Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

I find it difficult to believe that even the most hardheaded skeptic at the time would see a man who was supposed to be dead walking the Earth, shake their head and go, "No, I still think he's full of it."

Why was doubt still cast over Jesus even after he rose from the dead? After the resurrection, followers of Jesus were still prosecuted and put to death, but why? Surely such a miraculous feat should've cemented their leader's gospel?

It appears to me like there could only be two explanations for this. The resurrection happened in the most unconvincing way imaginable, except to his followers and whoever they managed to convince. Or, the resurrection never happened at all.

Apparently, when Jesus came back to life, he appeared only to his followers, and a random group of "more than 500 people at once", and remained on Earth for 40 days. First of all, wouldn't it have made more sense to appear in this manner to the whole world, as to leave no doubt surrounding his status as the 'Messiah'. Why would he leave his disciples to impart something of such great importance on his behalf that he could've done himself so much more convincingly, simply by walking in front of the whole town for instance?

If he'd done in that way, I suspect everyone to this date would be Christian without question. Win/Win for God and humanity?

reply to post by namine

In the Gospel accounts, the Resurrection was convincing enough to anybody who saw the resurrected Jesus.
That sets up a third option; the Resurrection WAS convincing, but only revealed directly to a small number of people.

In the second half of your post, you acknowledge this possibllity (thus exposing the false dilemma in the first half), but you argue that it was the wrong strategy,
I won't argue on that point; I leave it to God to work out for himself what strategy he wants to follow.

reply to post by namine

It appears to me like there could only be two explanations for this. The resurrection happened in the most unconvincing way imaginable, except to his followers and whoever they managed to convince. Or, the resurrection never happened at all.

My belief is that he wasn't dead ... but nearly so....and was looked after, "spirited away" by his friends, who'd made a deal with Pilate to have his body.

He then was wrapped in the shroud, still alive, with balms and ointments. He recovered, showed up to his friends, still wounded, hungry and thirsty, and then he fled the area (wouldn't you, after surviving an assassination/execution attempt?) to safe haven in the East. There are loads of documents indicating he was, known as Issa, alive for another few decades.

reply to post by DISRAELI


It seems to me the Resurrection was rarely convincing to anyone who didn't believe him to begin with -- you would think these people needed convincing more than anyone else? So why appear to a select few who've already shown their loyalty towards you? The Resurrection could've been a lot more convincing than the way it allegedly happened, but I guess this all falls under the tried-and-tested 'God works in mysterious ways' bracket.



reply to post by wildtimes


That's an interesting theory, one I can't say I've come across before. Do you have any reliable sources for any of that?

As much as Jesus was likely a real human being some 2000 years ago, I actually think that the death and resurrection has more to do with the movements of the Sun and the interpretation is more of an astrological one. The resurrection story sounds very similar to the Solstices..

The summer solstice is the solstice that occurs in a hemisphere's summer. In the Northern Hemisphere this is the Northern solstice; in the Southern Hemisphere this is the Southern solstice. Depending on the shift of the calendar, the summer solstice occurs some time between December 20 and December 23 each year in the Southern Hemisphere and between June 20 and June 22 in the Northern Hemisphere in reference to UTC.

Maybe its why we celebrate Christmas straight after it also?

reply to post by namine


It has always confused me why Thomas had to see the nail holes in Jesus' hands before he would believe that it was Jesus.

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

JOHN 20:27
My thoughts are that Jesus was resurrected into a different body....

reply to post by namine

That's an interesting theory, one I can't say I've come across before. Do you have any reliable sources for any of that?

Yes, my initial exposure to this theory was in evidence cited in the book
The Fifth Gospel: New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion - by Dr Fida Hassnain, a Sufi Mystic and impressively accoladed scholar, and Rabbi Dahan Levi

The Fifth Gospel presents some compelling new evidence about the life of Jesus which has been derived from a variety of sources in the East which are unknown to most Western scholars. By chance, one of the authors found, in 1965, a reference in Ladakh to the discovery of Buddhist scrolls about Jesus.

Since then, the authors have been examining evidence about the survival of Jesus Christ at the time of the crucifixion, and his subsequent travels to the East. The authors' main purpose in writing this book is to inform the West that "we in the East have some source material about the historical Jesus who lived on after the crucifixion....

This book was not written in one day, but is a result of many years' continued search for evidence," and provides research on some very compelling questions.

These two men have very adequate credentials. I see no reason for them to make this stuff up. But, since I wasn't there, I don't know. The book sources a LOT of other information and is a great jumping-off point for further research.

Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

Because it didn´t happen. It´s all a story. Prove me wrong, i dare ya.

Originally posted by VeniVidi

 

My thoughts are that Jesus was resurrected into a different body....

That's exactly what happened. Nobody recognized him at first after the resurrection; not the disciples, not even Mary Magdalene. The disciples only recognized him because he worked a miracle for them. Read John 20 and 21...

As for why, I can only assume he didn't want every Tom, Dick, and Heathen having proof he'd risen from the dead for some reason. "They had their chance," perhaps...

reply to post by namine


Your statement is a false dichotomy. Meaning there are more than two options. Disraeli said it well.

Another thing to point out is to reveal it to everyone would basically take away everyone's free will. Furthermore, the Father is all-knowing. He knows from both omniscience and experience that revealing the full power of God will not convince everyone. Look at the example of the Pharaoh.

Even if the resurrected Messiah revealed himself to the entire population all at once, there would still be naysayers who would deny the truth regardless. They would allege all kind of madness to deny the truth.

reply to post by Thought Provoker

As for why, I can only assume he didn't want every Tom, Dick, and Heathen having proof he'd risen from the dead for some reason. "They had their chance," perhaps...

That doesn't sound like the Jesus everyone talks about. Surely such a loving and considerate fellow would give everyone a second chance, after giving them the biggest first chance he could muster. It's always confused me why someone who was so definitely the son of "God", as well as "God" incarnate, would do so little to save the people he cared so much about. I mean, he really curtailed his powers. Not only did he restrict himself to a mere fraction of the world, but his miracles were child's play compared to what he could have done. It gives the impression that he wasn't taking it seriously. He could have had thousands and thousands there to watch his death, then risen and paraded in front of all of them. Why wait another 2,000 years to rule? If you care that much, don't disappear and give the people every reason to despise you.

I don't know, but there's so many things that don't add up, you'd need a crane to get out of the hole.

Originally posted by namine
The Resurrection could've been a lot more convincing than the way it allegedly happened, but I guess this all falls under the tried-and-tested 'God works in mysterious ways' bracket.

And your argument falls into the tried-and-tested "If I were God, I would have done things differently" bracket.
I'm satisfied with exposing the false dilemma of your original premise; the Resurrection was convincing enough to those who saw the result, because they were all convinced by the sight..

The reason people doubt the resurrection of Jesus and doubt God in general is very simple. Once you acknowledge God as being true, you must also acknowledge that what he says is true. Once you acknowledge that what he says is true, you also realize that the way you have been living is against God, you have been choosing evil over good your whole life. Then the choice of, do i accept God's plan for redemption which includes an end to my wicked ways, or do i deny it. No one can logically deny it in the sense of, 'I choose hell over heaven' So instead of choosing hell they just deny it's existence and that of all things true.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by namine

 

In the Gospel accounts, the Resurrection was convincing enough to anybody who saw the resurrected Jesus.
That sets up a third option; the Resurrection WAS convincing, but only revealed directly to a small number of people.

In the second half of your post, you acknowledge this possibllity (thus exposing the false dilemma in the first half), but you argue that it was the wrong strategy,
I won't argue on that point; I leave it to God to work out for himself what strategy he wants to follow.

Interesting. The question that comes to mind is: Did Jesus want to be known throughout the world or didn't he? If he wanted to be known and loved and worshiped by all then he would have done it while alive. Since this didn't happen (and going on the premise that his story is true) then apparently he only wanted a select few in the Middle East to know him.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by namine
The Resurrection could've been a lot more convincing than the way it allegedly happened, but I guess this all falls under the tried-and-tested 'God works in mysterious ways' bracket.

And your argument falls into the tried-and-tested "If I were God, I would have done things differently" bracket.
I'm satisfied with exposing the false dilemma of your original premise; the Resurrection was convincing enough to those who saw the result, because they were all convinced by the sight..

Yes but what were they actually seeing because from todays logic, it is impossible for anything like that to happen unless it was pre-planned or a simple hoax. One thing that raises my doubt is the fact that previous deities also harbour the same traits and i find it pretty hard to believe they are not speaking about the Sun, the Sun which can be seen in the sky.

reply to post by jiggerj

Again, the old tried-and-tested "If I were God, I would have done things differently" argument.
I'm not high enough in God's counsels to try to second-guess his plans and argue about what he should have been doing instead.
i'm satisfied with establishing the main point which concerns this thread;
The statement "The Resurrection was not convincing" is nonsense, because the people who saw the result were convinced.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Thought Provoker

 

Surely such a loving and considerate fellow would give everyone a second chance, after giving them the biggest first chance he could muster.

Hence my use of "assume" and "perhaps." I'm not him; I can't know his reasons for anything he did or didn't do.

Not only did he restrict himself to a mere fraction of the world, but his miracles were child's play compared to what he could have done.

And yet, his followers number in the hundreds of millions even 2,000 years later. Amazing, huh... I guess he knew what he was doing.

He could have had thousands and thousands there to watch his death, then risen and paraded in front of all of them. Why wait another 2,000 years to rule?

Because that was the plan. If you add reincarnation into the mix (and the Bible definitely teaches reincarnation), even those who rejected him then, and those who weren't close enough to hear about him then, have had chances to accept him in a different life. That is everyone's second chance, and third, fourth, fifth... There's no hole we to be craned out of. Not a single bit of scripture doesn't make sense to an open mind. It's only unbelievable to those who don't want to believe it.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Yes but what were they actually seeing because from todays logic, it is impossible for anything like that to happen .

"Today's logic" about what is or is not possible is quietly based on the assumption that there is no Creator God.
If the assumption is wrong, then the conclusion is wrong as well.

Beware the unconscious circular argument- starting from the assumption that there is no God, in order to prove that there is no God.

reply to post by DISRAELI


This isn't a denial of god, I am well aware that there is something much larger than any of us can comprehend but to give a man the status of God is ridiculous. Yes his teachings were great for humanity but there is to much doubt in my mind to believe that he arose from the dead and mysteriously disappeared into the sky unless he was a comet, space object, an alien or something. It is impossible otherwise.

reply to post by DarknStormy

But all the possibilities mentioned on your list are those not involving the intervention of a Creator God.
If there IS a Creator God, then the Resurrection as described becomes possible.