It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christ's Resurrection: Physical, spiritual or both?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I hope nobody minds if i don't give a screw. thx




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
I hope nobody minds if i don't give a screw. thx

Although I don't mind that you say so, one line posts that contribute nothing to the thread are not advisable (in case you're new).
A bit of a paradox really, why comment - if you really don't care?
Not convincing, please expand your statement!
How can we not care about what one of world's biggest religions believes?
Do you mean it is no longer culturally relevant, or that you personally made a choice for some reason not to care?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


You should trust the Gospel accounts. The disciples saw a real space time Jesus that went out of his way to eat with them and invited them to touch his wounds.The idea that the disciples lied about Jesus appearances fails on a number of levels, the most egregious being that it does not account for the conversion of the skeptics Paul and James. Paul was way beyond a skeptic. In fact, he was in the full time business of purging the Christians from existence. His conversion reported by Luke in Acts and by Paul himself in his letters is not a fact anyone disputes as he is responsible for writing more than half of the New Testament. His willingness to suffer and die for his belief is attested to in extra-biblical writings by Clement, Polycarp, Origen, Dionysus of Corinth and Tertullian. Concerning James, Mark 3:21 reveals that Jesus immediately family assumed he had lost his mind with his messianic claims. Paul records the early gospel creed citing the appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15, perhaps as soon as a few years after Jesus death. James’ ensuing conversion is inferred from the fact that he was later reported as the leader of the Jerusalem church. His willingness to die for his conviction is evidenced by extra-biblical accounts by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. Common sense would dictate that these two skeptics would never change their minds based on a mere story from the disciples. The evidence leads to the conclusion that they in fact saw the risen Lord.

The historical evidence favors physical resurrection. Probably the strongest argument is the Jerusalem factor. It stands to reason that the church would have never had a chance to flourish being so close to the burial site if the tomb had contained Jesus body. The hostile Jews and Romans would have certainly produced the body had there been one available. Additionally, the fact that the Jews accused the disciples of stealing the body amounts to an admission for the empty tomb (Matt. 28:12-13). This is also recorded in extra-biblical writings by Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were early apologists. Finally, the fact that women are listed as the discoverers of the empty tomb speaks to veracity. The testimony of women was not valued by the patriarchal society means this would be damaging to their claim. Thus, it is unlikely this would be a fabrication. The empty tomb is a reasonable reality.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Both.

The empty tomb indicates that His physical body was somehow 'used up'.
His new 'abilities' when seen indicate some kind of transphysical transformation.

Did Jesus come back from the dead...
...or did he go though death and come out the 'other side'...
...to become a physical/spiritual being beyond death?




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by halfoldman
 


You should trust the Gospel accounts. The disciples saw a real space time Jesus that went out of his way to eat with them and invited them to touch his wounds.The idea that the disciples lied about Jesus appearances fails on a number of levels, the most egregious being that it does not account for the conversion of the skeptics Paul and James. Paul was way beyond a skeptic. In fact, he was in the full time business of purging the Christians from existence. His conversion reported by Luke in Acts and by Paul himself in his letters is not a fact anyone disputes as he is responsible for writing more than half of the New Testament. His willingness to suffer and die for his belief is attested to in extra-biblical writings by Clement, Polycarp, Origen, Dionysus of Corinth and Tertullian. Concerning James, Mark 3:21 reveals that Jesus immediately family assumed he had lost his mind with his messianic claims. Paul records the early gospel creed citing the appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15, perhaps as soon as a few years after Jesus death. James’ ensuing conversion is inferred from the fact that he was later reported as the leader of the Jerusalem church. His willingness to die for his conviction is evidenced by extra-biblical accounts by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. Common sense would dictate that these two skeptics would never change their minds based on a mere story from the disciples. The evidence leads to the conclusion that they in fact saw the risen Lord.

The historical evidence favors physical resurrection. Probably the strongest argument is the Jerusalem factor. It stands to reason that the church would have never had a chance to flourish being so close to the burial site if the tomb had contained Jesus body. The hostile Jews and Romans would have certainly produced the body had there been one available. Additionally, the fact that the Jews accused the disciples of stealing the body amounts to an admission for the empty tomb (Matt. 28:12-13). This is also recorded in extra-biblical writings by Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were early apologists. Finally, the fact that women are listed as the discoverers of the empty tomb speaks to veracity. The testimony of women was not valued by the patriarchal society means this would be damaging to their claim. Thus, it is unlikely this would be a fabrication. The empty tomb is a reasonable reality.


The Gopsel accounts are not clear or in agreement about the nature of the resurrection. Some verses have Jesus appearing in locked rooms, suddenly out of nowhere, or walking through walls. This thread aims not to discount the resurrection, but to ponder on its nature. You seem to second the very and exclusive physical resurrection?
You take the change of heart of Jesus's brother James (who first thought Jesus was nuts) and the Pauline conversion as proofs in themselves. But many people across history have had visionary experiences upon which they staked their lives eg. the Cathars, Joan of Arc, indeed, many of the heretics and latter-day prophets.
A nice post however, with much food for thought, and a great collection of "proofs" explaining your position.
Of course, citing the exact words of the historical commentators you mention concerning Christs's resurrection would be even more useful for your argument.
A missing body from a tomb alone could once again simply imply resuscitation, or any number of non-miraculous events.

I'm not much convinced by the "women's testimony" proving veracity argument. That might have be a stronger case if only women witnessed it. Besides, many Germanic tribes had female leaders, and Rome had many priestessess. It certainly didn't endear women to Christians, and the female philosopher Hypatia was skinned alive by Christians shortly after they assumed power.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Thinking about the empty tomb - it could have simply been the wrong tomb? Were any of the two Maries at the burial? Still today there are two tombs in Jerusalem - one is the church of the Holy Sepulchre, the other is the recently discovered (late 1970s) "garden tomb". It's confusing for Christians today, so how much more so when Rome killed so many to quell unrest?

I think the whole notion of "female narrative" has only been a recent innovation in response to the Gnostic gospels in popular literature. It certainly wasn't an argument when I was younger.
Although Jesus was non-sexist in his friendships (although he labelled divorcees adultresses), subsequantly women are told to shut up in 1 Timothy 2:12. Christianity was not a liberation of women, but a censorship of women.
So only by today's post-Christian standards would the testimony of Mary Magdalene be "enlightened".



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Thinking about the empty tomb - it could have simply been the wrong tomb? Were any of the two Maries at the burial? Still today there are two tombs in Jerusalem - one is the church of the Holy Sepulchre, the other is the recently discovered (late 1970s) "garden tomb".


Of course, the empty tomb story arose long after the alleged events - neither Paul nor the early NT epistles mention it.

Nowadays of course, there are FIVE alleged tombs of Jesus :
1. the well known one
2. the Gardem Tomb as you mention
3. the Talpiot tomb recently a TV documentary
4. a tomb in Japan
5. a tomb in Kashmir


K.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Both.

The empty tomb indicates that His physical body was somehow 'used up'.
His new 'abilities' when seen indicate some kind of transphysical transformation.

Did Jesus come back from the dead...
...or did he go though death and come out the 'other side'...
...to become a physical/spiritual being beyond death?


Interesting, you say both, but speak of a "body being used up"? Is it a kind of push down pop up effect? That is you push down the physical and the spirirtual pops up?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by halfoldman
 


You should trust the Gospel accounts. The disciples saw a real space time Jesus that went out of his way to eat with them and invited them to touch his wounds.


Oh come on !

Aeolus had a meal with Hercules - so they both must be real.

Pippin and Merry had a meal with Sam and Frodo - so they all must be real.

Hermione and Ron Weasly both ate with Harry Potter - so they all must be real.

How silly.

The meal with Jesus is PART of the story, it's not evidence FOR the story.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The idea that the disciples lied about Jesus appearances fails on a number of levels,


No-one claimed they lied at all.
It's religious literature, not a lie, and not true either.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
the most egregious being that it does not account for the conversion of the skeptics Paul and James. Paul was way beyond a skeptic.


Paul was converted by a VISION.
So what?
People are converted by visions to this day.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
His conversion reported by Luke in Acts and by Paul himself in his letters


The conversions stories in Acts are DIFFERENT, and NOT found in Paul's writings.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
His willingness to suffer and die for his belief


People die for false beliefs all the time :
Muslim suicide bombers
Heaven's gate cult
Jim Jones cult
So what?
Proves nothing.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Concerning James, Mark 3:21 reveals that Jesus immediately family assumed he had lost his mind with his messianic claims.


What does the alleged letter of James the brother of Jesus say about a historical Jesus?
NOTHING.

What does the alleged letter of Jude the brother of Jesus say about a historical Jesus?
NOTHING.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Paul records the early gospel creed citing the appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15, perhaps as soon as a few years after Jesus death.


A set of visions which is NOT the same as listed in the Gospels, and is NOT supported by the alleged letter of James.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The historical evidence favors physical resurrection.


There is no historical evidence for Jesus.
Just evidence for religious BELIEFS about Jesus.
The evidence strongly supports a RELIGIOUS MYTH.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Probably the strongest argument is the Jerusalem factor. It stands to reason that the church would have never had a chance to flourish being so close to the burial site if the tomb had contained Jesus body.


There was no tomb, there was no body, there was no Jesus.
No Christian even mentioned the empty tomb until 2nd century - a CENTURY or so after the alleged event.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Additionally, the fact that the Jews accused the disciples of stealing the body amounts to an admission for the empty tomb (Matt. 28:12-13).


Oh please !
There was NO SUCH Jewish accusation at all!
It's just PART of the SAME STORY you are assuming is true.
Get real.

The fact that Elrond accused Aragorn of not being a worthy King proves Aragorn WAS a real king !

You seem to think episodes from a STORY can prove that STORY true.

Wake up, Jeff!



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This is also recorded in extra-biblical writings by Justin Martyr and Tertullian who were early apologists.


Christian BELIEVERS from well over a CENTURY later!
Prove snothing other than BELIEF in Jesus.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Finally, the fact that women are listed as the discoverers of the empty tomb speaks to veracity.


Finally, the fact that little Hermione Granger believed in Harry Potter argues for veracity.

Wake up, Jeff!


K.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Both.

The empty tomb indicates that His physical body was somehow 'used up'.
His new 'abilities' when seen indicate some kind of transphysical transformation.

Did Jesus come back from the dead...
...or did he go though death and come out the 'other side'...
...to become a physical/spiritual being beyond death?


Interesting, you say both, but speak of a "body being used up"? Is it a kind of push down pop up effect? That is you push down the physical and the spirirtual pops up?

That's not what I am saying...

The biblical manuscripts describe a 'Transformed Physicality'...
...a physical form with properties usually ascribed to the spiritual.

It was the earthly Jesus with new properties.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

OK, so not push-down, pop-up. Not less of something and more of something else. You suggest more like "Jesus-plus", or "Jesus-extra" in advertising parlance.
But still, this implies that the previous product was somehow deficient - I mean great interpretation, but the Bible doesn't exactly put it that way.

He breaks the physical laws even before the resurrection. During the "transfiguration" (Matt 17) He shows a form wholly different to a human being - shining like the sun surrounded by prophets. So perhaps His behaviour post resurrection is more like a continuation of His bizarre shenanigans? It just appears He's come out of the closet as a divinity and no longer feels restricted by narrow-minded human views?


[edit on 15-5-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


People often die for false beliefs - but they don't die for lies. The disciples believed what they said. They saw a physical risen Jesus. Over 500 people did. And there are no accounts of anyone recanting.

Hallucinations and visions are private experiences, not group events. Visions do not explain the conversion of skeptics or the empty tomb. The Jew would have produced the body and put it to rest in AD 32 but they couldn't.

There is a creed documented in 1 Cor 15 with eyewitness testimony to a physically resurrected Jesus with in 5 years of the event. This early date is accepted by even critical scholars...

In 1st Cor, 15: 3 Paul begins:



"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

(as in he received the pr-existent testimony right after his conversion in Jerusalem)


that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(most textual critics end the creed here, we can tell its an oral tradition due to parallelism in the original language)

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.


Paul's letter is dated to AD 57 or so claiming 500 eye witnesses. The Corinthians could have easily verified this claim and surely did. We have lots of material from early apologists and no one ever had to defend a claim that this was not true. That because the witnesses were still alive and testifying to it. It's just historical fact. If these claims were debunked the church would have died away as a cult fad, the only explanation for its rapid growth in the face of such fierce persecution is that it is TRUE.

You are right to be threatened by him because you deny him. You are going to face him eye to eye and account for every idle word I assure you. I urge you to repent. You can know him personally and be forgiven.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

OK, so not push-down, pop-up. Not less of something and more of something else. You suggest more like "Jesus-plus", or "Jesus-extra" in advertising parlance.
But still, this implies that the previous product was somehow deficient - I mean great interpretation, but the Bible doesn't exactly put it that way.

He breaks the physical laws even before the resurrection. During the "transfiguration" (Matt 17) He shows a form wholly different to a human being - shining like the sun surrounded by prophets. So perhaps His behaviour post resurrection is more like a continuation of His bizarre shenanigans? It just appears He's come out of the closet as a divinity and no longer feels restricted by narrow-minded human views?

I recently read N.T.Wright's book...
The Resurrection of the Son of God.
www.amazon.com...

He discusses this whole issue.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

Looked at the link of the suggested book, but even having read snippets and the Contents I am unsure from what position it is written, so for now I sadly cannot comment.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

I guess it is this terror of facing a "loving Jesus" eye-to-eye one day that made the devout so concerned about the details of the resurrection.
However, it appears that a true unbeliever will face a better fate than a lukewarm believer, because either you're hot or you're cold, but if you're lukewarm the Lord will spit you out (Rev 3:15-16).



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

Looked at the link of the suggested book, but even having read snippets and the Contents I am unsure from what position it is written, so for now I sadly cannot comment.

It is a scholarly work so by definition it addresses all positions...
...and tries to understand the background and intent of the writers who recorded the resurrection history.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

Still don't know if it's written by a confessing Christian or not (is it something they'd sell on TBN or in the Christian bookstore? Or will it be on the academic shelf?).

I was just thinking that Jesus once allegedly said that "an evil generation seeks a sign" when He was asked to perform a miracle. This stressed faith over proof, and is still used by apologists today to describe the glaring lack of proven and verified miracles by preachers.
After having said this, He apparently goes and makes himself a miracle through the resurrection (assuming it was not just physical resuscitation).
Divine humour or irony, I suppose.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Kapyong
 

People often die for false beliefs - but they don't die for lies.


No-one said they DID die for a lie.
The Jesus Myth argument does NOT say it's a lie.
Where did you get the idea it must have been a "lie" from?
No-one lied.

People had visions and told stories and leter people wrote MORE stories and other people believed them.

Nothing to do with lies.
But apologists keep bringing up this
"why would they die for a lie?"
when no-one said they DID die for a lie.
Bizarre.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The disciples believed what they said. They saw a physical risen Jesus.


No disciple wrote anything.
None of the books of the NT were written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus - that's the conclusion of NT scholars.

The disciples are people in a STORY.

You may as well say :
"Hermion Granger BELIEVED Harry Potter could do magic"
or
"Frodo was certain Aragorn was the real King"
or
"Aeolus believed Hercules was a real hero"
or
"Han Solo believed Luke Skywalker really beat Darth Vader"

You keep doing this over and over - telling me a part of the STORY as proof that the story is true.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Over 500 people did.


Paul claims 500 people had visions of Christ like he did.
So what?
People have visions to this day.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
And there are no accounts of anyone recanting.


In fact the NT does tell of people who DID recant their belief in Jesus.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Hallucinations and visions are private experiences, not group events.


Actually, hallucinations CAN and DO happen in religious groups - Fatima is a perfect example - the Pope gave a speech there for that reason.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Visions do not explain the conversion of skeptics or the empty tomb.


Visions PERFECTLY explain conversion of sceptics - Paul himself was converted by a vision, so were many others throughout history.

The empty tomb needs no explaining - it was unknown until the 2nd century. It's a very late part of the story.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The Jew would have produced the body and put it to rest in AD 32 but they couldn't.


The body did not exist, Jesus never existed, there was NO empty tomb story until 2nd century anyway. No-one ever even HEARD of a historical Jesus until 2nd century by which time everyone was dead.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There is a creed documented in 1 Cor 15 with eyewitness testimony to a physically resurrected Jesus with in 5 years of the event.


Nonsense.
It's a list of people who had a VISION of a spiritual being.
Paul never met a physical Jesus - get real.

Paul is describing a spiritual being who was crucified in the lower reaches of heaven - his time of "flesh".

And the "5 years" assumes the event you are trying to prove!
If there WAS no Jesus, the there was NO "5 years" at all.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Paul's letter is dated to AD 57 or so claiming 500 eye witnesses.


Paul claims 500 people had a vision.
So what?
Funny how they are not mentioned in the Gospels.
Everyone tells a different story.
James's letter says nothing of this.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The Corinthians could have easily verified this claim and surely did.


Oh get real!
verify what?
A claim that 500 people far far away had a VISION?
This is ridiculous.




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
We have lots of material from early apologists and no one ever had to defend a claim that this was not true. That because the witnesses were still alive and testifying to it. It's just historical fact.


Nonsense.
The reverse is true.

The earliest layer of writings - Paul, and the early NT epistles, have NOTHING to argue with !

It's all vague spiritual stuff - there is NO dates, no places, no names, no trial, no Pilate, no miracles, no place of events...

There is nothing TO defend!

The alleged "historical" stories of Jesus came in 2nd century - long after everyone was dead.

The Gospel stories of Jesus only became known in mid 2nd century or so - the were unknown in 1st century.


K.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 

Great arguments!
However you say Jesus didn't exist, yet you say that they "recanted".
So how did they recant in the NT, and what did they then recant from?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Kapyong
 

Great arguments!
However you say Jesus didn't exist, yet you say that they "recanted".
So how did they recant in the NT, and what did they then recant from?


I knew someone would ask me that :-)
There are a few examples of people in the NT who recanted their beliefs in Jesus. Acts IIRC - will have to check.


K.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join