them that go down to the pit.

 

4 Sing to the Lord, ye his saints, and give thanks for the remembrance of his holiness. 5 For anger is in his wrath, but life in his favour: weeping shall tarry for the evening, but joy shall be in the morning.

 

6 And I said in my prosperity, I shall never be moved. 7 O Lord, in thy good pleasure thou didst add strength to my beauty: but thou didst turn away thy face, and I was troubled. 8 To thee, O Lord, will I cry; and to my God will I make supplication. 9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to destruction? Shall the dust give praise to thee? or shall it declare thy truth? 10 The Lord heard, and had compassion upon me; the Lord is become my helper. 11 Thou hast turned my mourning into joy for me: thou hast rent off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness; 12 that my glory may sing praise to thee, and I may not be pierced with sorrow. O Lord my God, I will give thanks to thee for ever.

In this "Lord" would simply be "kurio" (or "lord") so the name of the god is lost. So look at v2 and v8 for example. These show where the lord is god and where the lord and god are separate. This is exactly how xians came to perceive things and it was using texts like this instead of the Hebrew texts that allowed for it (compare to v3 and v9 of the Hebrew where YHWH would be in place of "LORD" in the parallel verses clarifying the context for anyone who cared to look...there's no room for a "jesus" god-man here).

 

So that's the answer. It's a story. Derived from the LXX. The authors made their characters do what they wanted/needed them to do. That's as close to a "naturalistic" explanation I can give. The real answer is in the story itself and that is a "god" used supernatural magic to bring a dead god-man back to life. This caused the other characters in the story to do all sorts of things, some of which are in other stories (it spawned sequels). These stories even moved real, flesh and blood humans, to do all sorts of crazy things which aren't contained in those stories I've already mentioned but still other stories that don't get much mention by anyone. These poor humans don't get to do anything magic nor does the god from all those other stories take an active role in their lives...much to their dismay (so they make up stories to explain why their lives are so...normal...compared to the lives of those in those earlier stories).

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

And this is what bothers me....so many here demand natural proof for God, yet have to bend sideways to come up with answers for this question? And the point is....how many times I have been accused of "bending" to find an answer. But it's ok here at Ex C, because you all are hurting. The lost Christians never hurt.

[Abiyoyo]

How do you explain the beginning of Christianity?

 

It a questions, that while I know enough to know, that is was most likely no miracle(the resurrection). I can't quite shake the feeling I'm wrong. And also I'm not well read enough to put a naturalistic explanation on it.

 

So therefore I call out to those more well read then I to say

 

How do you explain the Resurrection by natural means.

 

Resurrection from the dead to some type of super figure is not any new news in history, but if you are a believer in Christ it becomes much more because Christ died with the One Supreme God's spirit on Him, blameless, and is given authority in the afterlife to have dominion over His disciples, followers.

[Abiyoyo]

I don't believe it happened. But, I would like to get explanations on how it did happen.

That's a bit unclear to say the least. You're asking how something that didn't happen, happened.

 

My Darth Vader reference is to say it's just a story. It's not a factual or eyewitness account of a real event. Use the literary device of choice to resolve the mystery.

 

 

 

That's a little misleading since Christianity is a part of cultural, government history, whereas Star Wars is a movie.

[Dagan]

And this is what bothers me....so many here demand natural proof for God, yet have to bend sideways to come up with answers for this question? And the point is....how many times I have been accused of "bending" to find an answer. But it's ok here at Ex C, because you all are hurting. The lost Christians never hurt.

 

If God can't handle a few feeble apostates asking questions, he's not worth worshipping, even if he is real.

[Abiyoyo]

How do you explain the beginning of Christianity?

 

It a questions, that while I know enough to know, that is was most likely no miracle(the resurrection). I can't quite shake the feeling I'm wrong. And also I'm not well read enough to put a naturalistic explanation on it.

 

So therefore I call out to those more well read then I to say

 

How do you explain the Resurrection by natural means.

Since we can't be sure the resurrection really happened, we can't say how it happened through material means.

 

But... there are some evidence that you can use certain neurotoxins to fake death. I'm not sure if they had the skills and knowledge back then to do it, but it's not impossible. One of the toxins is called Tetrodotoxin, another one is Botulinum (botox). They are natural toxins and can be extracted from plants and/or animals. The blowfish (puffer fish) is one example. But then again, we can't be sure they knew how to do it.

 

Another explanation could have been a body-switch con (remember that no one recognized Jesus when he was resurrected, he didn't have the same appearance), or it could be that he out cold, but not dead, and someone treated him, and the soldier story was an add-on to make it sound like he was dead for real.

 

We can find many explanations, but we can't know which one is the right one.

 

But think of this, the way physicians determined a death was by checking their pulse, and there are examples in history when people have been mistaken for dead and then woke up again later. One of the phenomenons is called the Lazarus Syndrome, which is that the person gains blood circulation a while after several failed attempts to resuscitate them.

 

Or He could have died, then vanished (naturally that is)

[florduh]

yet have to bend sideways to come up with answers for this question?

It's a nonsense question. Even if there was evidence to show it really happened, we couldn't know if this particular "corpse" had a medical condition, was the victim of a substance that emulates death, or any other aforementioned explanation.

 

That's a little misleading since Christianity is a part of cultural, government history, whereas Star Wars is a movie.

In a thousand years, if humanity doesn't get any smarter, Star Wars could become as influential as the other fictional story. All it takes is for people to start claiming it really happened. My point is only that Jesus and Skywalker are both literary archetypes with no basis in verifiable historical fact.

[Abiyoyo]

yet have to bend sideways to come up with answers for this question?

It's a nonsense question. Even if there was evidence to show it really happened, we couldn't know if this particular "corpse" had a medical condition, was the victim of a substance that emulates death, or any other aforementioned explanation.

 

That's a little misleading since Christianity is a part of cultural, government history, whereas Star Wars is a movie.

In a thousand years, if humanity doesn't get any smarter, Star Wars could become as influential as the other fictional story. All it takes is for people to start claiming it really happened. My point is only that Jesus and Skywalker are both literary archetypes with no basis in verifiable historical fact.

 

When a Star Wars convention person becomes president and makes the Star Wars force the Supreme force of his/her country, then I will agree with you. Until, then, little misleading

[Ouroboros]

We can find many explanations, but we can't know which one is the right one.

 

How about the possibility of none of the above. Why would the believers want to pull off a hoax? Just curious.

Why do people do stuff in general? There could be some profit involved or some other kinds of gain we don't know about.

 

Why do people scam and con other people? Why do some people claim they believe stuff, but in reality they're just faking it in purpose to deceive?

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Someone on here wanted me to clarify a statement

i dont belive jesus rose from th e dead. That doesnt take away from the fact that the disciples and people like Paul belived he did. Now either iam right or they are and jesus actually rose. How could they belive something like this. I guess the question should have been phrased like this, what was the origin of the belief that jesus rose.

[Shyone]

Someone on here wanted me to clarify a statement

i dont belive jesus rose from th e dead. That doesnt take away from the fact that the disciples and people like Paul belived he did. Now either iam right or they are and jesus actually rose. How could they belive something like this. I guess the question should have been phrased like this, what was the origin of the belief that jesus rose.

It comes back to the evidence. Ask a Christian why they believe, they will tell you, but it relies largely on what others said.

 

Paul never saw the tomb, never poked his fingers into Jesus, and never discussed any meetings he had with witnesses. His conversion was by seizure. Or hallucination.

 

What does it mean to have witnesses testify to something impossible?

 

I wonder why we don't have something more from the witnesses themselves. Imagine if you met Peter or one of the disciples. Wouldn't you be really interested in asking them for a few details, like what Jesus said, looked like, felt like, and did? Wouldn't you try to set the record straight, or at least make note of the account?

 

It's all lost to the fog of undocumented history. You would think that when they sat down to vote on what goes into the New Testament they would have tried to write one account that reconciled the differing accounts.

[florduh]

I guess I'm not getting the point of this.

 

Are we to assume the resurrection is historical fact and then figure out how it could have happened if we discount the supernatural? The whole point of the story centers around supernatural events. According to the tale as told, it was a miracle, period. Why look for other, more mundane devices to effect the event? It's a fucking story!

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I guess I'm not getting the point of this.

 

Are we to assume the resurrection is historical fact and then figure out how it could have happened if we discount the supernatural? The whole point of the story centers around supernatural events. According to the tale as told, it was a miracle, period. Why look for other, more mundane devices to effect the event? It's a fucking story!

 

Only that the disciples and people of early Christianity believed that he did. But if there is no way to explain the fact that early Christians believed it happened. Dead don't rise, but people think they do(back then). How would have early Christianity started by a story(not based in anything). That is why I assume that, the fact that the disciples believed that Jesus rose, was based in something tangible.