The resurrection. Help, please.

Guys, and gals,
I am confused.

I would like to open a dialogue that encompasses whether or not "Jesus" the legendary man (and I'm undecided on whether he actually did live or not...although heretofore I have believed he did exist, but did not die on the cross.) did or did not die on the cross. Ever since I was a little girl in the Protestant faith of the Church of England, I doubted that the 'resurrection' really happened. I was inclined (even as a little girl) to believe rather that he was instead, actually resuscitated.

The Episcopal faith teaches resurrection without question. I never believed it, and I still don't (sorry), so I would like to open a discussion where people can present their cases for "yes", or "no."

I mean no-one any disrespect, nor do I wish to put my current "understanding" of the veracity of the reported event on trial.... I am asking for well-founded evidence, research, and history to prove it.

I just would like some feedback from those who "believe" or "disbelieve", backed up by accessible resources other than the Bible or the Quran. I'd like to hear what people who are looking into alternatives to "yes, he did" or, "no, he did not" die to contribute.

This is a real conundrum for me. I never really believed it. I still don't. But there are so many people who buy into it! Can y'all give me some deeper understanding??

Please? With all due respect, I want to discuss the "ayes" and "nays" of the entire story.

Thanks,
~wild

reply to post by wildtimes
I suppose my best response here is to point to the internal evidences of the bible itself in light of the extrabiblical references to Christ and christians (primarily from greco-roman sources) in addition to the absence of any significant doubt of Jesus' existence or his crucifixion until about the last 200 years to confirm that he was in fact crucified.

Once you've established that, it's a fairly easy thing to do some online searches into the "swoon hypothesis" - pretty much what you're describing here, claiming that Jesus just swooned/passed out/collapsed on the cross (whatever) and revived after being removed still alive.

There's not much support for the swoon theory in light of biblical testimony (regarding his wounds and the following events) and what we know of crucifixion as well as various related roman/jewish practices. It doesn't seem to pass muster for a good number of reasons.

Take care.

Well, some may not know this, but none of the apostles ever denied their faith.

I believe only one of the original 12 did not have a gruesome end, that included being crucified upside down...

And all they had to do to recant.

Do the research on how each apostle met his end... Don't take my word on that one.

reply to post by Praetorius

There's not much support for the swoon theory in light of biblical testimony (regarding his wounds and the following events) and what we know of crucifixion as well as various related roman/jewish practices. It doesn't seem to pass muster for a good number of reasons.

I've found plenty of support for the "swoon" theory, actually, from studying non-Christian writings and such.
What we know of resurrection is that it takes a long time (days), and the fact that he was taken down a few hours after his being pinned up there gives credence to the concept that he was not really dead...

reply to post by wildtimes

Here's my answer (see quoted text), hope it helps.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

. . . the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.

Paul said Jesus was resurrected, and that is the main thing and different Gospel writers can describe what they think happened when that fact was discovered and I don't think it is so defeating to their integrity that they don't match up. It could be there was an inclination to add some profundity to the telling that kind of goes over our heads today, not being in the same sort of cultural milieu as they were.
I think it is helpful to me to know that there are little hidden messages built in and to be open to finding them. I have been reading a couple authors who have spotted those things and I seek those out (in addition to the more mainstream sort of interpreters of course).

What, you don't think Jesus completed the whole ritual and finished what he started? Don't be absurd, it's no FUN without the resurrection, and it means everything. Did he totally die DIE? I don't care, all I know in examining the whole thing is that it was meaningful and that he knew what he was doing, and that he was obediant unto death. If his resurrection was "seeded" into the minds of people like Nocodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, or even a certain Roman soldier, that they came to recognize and understanding what he was doing, made it possible, makes no difference if Jesus was himself double-blind going into the ordeal (obediant unto death), and suffer grievously he certainly did either way. I think he made it through by a mere thread, but that's just me. Nevertheless, the whole ritual as an enactment of an eternal evolutionary process of death and resurrection still functions, within the entire frame of prophecy, to a t (literally) That it was done in conjuction with the natural order also of the clockwork and the prophetic, communicative movement of the moon, the sun and the starry skies, well, let's just say it's the whole work, whether Jesus completely and utterly DIED and came back to life, or not!

Don't you see the marvel in it, in what he did, and why?

Read the passage involving the Road to Emmeus, and note how the resurrected Jesus, while still bearing physical wounds (now well on the mend), talked with his friends and explained everything to them, while employing the art of disguise, even asking for food when he was hungry, and you'll see. He made it! He went thorugh the eye of the needle, a "camel" or water bearer, across the desert of human history!

But he didn't know precisely HOW it was going to happen, until it happened, until he woke up naked, or bandaged, in that tomb, enough water to go three days, not even knowing until it happened how or who orchestrated it ie: he left it in God's hands. Mind you, upon awakening and realizing what happened, I'm sure he danced around in that tomb while praising God and shouted out, NICODEMUS! And laughing his ass off no doubt too!

And note the men in dazzling white, who the women encountered when they went to the tomb to treat the body as per custom, and what they said (no doubt there again either) with a very big smile..

When you consider the principal at the heart of it, it doesn't matter if there ARE any bones, because it's the kind of thing you just can't make any bones about!

P.S. I realize I misinterpreted precisely what you said, which was that the fact was spun in different directions, but I'm not about to edit or mess with what I just wrote so I therefore wan't to communicate this little P.S. here, so that you'll know I know we're both on the same page. Cheers, NAM

reply to post by wildtimes

Dear wildtimes,

You know I respect you, so I can only conclude that I am misunderstanding your intentions.

As far as I can tell, you are saying that you don't know whether there was a Jesus, whether he died on the Cross, and don't believe he was resurrected.

You don't want your position examined, and you don't want the Bible or the Koran used. You seem to want ATS to (and forgive me for this, because I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you) put on a debate with research and the whole business. Again, forgive me, but why bother?

You have your beliefs, that's fine. I don't think they will be changed by ATS. I'm sure if there is a point which needs clarification you can check with whichever sources you approve of.

Again, I know I sound very harsh and should probably delete this, but I'm hoping you can straighten me out and I can start again.

With respect,
Charles1952

You may find this debate worth listening to. It talks exactly about this.




I agree with Spong. He argues against it being an actual historical event.


I also like to point out that he was on the cross for 3-6 hours. People survive on a cross for longer than that (up to a day or two).

reply to post by benrl

Do the research on how each apostle met his end... Don't take my word on that one.

I am familiar with how they "met their ends" and refused to recant.

This does not negate the possibility that he was resuscitated from a "death-like" stupor, which was to be expected after the beating and because he was a mystic who was capable of "transcending" the pain of his body.

They saw him walking around, showing them his wounds, and he was hungry and thirsty. As I said, aside from the Bible story, what actual texts (not derived from the Bible) indicate that he was stone dead?

I can anticipate members pointing to the "surgeon's assessment of pericardial whatever", but that is not supported by anything except one doctor's pre-conceived understanding of what "happened" to him.

The movie was exaggerated ('The Passion').....the surgeon was already biased....there is nothing biblical that supports this "pierced through the heart" theory, and so, I contend it was not the case.

There are, however, records of crucifixions that describe the details of the process and timlin, and how the agony was drawn out (deliberately) for days. This multi-day suffering Jesus was NOT subject to.

reply to post by wildtimes


Not sure if this will help you decide or not: www.youtube.com...

As someone else pointed to regarding the apostles...it is not human nature to die for something that they know not to be true.

That issue is considered to be a relatively recent idea.

The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article about this many years ago. It explored this issue and went into a fair amount of detail using what was described in the crucifixion accounts in the Bible to come to the conclusion that Jesus actually died on the cross.

Edwards, William D.; Gabel, Wesley J.; Hosmer, Floyd E; On the Physical Death of Jesus, JAMA March 21, 1986, Vol 255, No. 11, pp 1455–1463

reply to post by wildtimes


so Jesus rolled the rock from his tomb after waking from a nap brought on by Roman crusifiction ?

Fairly certain the type of wounds one would get from such a thing would not allow someone to do that.

I mean if you want to admit to his existence, than we have to treat it forensically?

reply to post by dirkpotters


I watched that last night. Biased like his other stuff and not without it's cherry picking.

I would like add that the equisit timing of his crucifixion was quite extraordinary when the larger context is considered (see below) by which his life was framed, again showing that the Great Work and the ritual he was enacting is more important than whether he completely died and came back to life.


www.bethlehemstar.net...

Also, to get a better sense for the historical person of Jesus, I recommend running through this thread

The Woman @ The Well: How the Historical Jesus Performed a "Miracle" + Reflections..

reply to post by charles1952

You seem to want ATS to (and forgive me for this, because I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you) put on a debate with research and the whole business. Again, forgive me, but why bother?

You have your beliefs, that's fine. I don't think they will be changed by ATS. I'm sure if there is a point which needs clarification you can check with whichever sources you approve of.

Again, I know I sound very harsh and should probably delete this, but I'm hoping you can straighten me out and I can start again.

Charles, I appreciate your open answer. You are right, I want to hear both sides of the story. Why bother? Because this particular point is stuck in my craw, and I wish to digest and get past it.

I have determined that the "holy books" are biased, and I want to know what solid historical basis there is for accepting either of them.

No intention to be offensive. I really am on the fence about this (thanks to ATS), and want to hear what people who are deeper into these issues than I am (although I've studied for many, many years.....decades, actually) hold out as "evidence."

Hope that makes sense.
I respect you, too, charles.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by dirkpotters

 

I watched that last night. Biased like his other stuff and not without it's cherry picking.

Thank you for your opinionated comment and the lack of evidence for your claims.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by wildtimes

 

so Jesus rolled the rock from his tomb after waking from a nap brought on by Roman crusifiction ?

Fairly certain the type of wounds one would get from such a thing would not allow someone to do that.

I mean if you want to admit to his existence, than we have to treat it forensically?

Are you forgetting about the men clothed in dazzling white near his tomb when the women came to treat his body, those smiling men who said to them "why do you look for the living among the dead?!"

leveraging a rock to roll away from a tomb would be hard to do, yes, from within the tomb..

reply to post by wildtimes

I have determined that the "holy books" are biased, and I want to know what solid historical basis there is for accepting either of them.

Heres the problem with this, really besides a few minor references out side the Gospels the first books of the new testament of Jesus Christ as a person.

SO once you've come to the point you are willing to admit he existed as a person.

Than you either have what the First books say as fact, or you don't

Which than leads to Either Jesus was what he claimed to be, or he was the greatest scam artist ever.

Theres no middle ground based on what the existing historical reference leave.

If you want to go with the Bible was corrupted, lets say by the Catholic church, than why are their so many doctrines still in the actual bible that Directly contradict their teachings?

Seems like if you where going to start editing that would be the places to start... Avoid the hole protestant movement all together...

So anything else is pure Conjecture and grasping at straws.

There are many documented cases of people who were believed dead (to paraphrase John Clese, "...He is...an EX-person!!!") actually being alive - while comatose, very ill, whatever - but the medical science of the time erred. So, your proposition is not that far-fetched for a conspiracy site such as this.

Maybe I'm missing your point. But, are you basically just asking us to prove or disprove an article of your own, personal faith? Cuz, if so, I don't thnk any of our possible responses will satisfy you - or, in so trying, even meet your requirements stated for possible acceptable arguments.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt anyone will be able to prove this for you, to you, or to your satisfaction. Even the Roman and contemporary histories of the time will not have the detail required to adequately prove this for you.

If you want me - and everyone - to just tell you what they hold true by faith as it relates to your question, OK, I'm catholic and I hold as an item of faith that JC was resurrected by some means for reasons known and, possibly additional ones unknown to me.

But... Youve seen seen some of the nuttier threads here, right? Well, get ready, cuz I am absolutely SURE you'll get a plethora from a lot of others... Good luck.

reply to post by wildtimes


Here is some super fine reading for you -
Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world
jesus never existed
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

And some nice video if your not in the mood for reading -

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

He argues against it being an actual historical event.
I also like to point out that he was on the cross for 3-6 hours. People survive on a cross for longer than that (up to a day or two).

I am led to believe this as well. From non-scriptural sources. I am also led to surmise that the Essene followers of his contracted with Pilate to bring him down early (Pilate wanted to pardon him), so that they might treat him for his injuries.

I do not believe his heart was pierced, or his bones broken.

Just saying. Someone, please, show me reliable evidence for the truth! I have seen an online "letter" from an Essene brother who took the time to explain what really happened...that Joseph of A and Nicodemus made a deal with Pilate....and the Roman centurion in charge went along with it.

Hence, my confusion.