PDA

View Full Version : Did Jesus rise from the dead?



David19
November 18th, 2007, 08:37 PM
This is something I'd like to get your opinions on, do you think Jesus physically was ressurected, and do you think it is one of the linchpins of Christianity, do you think if he wasn't raised from the dead, the religion is "invalidate".

There seems to be a lot of information, both for and against. Here's an interesting debate on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU&feature=related).

There's another interesting article here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html) which says that the resurrection wasn't a "physical" resurrection, but a spiritual one, in other words, the body Jesus had was a spiritual one, not a physical one, and that the future resurrection of Christians after the Aplocalypse will be a spiritual one with spiritual bodies.

I think it's quite an interesting debate, and I'd really love to know where you stand on this issue - did he raise physically from the dead or was it a spiritual one?.

Aethelflaed
November 22nd, 2007, 04:43 PM
Might as well be the guinea pig and get this discussion rolling. :p

I say no, the resurrection wasn't physical. Yeah, the Bible says there was an empty tomb. But depending on what gospel you read, the details surrounding the resurrection (such as who first saw the empty tomb) differ. Also, none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and they were written years after Jesus' death. Not to mention that the Bible has continually been revised and retranslated over the years by imperfect humans who were influenced by the prejudices of their time. If someone wants to convince me that an event such as the resurrection -- which goes against the laws of nature -- did indeed occur, then I'm sorry, they're just going to have to offer me much more solid evidence.

And isn't it convenient how Jesus' resurrection fits into the various Pagan myths of a dying son who's reborn? To me, it seems much more believable that political leaders wanted to unify their empires and make people easier to control, and one way to do that was to have everyone follow the same religion. And in order to make Christianity appeal to Pagans, leaders meshed it with Pagan faiths.

I don't think Jesus' teachings aren't valid though. Even though I'm a Pagan, I still look up to him and try to emulate his teachings of loving your neighbor. He still had a powerful, radical message, and he doesn't need to resurrect from the dead or be "the only Son of God" to prove it to me.

Whether Christianity itself is valid depends on how you define it. Even though I believe in Jesus' teachings, many of the Christians I know would say I wasn't a Christian because I don't believe in the resurrection.

*grabs a shield to protect her butt from the oncoming flames

LostSheep
November 22nd, 2007, 05:13 PM
This site, which I find very useful for questions like this, talks about this : http://www.explorefaith.org/christ.html

I like the idea that "The Resurrection of Jesus was not some spooky horror-movie resuscitation of a dead body; it was instead a metamorphosis into an advanced state of existence that defies our comparison with any known experience." : that Jesus moved into a different plane, a state of enlightentment, you might almost say.
And I think his followers took it as a metaphor that his message would live on.

Evinmeer
November 23rd, 2007, 12:17 AM
I believe that He did raise from the dead, and that it was in a physical body - else, why have Thomas touch his wounds as proof?

The Amityville Ghost
November 24th, 2007, 02:15 AM
I can't offer an opinion as to whether he was physically resurrected or not. All I can say is that I respect Jesus as having been a great teacher. Even if he wasn't a real person, the things that he is reported to have taught are nevertheless good teachings. And it is true that he was not the only person to teach them, as Siddharta Gautama preceeded him. But in my opinion, anybody who teaches such things should be respected and looked highly upon.

I will also say that even if Jesus was physically resurrected, this still would not prove to me that he was a divine incarnation of the Supreme God. I suspect that even if he was just the incarnation of a lesser divinity it would be possible for this to have happened. Or he could have been an alien off of Doctor Who.

LadyCelt
November 24th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I have no trouble believing in the resurrection or the miracles he performed. It is hard to know certain translations, but in my heart he did rise.

PrincessKLS
November 25th, 2007, 12:41 AM
I don't think I believe his whole body ascended into heaven. Perhaps it was a ghost the disciples saw.

zionwood
November 25th, 2007, 10:21 PM
I do think He rose physically. Ghosts can't eat fish.

LacyRoze
November 25th, 2007, 11:48 PM
I believe he rose physically. As was mentioned before he had Thomas touch his wounds and he had both Mary's look in to the tomb to see his body was not there..

BlueOcean
November 26th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Here's a quote from an article I read called The Forged Origins of The New Testament (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html) (link):

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).


BlueOxeen

Garm
July 2nd, 2008, 08:57 PM
They gave him gall to drink

Why?

The gall in some species of fish contains Tetrodotoxin a powerful nerve agent, which causes, among other things, numbness in the extremities

Perfectly reasonable under the circumstances

The paralysis it induces is often, but not always, fatal

Hit upon the right dose you can suspend basic biological functions but still be fully conscious even while clinically dead

If you survive a full recovery can be made in a couple of days

Caitlin.ann
July 2nd, 2008, 09:02 PM
This is something I'd like to get your opinions on, do you think Jesus physically was ressurected, and do you think it is one of the linchpins of Christianity, do you think if he wasn't raised from the dead, the religion is "invalidate".



I don't believe he rose from the dead. Everything written about him was written long after everyone of his generation would have been deceased which would have left a lot of room for exaggerations to take place. I personally believe that Jesus was trying to start a new Jewish tradition and Paul (who came later) is really the father of Christianity. Just my two cents though.

Sequoia
July 3rd, 2008, 09:40 PM
The way that Jesus rose is more miraculous than a zombie flick. I'm not sure if I believe that he was literally dead and literally came back to life, but he went through a spiritual rebirth, had a form that others could experience, and eventually left (assumably to heaven).

However, I have always placed more emphasis on the works that Jesus did during his life... his death was not what inspired me. It was his life that inspired me.

Brightshores
July 3rd, 2008, 10:14 PM
However, I have always placed more emphasis on the works that Jesus did during his life... his death was not what inspired me. It was his life that inspired me.
QFT. It always seemed strange to me that Christianity puts such a heavy emphasis on death in general, and the death and resurrection of Jesus in particular, rather than on Jesus's revolutionary teachings and messages.

He may have physically risen. Then again, he may not have. Dunno. To me, that's not the point.

(Then again, I'm no longer Christian, so feel free to ignore me. :weirdsmil)

AugustoSilvanoCato
July 3rd, 2008, 11:18 PM
Hello all,

I'm not a Christian so I'm not a believer of this Myth. I'm not saying this because I'm not well informed but because in all my years I was part of many Religions to study and follow their believes until I was well informed and none convince me to follow Christianity. I have found a very good article written by an ex-preacher I believe, for you guys to ponder on, and again only if you want to read it. :crown: http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

Very interesting research and very good points.:giggle:

Caitlin.ann
July 4th, 2008, 01:06 AM
A myth is a metaphore.

Aoibheal
July 25th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Again, studying Islam you find some fascinating contrasts of the Resurrection story.

4:157

And because of their saying , "We killed Messiah Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah," -- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of Isa was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not:
But Allah raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself.

So according to Islam, Jesus never died on the cross, but God took him before hand. I'd really like to get a Christian opinion on that.

Caitlin.ann
July 25th, 2008, 10:44 PM
This is something I'd like to get your opinions on, do you think Jesus physically was ressurected, and do you think it is one of the linchpins of Christianity, do you think if he wasn't raised from the dead, the religion is "invalidate".

There seems to be a lot of information, both for and against. Here's an interesting debate on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU&feature=related).

There's another interesting article here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html) which says that the resurrection wasn't a "physical" resurrection, but a spiritual one, in other words, the body Jesus had was a spiritual one, not a physical one, and that the future resurrection of Christians after the Aplocalypse will be a spiritual one with spiritual bodies.

I think it's quite an interesting debate, and I'd really love to know where you stand on this issue - did he raise physically from the dead or was it a spiritual one?.


I honestly don't think he rose from the dead. I think it was actually exaggeration by later generations. The first book of the NT (concerning Jesus) was written long after everyone who lived during Jesus' day had died as well.

MariThorn
July 26th, 2008, 05:12 PM
I don't see why Jesus couldn't come back from the dead. Of course, if you see him as pure human, then you will be highly skeptical of this. If you see him as the son of YHWH, then why couldn't he do this? There are countless tales of deities coming back from the dead through one means or another. So, I see no reason why the Christian story cannot co exist. Basically, if you have faith in it, then it is real for you.

As far as what Sacredsin wrote about the gospels being written long after all of Jesus' contemporaries were dead . . . I thought I would make an observation. The Gospel of St. Mark is believed to have been written based on internal and external evidence between 50 AD and 67AD, the latest being 70 AD. The disciple, St. John, is believed to have lived until 100 AD. (This is based on primary evidence of men who either knew him personally, or were associated with his followers in one way or another.) So it is unlikely that the story of Christ's resurrection was completly fabricated and published in the EArly Church without his gainsaying it. And as he never wrote anything to the contrary, and he was a Bishop, I would say that it wasn't a fabrication.

Just my two cents :)

Caitlin.ann
July 26th, 2008, 05:30 PM
I don't see why Jesus couldn't come back from the dead. Of course, if you see him as pure human, then you will be highly skeptical of this. If you see him as the son of YHWH, then why couldn't he do this? There are countless tales of deities coming back from the dead through one means or another. So, I see no reason why the Christian story cannot co exist. Basically, if you have faith in it, then it is real for you.

As far as what Sacredsin wrote about the gospels being written long after all of Jesus' contemporaries were dead . . . I thought I would make an observation. The Gospel of St. Mark is believed to have been written based on internal and external evidence between 50 AD and 67AD, the latest being 70 AD. The disciple, St. John, is believed to have lived until 100 AD. (This is based on primary evidence of men who either knew him personally, or were associated with his followers in one way or another.) So it is unlikely that the story of Christ's resurrection was completly fabricated and published in the EArly Church without his gainsaying it. And as he never wrote anything to the contrary, and he was a Bishop, I would say that it wasn't a fabrication.

Just my two cents :)

What I learned is from my University class by a highly educated man with a PH.d. ;)

At that time men didn't lead long lives, so yes the fact that the first book was written long after everyone during Jesus's lifetime is perfectly correct.

And many people today consider themselves children of the divine or of deities yet are also human. Could they rise from the dead as well?

David19
July 26th, 2008, 07:04 PM
I don't see why Jesus couldn't come back from the dead. Of course, if you see him as pure human, then you will be highly skeptical of this. If you see him as the son of YHWH, then why couldn't he do this? There are countless tales of deities coming back from the dead through one means or another. So, I see no reason why the Christian story cannot co exist. Basically, if you have faith in it, then it is real for you.

As far as what Sacredsin wrote about the gospels being written long after all of Jesus' contemporaries were dead . . . I thought I would make an observation. The Gospel of St. Mark is believed to have been written based on internal and external evidence between 50 AD and 67AD, the latest being 70 AD. The disciple, St. John, is believed to have lived until 100 AD. (This is based on primary evidence of men who either knew him personally, or were associated with his followers in one way or another.) So it is unlikely that the story of Christ's resurrection was completly fabricated and published in the EArly Church without his gainsaying it. And as he never wrote anything to the contrary, and he was a Bishop, I would say that it wasn't a fabrication.

Just my two cents :)

QFT, and good post :), I agree with you, I personally don't have any trouble believing, and accepting, Jesus rose from the dead, he's just not my God, that's all.

There's quite a few tales, ancient and modern, of people being resurrected, both Gods, other beings, and human, etc.

David19
July 26th, 2008, 07:05 PM
What I learned is from my University class by a highly educated man with a PH.d. ;)

At that time men didn't lead long lives, so yes the fact that the first book was written long after everyone during Jesus's lifetime is perfectly correct.

And many people today consider themselves children of the divine or of deities yet are also human. Could they rise from the dead as well?

It depends how powerful they were, or, if they had any Gods, or other Higher Powers, backing them up.

Caitlin.ann
July 26th, 2008, 07:38 PM
It depends how powerful they were, or, if they had any Gods, or other Higher Powers, backing them up.

I'm not buying it personally.

MariThorn
July 27th, 2008, 06:56 AM
I did not mean to impugn your college professor. However, what I posted are facts as close as historians and archeologists can date both items. If St. John was still alive while St Mark's version of the gospel was circulating through the Early Church, then it was not written after all of the disciple's were deceased. There is the fact that the last chapter, I believe . . . its early and I'm suffering from lack o sleep . . . of St Mark are not written by the same person who wrote the rest of the gospel. However, when takes into consideration that the Early Church was much smaller and that the early Church Fathers pretty much knew each other, and were converts from some of the original disciples . . . I seriously doubt that their entire collective invented the entire resurrection story as a grand hoax to garner even more persecution from the authorities. It would be different if they were getting something grand and glorious out of the entire "sham", but getting killed one after another (while it made them martyrs) is not exactly something that would inspire me to latch onto a lie, unless it was true and I had a deep faith in its sources.

In answer to your other postulation . . . there are medically recorded cases thoughout history of people who were thought to be dead who suddenly revived. Whether they were dieties is rather moot, the fact that resurrection is not totally unheard of rather downplays its wow factor. Now, if one of those people happened to be have followers who had seen other miracles performed, and had been told that the person in question was the son or daughter of a deity, then yeah we would see the whole storyline all over again in a different venue. Point being that it has not occurred again in that format. One has to recall that quite a few witnesses saw the risen Jesus after his death. I have a hard time, even if I were not a Catholic, in believing that many people orchestrated that big of a hoax. Then again, as someone else has already stated . . . it really boils down to faith in what you believe. If you don't believe, then it is all a bunch of hooey, and the only reason your posting is to just to voice your opinion, which is what we all are doing. My reason for posting the dates was because you sh ouldn't make an assertion about a historical fact in a rather scholarly debate when they are not supportable. Many people who have never read the Bible, or been through religious courses, or had any Church experience read these forums for knowledge, and they shouldn't be led astray by the postings.

Incidentally, I gathered my information from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I knew both of the items also because I was taught them by PH.D holding professors myself, and countless teachers in the Faith. If people want the address, then I will have to figure out how to post it. I used both the article on the Gospel of St. Mark, and the biography of St. John the Evangelist.

Marithorn