Christ's Resurrection: Physical, spiritual or both?

Originally posted by halfoldman
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?).

N. T. Wright is a leading New Testament scholar currently Bishop of Durham and fourth ranking Anglican and member of the House of Lords. He is about to take on the role as chair in New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

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.

I think it had a greater purpose than this.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

The empty tomb is a reasonable reality.

A reasonable conclusion would be that no one died or the body was moved, the scriptures are totally unreliable and cannot even get the story straight when it comes to who discovered the empty tomb.

There was no body in the tomb simply because no one died the situation does not need a supernatural explanation Occam razer will do. The godman going up to the sky is merely a tall tale of the church to control the simple minded.

Originally posted by piedsniper
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

The empty tomb is a reasonable reality.

A reasonable conclusion would be that no one died or the body was moved, the scriptures are totally unreliable and cannot even get the story straight when it comes to who discovered the empty tomb.

There was no body in the tomb simply because no one died the situation does not need a supernatural explanation Occam razer will do. The godman going up to the sky is merely a tall tale of the church to control the simple minded.

If it was only an empty tomb you might be right...
...but He was also seen alive by over 500 people.

As regards reliability the biblical manuscripts are as reliable as other histories of that era.

One thing that I find convincing is that the disciples before the resurrection were a bunch of snivelling cowards...
...but afterwards were transformed and fearlessly faced agonizing deaths...
...it is hard evidence to dismiss easily...
...people don't tend to die for a lie.

reply to post by piedsniper


Actually they all report that women discovered the empty tomb. The fact that women are the first on the scene tells us that the Gospels are making an effort to be accurate and truthful. When all three of these arguments are combined the case for the empty tomb is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dr William Lane Craig explains,

Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of law. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women who were friends of Jesus. Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples a discovering the tomb-Peter or John, for example.

Strobel, Lee. The Case For Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.p.202.

Saying that no one died is nonsensical and doesn't account for the huge amount of data supporting the fact the Jesus was crucified and killed. Jesus death by crucifixion and the empty tomb are attested to by multiple sources including hostile ones. All four Gospels record the events preceding the crucifixion. It is important to note that Jesus was flogged severely prior to the cross. Dr Alexander Metherall, a physician and engineer, concludes that he was beaten severely and in hypovolemic shock from the lacerations made by the bone and metal tines of a Roman whip. It was in this weakened condition that he was nailed to the cross and suspended in a position where he could not breathe unless he pulled himself up by his pierced wrists. The Doctor reveals that “crucifixion is essentially an agonizingly slow death by asphyxiation”. This was also the conclusion of the researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association who studied the Roman procedures. Jesus compromised condition makes his survival improbable.

The Romans were experts at spotting death by crucifixion and the eyewitness John reveals that they verified Jesus death by stabbing a spear into his side which subsequently leaked blood and water (Jn 19:34). We don’t have to just take John’s word for it because the Roman author Quintilian (AD 35-95) corroborates that this procedure was used to validate the death of crucifixion victims.

While I doubt John intended to impart expert medical knowledge, this separation of blood and water speaks to Jesus being dead. The medical professionals in the JAMA report state that this indicates the right side of the heart was pierced rupturing the sac and muscle. No one lives through that. It is well attested in the historical record as well. In addition to the gospels, Jesus death by crucifixion is reported by a number of secular sources including Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and Mara bar Serapion. The scientific and historical evidence clearly leads to the conclusion Jesus indeed died on the cross.

None of alternate explanations account for the well established historical data. The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus did indeed resurrect as reported.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Actually they all report that women discovered the empty tomb.

Actually the Gospels all tell completely different versions of the story :

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other
women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)


What time did the women visit the tomb?

* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun"
(16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise"
(NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)


What was their purpose?

* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)


Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)


Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)


Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)


What did the messenger(s) say?

* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was
crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the
place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that
he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into
Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)

* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was
crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they
laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth
before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you."
(16:6-7)

* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is
risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men,
and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)

* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)


Did the women tell what happened?

* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things
to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)


When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)


When did Mary first see Jesus?

* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)


Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)


After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was
dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)


Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat"
(16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a
room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)


Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)


What happened at the appearance?

* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air,
reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them,
no reprimand (21:19-23)


Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was
all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)


Where did the ascension take place?

* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)


These are obviously fantasy stories, based on legends and myths and beliefs - nothing to do with history.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The fact that women are the first on the scene tells us that the Gospels are making an effort to be accurate and truthful.

The FACT that James Bond' girlfriend died, shows the story was true.

The FACT that Harry Potter risked his life to save his friends, shows the story is true.

The FACT that Frodo Baggins went all that way, shows the story is true.


Bigwhammy - almost ever post of yours consists of the same argument :

You post an episode from the Gospels, and claim that part of the STORY shows the STORY is true.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Saying that no one died is nonsensical and doesn't account for the huge amount of data supporting the fact the Jesus was crucified and killed.

The vast amount of data is evidence for people BELIEVING in Jesus.
But there is NO evidence for Jesus and the Gospels events.

You just keep ASSUMING the Gospels stories are true, so you can 'prove' some other part of the story is true.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Jesus death by crucifixion and the empty tomb are attested to by multiple sources including hostile ones.

No it is not.
All we have is RELIGIOUS books from unknown people long after the alleged events.

Then we later have historical evidence for BELIEF in Jesus.

But there is NO hard or contempary evidence for Jesus at all.
None.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
All four Gospels record the events preceding the crucifixion.

All James Bond stories call him 007, therefore he is real.

All Harry Potter stories say he has a scar, therefore he is real.

All Tolkein stories say Sauron is evil, therefore he is real.


Wake up Jeff !



K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
the eyewitness John

John was not an eye-witness.

That's why Christians had to ADD a passage claiming his words were true to that Gospel - because people knew it wasn't.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Actually they all report that women discovered the empty tomb.

Actually the Gospels all tell completely different versions of the story :

...

These are obviously fantasy stories, based on legends and myths and beliefs - nothing to do with history.

Thank you for the great summary of the resurrection stories...
...I think it is correct...
...and I took a copy of it for further consideration.

However, I disagree with your conclusion...
...differences in witness testimony are not proof of myth and legend.

If multiple witnesses all deliver the same testimony in a court setting it would be evidence of collusion or conspiracy...
...not evidence of truth.

Variations in witness testimony is evidence of multiple independant observation.

If there were no variations in the stories I would be more concerned.

Gday,

Originally posted by troubleshooter
However, I disagree with your conclusion...
...differences in witness testimony are not proof of myth and legend.

They are not witness testimony in the first place.
They are religious works written by unknown persons who never met any historical Jesus.

Why do YOU believe they are by witnesses?


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by troubleshooter
However, I disagree with your conclusion...
...differences in witness testimony are not proof of myth and legend.

They are not witness testimony in the first place.
They are religious works written by unknown persons who never met any historical Jesus.

Why do YOU believe they are by witnesses?

The Synoptic Gospels are Hebrew Midrash similar to homiletic sermons...
...that contained verbally transmitted stories...
...this was a very common form used for the transmission of news and ideas in the first century.

This verbal transmission was eventually written down.

The mode of transmission is no argument against a true basis for the stories...
...any more than a verbal account of a court witness is untrue because it is a personal verbal account of their observations.

There is no evidence that these accounts are just literary fiction...
...even if later religions were selective about which accounts were included in their canon.



[edit on 15/5/10 by troubleshooter]

reply to post by Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
The vast amount of data is evidence for people BELIEVING in Jesus.
But there is NO evidence for Jesus and the Gospels events.

You just keep ASSUMING the Gospels stories are true, so you can 'prove' some other part of the story is true.

It's hard to take you seriously with this sort of argumentation. I also believe Alexander the great was a real person. I don't have a lock of his hair in jar. By your arbitrary and unreasonable standard we would have to trash all of ancient history.

There are several examples of ancient historians like Herodotus, Livy, or Tacitus whose works show similarities in several respects to that in the Gospels, including a moralizing intent yet they are well accepted as historical.

The New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the number of manuscripts. Ancient classical works have comparatively few manuscripts, with twenty entire or partial copies generally being an excellent number. By comparison, the New Testament has over 5000 copies.

Your objections are simply fallacious appeals to personal incredulity.

Originally posted by Kapyong
No it is not.
All we have is RELIGIOUS books from unknown people long after the alleged events.

This is known as the genetic fallacy. You aren't dealing with the data.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Then we later have historical evidence for BELIEF in Jesus.

But there is NO hard or contempary evidence for Jesus at all.
None.

Yes there is. The creed from 1 Cot 15:3-5. You reliance on the genetic fallacy carries no weight.

And there absolutely no valid explanation for this belief apart from a real man named Jesus of Nazareth. There is more contemporary evidence than the majority of other well accepted historical figures. A whole lot more. Your personal incredulity is not an argument. The evidence is there you just don;t accept it. However By far the vast majority of historians and scholars do.

The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles.… But there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources.
Scholars have discovered that the language used in speaking about Jesus in these early speeches in Acts is quite different from that used at the time when the book was compiled in its final form.

Habermas, G. R. (1996). The historical Jesus: Ancient evidence for the life of Christ. Rev. ed. of: Ancient evidence for the life of Jesus. (149). Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company.

Originally posted by Kapyong
All James Bond stories call him 007, therefore he is real.

All Harry Potter stories say he has a scar, therefore he is real.

All Tolkein stories say Sauron is evil, therefore he is real.

The fact of the disciples’ experiences that they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus, is corroborated chiefly by the early and eyewitness testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.

Since naturalistic theories have failed and the evidence so strongly confirms these early creeds, the earliest Christian experiences (both to groups and to individuals) are generally considered by critical scholars to be as firmly established as almost any fact in the life of Jesus. In short, it is admitted by virtually all that the disciples had real experiences that caused them to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

The transformation of the disciples as a result of these experiences is confirmed by the material immediately following this early creed (1 Cor. 15:9–11), which reports the ministry of the eyewitnesses. Again, the entire New Testament also verifies this conclusion, as does the testimony of the early church authors, including the reports of the disciples dying for their faith as martyrs.

Lastly, Paul’s conversion due to an experience that he also believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus, is both recorded by him personally in 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8–10, and reported three times in Acts (9:1–9; 22:5–11; 26:12–18). Naturalistic theses also fail to apply to Paul.

Therefore, these four core facts are established on strong, historical grounds. They are generally accepted not only by critical theologians but also by historians and philosophers who study this subject.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by Bigwhammy]

Much of the valuable debate still seems to be focused on Christs's death and "yes or no" questions on the resurrection. Little opinion is spent on the nature of that resurrection.
Don't the "factual", literalist, or funadamentalist interpretaions and contradictions already point to enough reasons to doubt?
It appears that certain "literailst" Christians must accept a physical ressurection, despite other verses that are simply ignored.

However, there are many metaphoric Christians, who think the message is bigger than the detail.
I mean this is where our notion of the resurrected Christ actually comes from, and why we accept Him as "good".
Perhaps it could be that only symbolists can save scripture from its own claims of innerency.
That's what irks me nowadays: people say they find literal laws on this or that, but they have to refer to all kinds of non-literal "church law" to save the Bible from its own innerency.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Gday,

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The fact of the disciples’ experiences that they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus,

That's NOT a fact.
It's a religious BELIEF.

You are pathologically unable to grasp that concept.

You keep citing episodes from your religious stories as if they prove your religious stories true.

What nonsense.


The FACT that Theoden and Boromir followed Aragorn shows he was real.

Wake up, Jeff !



K.

Gday,

Originally posted by troubleshooter
However, I disagree with your conclusion...
...differences in witness testimony are not proof of myth and legend.

When the stories are completely different and full of fantasy and magic -
Yes they do.

I see everyone IGNORED the various glaring differences in the story.

Where did Jesus ascend?
The stories tell DIFFERENT places.

How can a fantasy story where a God-man ascends to heaven from DIFFERENT places, be considered historical and accurate?

Seriously, how?

Originally posted by troubleshooter
If multiple witnesses all deliver the same testimony in a court setting it would be evidence of collusion or conspiracy...

This is not a court setting with witnesses at all!
It's a set of books with magic and fantasy all telling different stories.
It's all obviously myth.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
Variations in witness testimony is evidence of multiple independant observation.

So, variations in FAERIE stories shows fareies are real, right?
And, variations in UNICORN stories shows unicorns are real, right?

Variations of this magnitude in a story of fantasy and magic - shows it's obviously myths and legends.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
If there were no variations in the stories I would be more concerned.

Rubbish.

You are ALREADY doing exactly the OPPOSITE - you all point to similarities in the story as proof already.

Hoist on your own petard.


K.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by Kapyong]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Did you know that the earliest known writings, concerning the ministry of Jesus (other than the Roman citizen, Paul, of course) are heretical manuscripts that suggest that Jesus was more of a divine allegorey thatn a real flesh and blood human being. That kind of foolishness was slaughtered away from the official church history during the 2nd century by Roman mercenaries sent by church literalist to Alexandria (in Egypt) where most serious scholars believe the original gospel manuscript (Q) was actually written.

The history of the Christian faith is not pretty, and there's actually no proof (not by secular historical standards) of the person Jesus or of any of his actual original Apostles. Not even Peter. Seriously, you need to do some research if you're going to debate this stuff.

Gday,

Originally posted by NorEaster
Did you know that the earliest known writings, concerning the ministry of Jesus (other than the Roman citizen, Paul, of course) are heretical manuscripts that suggest that Jesus was more of a divine allegorey thatn a real flesh and blood human being.

Which books to you refer to ?

Originally posted by NorEaster
That kind of foolishness was slaughtered away from the official church history during the 2nd century by Roman mercenaries sent by church literalist to Alexandria (in Egypt)

Do you have any references for that action please ?

Originally posted by NorEaster
where most serious scholars believe the original gospel manuscript (Q) was actually written.

Q was hardly the "original gospel manuscript" - it was ONE of the sources for the Gospels.



K.