Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Resurrection


Guest Valk0010

Recommended Posts

Guest Valkyrie0010

I have been following, the forum for several months now. And many of these threads are entertaining, and fun to participate in. But there is one question, that seems to be ignored, at least since I have been here, and thats, the resurrection.

 

So lets hash it out!

 

All is far game to cover as far as the resurrection goes. Your choice....

 

I also want to get a informal debate going with the likes of Clay and End, which is another purpose of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

There is no evidence that any of the fables actually happened. The resurrection is crucial to the story line and an important part of the Christian myth - as it was to the other myths about god-men who were immortal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's strange that you feel that the resurrection has been ignored. The subject has been covered extensively throughout various threads.

 

Short answer: No.

 

Long answer: No. It did not happen in historical space and time. The resurrection is a myth born of the mind of a select few disciples. I believe, at first, it was understood as a "spiritual" resurrection but was later transformed into a bodily resurrection story out of a desire, among other reasons, to affix didactic content to the story of Jesus' triumph over death.

 

Pretty soon, like sharks who have caught a whiff of blood in the water, our current handful of christian apologists are going to zero in on this thread and claim that the new testament is eye-witness testimony to the well established fact of a historical resurrection. They will insist that if we dismiss the physical resurrection as a fact of history on the grounds of lack of evidence, then we have to dismiss what we think we know of ALL of ancient history on the same grounds.

 

I believed that line of drivel for years, but eventually came to realize that the historic value of the gospel accounts is overblown, at best. Oversold by disingenuous christian hucksters, at worst. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I think. Christians accept the veneer of reasonableness as "good enough" evidence in order to do a patchwork repair of faith in an age that has rendered their beliefs historically untenable.

 

So, once church is over, and the 10% church bulletin discount at the local buffet lunch establishment has been redeemed (the only real redemption taking place across the land) expect the sophistry to begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If at least the part of the story that a group of women found an empty tomb is true, then there's one thing that really strikes me about the biblical accounts: this supposed 'resurrection' was witnessed by no one. When the women arrive the stone is rolled back and the tomb is empty. An empty tomb is just an empty tomb - it can have been emptied any number of ways. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were supposed to have been watching as Joseph of Arimathea sealed the tomb (in Mark's version) so textually I have to grant that the body was sealed inside it, but nothing supernatural was necessary to open the tomb and remove the body. My opinion, as stated elsewhere - dead people stay dead, no reason to believe anything different happened here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is the wrong place for this since it is a fictional story, but it is an attempt to create a plausible scenario for the source of the resurrections myths without any supernatural happenings.

 

If one gospel says that Jesus appeared immediately to the left of Peter’s head, and another that Jesus appeared immediately to the right of Peter’s head, then perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I have long wondered how a story of simple ordinary events could be grotesquely distorted into events that are impossible and totally inconsistent with retelling. The possibilities would include a true narrative account (with some discrepancies), a total fabrication (with mutual copying and interdependence), or perhaps a kernel of truth which people might have misunderstood, or exaggerated, or modified for some purpose or another.

 

I believe that the inconsistencies in the resurrection tales are the key to understanding what may have actually happened, but we can never be sure. I did not simply exclude all miraculous appearances, but rather, in this fictional account, I present the appearances as either overzealous assumptions, mistaken identity or visions.

 

How else can we account for one story where Mary sees Jesus, and in another she doesn’t? Or one appearance where the apostles don’t recognize Jesus when they are face to face? Or why some would doubt even though they were supposed to have been with others that were worshiping Jesus? Was Jesus a physical body, or a being that could move through walls or disappear at will?

 

I read that Mary may have clasped Jesus’ feet, but she didn’t mention the holes in his feet. Or perhaps she just saw him, or perhaps she didn’t. All three versions are in the gospels, but only one could be true, or perhaps none of them are. Holding onto the idea of a “kernel of truth”, however, it would seem most likely that she didn’t see him, which would also explain why Peter, after visiting the tomb, left “wondering what had happened.”

 

Much of the tale I have written is based on these verses:

 

Luke 24: 8. Then they remembered his words.

Acts 10: 17. While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision…

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

It was a confusing time, filled with sadness and fear. The small group that had been loyal to the man they called “Lord” and “Jesus” had been crucified for treason, and the significance of being a follower of Jesus was not lost on the disciples.

 

As the disciples were reviewing the events and making plans to leave the city, they were reluctant to leave their place of temporary refuge. From the events of late, it became apparent that it was not only the Romans that they had to avoid, but their fellow Jewish citizens to whom Jesus had been preaching. The rejection of their leader’s teaching could hardly have been more complete.

 

The females that had accompanied the group were fearless though. While the disciples had been furtively avoiding the authorities, the women had been witnesses to the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. Afterwards, either because they were not considered dangerous, not considered disciples, or not associated with the “movement”, they could move through the city with impunity.

 

Two days after the crucifixion, Mary left the disciples to visit the grave. As she approached the tomb, she noticed that the stone that had covered the entrance had been rolled back. A gardener saw her cautiously approaching the tomb and said, “He’s not here.” Mary was distraught, trembling and bewildered, and the man said, “Calm down, lady. You’ll wake the dead! You may as well go home.” Mary said, “I must tell the others!” and the gardener commented dryly, “Yeah, why don’t you do that.”

 

Mary ran back to the rest of the disciples to tell them what had happened. Peter asked, “Were there any guards there?” and Mary replied, “No, there were no guards, but a man I mistook for a gardener I am certain was an angel.” Peter went with Mary to the tomb as fast as caution would allow, and indeed the stone was rolled back and the tomb was empty. They returned to the other disciples and explained the scene, and the disciples talked among themselves.

 

One theorized that some other followers of Jesus had taken the body. “It wasn’t us! It had to have been either those who had heard him preach before, Jews that hated him and wanted to desecrate his body, or the Roman soldiers.” Another speculated that maybe an earthquake had rolled the stone away, but the general consensus was that whoever had removed the body had also rolled the stone away.

 

Mary insisted that Jesus was alive and had walked out of the tomb. She said the angel had moved the stone, and she recalled that she had spoken with it.

 

“What did he say?” asked a disciple.

 

“He said, ‘He is not here. He has awakened from the dead. Go home and tell the others.’” When asked about what it looked like, she replied that she had been crying and was upset, but he looked like a gardener. When one disciple suggested that perhaps she had indeed seen a gardener, she replied, “I tell you, I saw an angel!”

 

One disciple said, “He did speak of this. Remember he said something about Jonas – in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights?”

 

Another disciple quietly thought to himself, “Yeah, but it’s only been two days and two nights… Or is that three days and two nights…” but he said nothing.

 

Two of the disciples, having decided that there was no point in remaining in Jerusalem (and still fearing for their lives), left the city. On the road to Emmaus, they were discussing what had happened, and a man asked if he could join them on their walk. As they were somewhat preoccupied and not speaking openly, the friendly stranger asked them what was bothering them. One of the two answered, retelling the discovery that the body of Jesus had been found to not be in the tomb. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.” As they walked, they spoke of the teachings of Jesus, the scriptures and other things, and the man said, “He sounds like a good teacher, and a good man. It would be a shame if his teaching were to be lost. At least in death he will see the glory of the Lord.”

 

The two disciples reached Emmaus, their companion headed off on the road away from Jerusalem, but they asked if he would like to stay with them since it was late. Later, they enjoyed supper together, and continued their talk, but after supper the stranger took his things and left as the disciples were resting.

 

The two looked about, but the stranger had “disappeared.” As they spoke after the man had left, they realized that this man was knowledgeable about the scriptures and was a lot like Jesus. Even the twinkle in his eye and the way he gave thanks and broke bread. “That man really knew the scriptures. I felt excited, on fire, when he spoke of the scriptures. This can’t be a coincidence.”

 

“No, you’re right.” The second disciple looked at the first, and they immediately decided to return to Jerusalem despite the danger to tell the others that – they had eaten and spoken with Jesus.

 

After the long trek back to Jerusalem, the two disciples told the others what had happened. Peter, in particular, was excited, because this confirmed for him that Jesus was indeed back from the dead and his vision of Jesus during the absence of the two disciples was not imaginary. Thomas, sitting in a corner nursing a hangover, finally spoke up and said to the two that had returned, “You didn’t see Jesus. If you had, you would have recognized him immediately, or at least before he left. And Peter, I don’t think you saw Jesus either.”

 

The other disciples were a bit skeptical, but nonetheless considered that the unusual events portended something exciting, and they were willing to entertain the possibility that Jesus had risen from the dead. Was the experience of their companions and the vision of Peter the proof of that?

 

“Thomas,” the others asked, “why are you so skeptical? What would it take for you to know that Jesus has defeated death?”

 

“Quite frankly, I would have to personally poke my fingers into his hands and feet and into his pierced side,” he replied sarcastically.

 

“How can we know if this was Jesus?” asked another disciple.

 

“Let’s pray to the Holy Spirit to move us. If we are touched by the Spirit, we will know,” answered Peter.

 

After they had prayed, Peter announced, “I have felt his presence.” Another chimed in, “I also! He was here with us!”

 

Thomas remained in the corner quietly holding his head.

 

A week later, the disciples were still afraid for their lives and about ready to head back to Galilee. The doors were locked for their protection, and it was dark. Again, Peter and the others felt the presence of Jesus in the room, and for a moment there was confusion, fear and even panic as some had thought briefly that someone had broken in when Peter shouted, “He is here!”, but after they calmed down, Peter and others reiterated that Jesus had been there with them. Peter remembered his words, “Peace be with you.” It was a familiar greeting, and one that unmistakably came from Jesus.

 

Then they all began to see that the scriptures had shown them that Jesus would conquer death. “It all makes sense now!” The suffering servant, the story of Jonas, the colt and the donkey, the verse about piercing his side…

 

Nonetheless, they finally departed to Galilee and saw Jesus yet again, but again he did not resemble the Jesus they had known, and some doubted that the man seen from afar was really Jesus. The man they saw on the shore was nice and helpful, but he seemed more interested in fish than theology. Peter reminded them that they caught more fish after the stranger spoke and suggested this was a sign. As they reviewed the scriptures, it was clear that everything that had happened had been foretold. After a time, Peter remembered more of the words spoken by the presence. “He asked me if I loved him, and said, ‘Feed my sheep.’ Or feed my lambs. Yeah, feed my sheep.” In dreams and visions, the risen Jesus came to them and spoke, but one day these visions stopped. The last words Peter remembered were, “Follow me.” And then they knew that Jesus had gone to heaven. At a small ceremony near Bethany, they marked his departure and closed their eyes to pray that they receive Jesus’ blessing as the image of Jesus floated off into heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The written accounts of the resurrection were penned years after the presumed event. But first it would be necessary to establish a death before claiming a resurrection. Then it would be necessary to establish a birth before a life and subsequent death. If you push hard for any of these to be established as facts you may find yourself, eternally, holding an empty bag.

 

Recently I asked a believer this question, "Jesus descended from which son of David? Solomon (Matthew 1:6) Nathan(Luke3:31)." Just a simple question to nail down a single point. The discrepancy is that Matthew and Luke's accounts recite a different geneology for Joseph, the so-called adoptive father of Jesus. Luke 3:23, "...Joseph, the son of Eli ..."(NASV). Matthew 1:16, "...to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary..."

 

The apolegetic answer is that Matthew is the geneology of Joseph, and Luke the geneology of Mary, because it brushes over the discrepancy, but the fact is with the text, both claim to be the geneology of Joseph. When discussing with a believer who accepts the bible as the infallable, inerrant word of god, it is important to point out only one discrepancy. It only takes one since the reaction of pushing a row of dominos is so predictable.

 

My point is after all the trouble involved in recounting Joseph's geneology both the Matthew and Luke accounts make that work meaningless by then claiming Joseph was not really Jesus' father anyhow by virtue of the virgin birth. This is just another way of saying Jesus does not have an actual geneology. So how does one even establish as fact that he was even born? The alternatives are the mythical story we are familar with, or that Jesus was the son of Joseph, which the writers document, but deny.

 

Much work has been done putting the books of the new testament into chronological order and making an examination of the development of the person of Jesus, and from oldest to newest, and the result is the claims become more extraordinary. Why would that be?

 

Something as extraordinary as an resurrection would not be difficult to document if it were true, but since there is no evidence the only thing extraordinary is that anyone would expect anyone else to believe it.

 

Truth seeking: A courageous desire for the best knowledge, even if such knowledge fails to support or undermines one's preconceptions, beliefs or self-interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short answer: Personally, I do not believe it really happened. I see it as another version of previous motifs concerning dying and rising god/men.

 

Long answer: Do we have time to go through all the various dying and rising god/men motifs? There are many and it could make for an extremely LONG post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started to research the jesus story and the resurrection, I slowly started to realize that there was NO objective evidence -- outside what was claimed in the bible -- for the resurrection. Everything was based on hearsay and oral stories told over years.

 

The stories weren't written down until some 30-100 years after the supposed resurrection. What should be noted is no one signed or dated the manuscripts (Gospels) and we have no original copies. In all cases we have copies of copies of copies, with thousands of mistakes between them. Several different people, some professional scribes and some illiterate scribes would make the copies. These were handwritten and copied and re-copied throughout the centuries, where additional texts were added and/or embellished to push certain agendas during that time period. And of these copies, the authors attributed to the Gospels were just, best guesses by the church. The earliest manuscripts come from Paul and were written between 20 to 40 years after Jesus' death. As you know Paul never knew Jesus and only wrote about what he heard. All the other Gospels came after this and although some claim eyewitness accounts that does not mean they were written by the eyewitnesses.

 

I was starting to see through the dark fog of christianity, that this whole story was bullshit.

 

But what's even more damaging and put the last nail in the coffin for me, is the fact, that there are ZERO writings from historians from Jesus' time! Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the time of Jesus wrote about what surely would have been a monumental piece of history -- what with jesus workin' all those miracles, resurrecting and all.

 

The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes on the lives of Jews in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about the miracle-workin' Jesus the Christ. Go figure?

 

Goodbye delusion...

 

Hello free mind!

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following, the forum for several months now. And many of these threads are entertaining, and fun to participate in. But there is one question, that seems to be ignored, at least since I have been here, and thats, the resurrection.

Of course it happened. It's in the stories after all. Is Darth Vader Luke's father? Watch the movies. All the answers are right there.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long answer: Do we have time to go through all the various dying and rising god/men motifs? There are many and it could make for an extremely LONG post.

 

You WOULD need a hell of a lot of space! Add to that, the stories of human sacrifice in all religions since the dawn of humanity, and you can forget about me reading it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long answer: Do we have time to go through all the various dying and rising god/men motifs? There are many and it could make for an extremely LONG post.

 

You WOULD need a hell of a lot of space! Add to that, the stories of human sacrifice in all religions since the dawn of humanity, and you can forget about me reading it!

I have a book somewhere about Creation Myths. Chock full of information about different cultures, their literature and traditions, and the myths of creation. One day I hope to have my scattered library back together again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But what's even more damaging and put the last nail in the coffin for me, is the fact, that there are ZERO writings from historians from Jesus' time! Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the time of Jesus wrote about what surely would have been a monumental piece of history -- what with jesus workin' all those miracles, resurrecting and all.

 

The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes on the lives of Jews in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about the miracle-workin' Jesus the Christ. Go figure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, interesting, that, Sconnor. You'd think that after all of that saga and the resurrection and all, someone would have said, "shit, we should write all this down". But apparently, it was "no, let's wait about thirty years before we mention it in writing". Curious, that. Couldn't find one person with quill and papyrus, could we? Nobody knew how to write in all of Judea, and so on? "Yes, thirty years later we now know what Jesus was all about" And including Paul, the writing all started when it was time to get down and turn this into a serious new religion. Very convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's the circularness of the whole religion including the resurrection that really got the ball rolling on my own road to deconversion. I challenged an atheist to do a Cartesian (Rene De Cartes)mind dump. Meaning I challenged him to dump everything and build his beliefs only on things he could prove. But I hadn't done that, and I had to accept the challenge myself just to be honest with myself. Well, I started researching the resurrection and posting the evidences on another board. I was taking a class with Gary Habermas at the time so I was being dished out the evidences daily. The problem was I did not just trust his judgment and I dug around seeking the truth instead of just more and more apologetic excuses for the lateness and problems with the supposed evidence.

 

Using the Biblical accounts as evidence is problematic at best because that is what the unbeliever is arguing is not the Word of God in the first place. Using the Bible to prove the Bible as factual is circular reasoning. It took awhile for my eyes to open and the blinders of faith to drop just enough for me to see that I could not use the Bible as evidence of anything except that a bunch of men wrote down stories. Josephus writings were late and he just mentions people believing in Christ, and that text looks to be an edit job by a scribe trying to make Christianity out to be a larger movement than it then was. The other historians were very, very late and do not write about the resurrection at all.

 

Dan Barkers Easter Challenge is a good place to start down the road to doubting the whole ball of wax. The Gospels do not line up at all and the latest one Matthew (dead bodies walking around) gets more and more supernatural as one would expect when stories get further from the supposed event.

 

http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/stone.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

Resurrection is a repeating theme throughout history, prior to Christianity.

 

As far as I can ascertain, other than in the bible, there was no report of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection in any historical records.

 

As far as the crucifixion itself, then it all sounds a bit of a fairy tale. The Romans were crucifying hundreds of people per day in those times. The nails used to secure prisoners were 7" long cast iron monsters and once they were banged in there was no way of getting a prisoner down. The prisoners were never allowed to be taken down anyway, so it's doubtful if Jesus' friends got him off the cross. Prisoners were left to die and rot, providing food for scavenging birds until it was just bones that were left to eventually fall off. The bodies were left hanging on the cross(which was many times a tree with a cross piece) as an example to others who may be thinking about committing a crime.

 

As far as the pictures portraying Jesus carrying/dragging his cross behind him; pure Hollywood. Sometime the prisoners had to carry the cross piece(patibulum)on their way to the cross, but never the cross itself.

 

Did Jesus ever exist? Perhaps we'll never know. Was he resurrected? Not very possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Jesus ever exist? Perhaps we'll never know. Was he resurrected? Not very possible.

Let me suggest a small modification:

 

Did Jesus ever exist? Perhaps we'll never know. Was he resurrected? Hell no. That is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

Did Jesus ever exist? Perhaps we'll never know. Was he resurrected? Not very possible.

Let me suggest a small modification:

 

Did Jesus ever exist? Perhaps we'll never know. Was he resurrected? Hell no. That is impossible.

 

Modification accepted :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the pictures portraying Jesus carrying/dragging his cross behind him; pure Hollywood. Sometime the prisoners had to carry the cross piece(patibulum)on their way to the cross, but never the cross itself.

Only if taken literally. According to Plutarch (~46-120 CE:

The cantharis is said to have in itself the antidote to its own sting, but wickedness, creating its own pain and torment, pays the penalty of its misdeeds not afterwards but at the time of its ill-doing. And as every malefactor about to pay the penalty of his crime in his person bears his cross, so vice fabricates for itself each of its own torments, being the terrible author of its own misery in life, wherein in addition to shame it has frequent fears and fierce passions and endless remorse and anxiety. But some are just 342like children, who, seeing malefactors in the theatres in golden tunics and purple robes with crowns on and dancing, admire them and marvel at them, thinking them happy, till they see them goaded and lashed and issuing fire from their gaudy but cheap garments. For most wicked people, though they have great households and conspicuous offices and great power, are yet being secretly punished before they are seen to be murdered or hurled down rocks, which is rather the climax and end of their punishment than the punishment itself.

It would seem that Paul was familiar with this usage but it's highly doubtful that Seneca took from Paul.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long answer: Do we have time to go through all the various dying and rising god/men motifs? There are many and it could make for an extremely LONG post.

 

You WOULD need a hell of a lot of space! Add to that, the stories of human sacrifice in all religions since the dawn of humanity, and you can forget about me reading it!

 

I know. It would take a whole thread of several pages, in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I found this website interesting for some info on the history of easter amongst other things.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.