The resurrection of Jesus is fact

SteveB

Well-known member
And there's a rather curious political event that shows it to be so.


There's long been a meme floating around facebook, regarding the resurrection of Jesus.


1617482616446.png

It's a rather curious phenomenon.

If the politically powerful were unable to keep their secret just long enough to survive the barrage of law enforcement investigators, who could not beat, flog, etc...., why on earth would you think that the apostles, who would, and were beaten, flogged, stoned, whipped, and eventually murdered for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead, could hide it, if he did not in fact rise.
 

Lucian

Member
The thought is usually that, assuming we can know what Jesus' disciples thought, they were sincerely of the view that Jesus had been resurrected, rather than trying to cover up what they knew to be a fraud. Colson's quotation is best revised to say "They would not have endured that if it weren't thought to be true by them", in which case he's quite right.

My own view is that we can't really know what the disciples' believed about this, beyond the fact that at least some thought that Jesus' death wasn't a terminus.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
The thought is usually that, assuming we can know what Jesus' disciples thought,
The disciples documented their thoughts in their letters, and their preaching, as documented in the book of Acts. So no assumptions are necessary.
That you want to assume that they didn't actually document their thoughts, and their preaching and activities following the resurrection, that's a you thing.



they were sincerely of the view that Jesus had been resurrected,
Rather curious....
Have you ever actually read the book of Acts?

rather than trying to cover up what they knew to be a fraud,
yeah, except for the fact that they knew it wasn't a fraud. Otherwise they would not have gone to their deaths.

Colson's quotation is best revised to say "They would not have endured that if it weren't thought to be true by them", in which case he's quite right.
Ah! Ok. This makes perfect sense now. YOU actually need it to be a fraud so you can excuse yourself from culpability of the knowledge that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
That's all you had to say. Have a nice life.

My own view is that we can't really know what the disciples' believed about this, beyond the fact that at least some thought that Jesus' death wasn't a terminus.
Pity. Because the only way that you can actually make this claim is by choosing deliberate and willful ignorance.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The thought is usually that, assuming we can know what Jesus' disciples thought, they were sincerely of the view that Jesus had been resurrected, rather than trying to cover up what they knew to be a fraud. Colson's quotation is best revised to say "They would not have endured that if it weren't thought to be true by them", in which case he's quite right.

My own view is that we can't really know what the disciples' believed about this, beyond the fact that at least some thought that Jesus' death wasn't a terminus.
How do you prove a "can't really know" assertion?

I don't suggest attempts to revise quotes from people.

The Serpent tempted Eve with the can't really know assertion and false quotations.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
And there's a rather curious political event that shows it to be so.
...
There's long been a meme floating around facebook, regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
...
It's a rather curious phenomenon.

If the politically powerful were unable to keep their secret just long enough to survive the barrage of law enforcement investigators, who could not beat, flog, etc...., why on earth would you think that the apostles, who would, and were beaten, flogged, stoned, whipped, and eventually murdered for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead, could hide it, if he did not in fact rise.
I am going to echo Lucian; the disciples certainly believe Jesus was resurrected, but that does not make it so.

But more than that, it does not mean that what they believed happened matches the story Christianity promotes today.

The image says the 12 apostles (including Judas?) preached the resurrection for 40 years. That takes up to about when the Gospel of Mark was written. All the other gospels were written after the apostles - and indeed all the witnesses - were likely dead. Add in to that the fact that the second half of Mark 16 was added later, and you end up with a very different Easter story.

Mark 16:16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of [a]James, and Salome bought spices so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb for us?” 4 And looking up, they *noticed that the stone had been rolled away; for it was extremely large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 But he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

What we now have is the disciples seeing the risen Jesus in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem at all, and with no suggestion of a bodily resurrection at all. These things were added later.

The disciples preached that they had seen the risen Jesus, but it looks to me like they believed they had seen Jesus resurrected in a new body, and had seen him in Galilee.

Yes, they preached the resurrection, but was that bodily resurrection or resurrection in a new body? We do not know.

Yes, they preached the resurrection, but did they claim the risen Jesus was in Jerusalem or only Galilee? We do not know.
 

Komodo

Active member
And there's a rather curious political event that shows it to be so.


There's long been a meme floating around facebook, regarding the resurrection of Jesus.


View attachment 1064

It's a rather curious phenomenon.

If the politically powerful were unable to keep their secret just long enough to survive the barrage of law enforcement investigators, who could not beat, flog, etc...., why on earth would you think that the apostles, who would, and were beaten, flogged, stoned, whipped, and eventually murdered for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead, could hide it, if he did not in fact rise.
It is obviously possible for a devout believer to accept torture and death rather than betray his faith, as he understands it, even if the believer was not a witness to the supernatural events he believes in. And that unquestionably did happen; many of the early Christian martyrs could not have been witnesses to Jesus' death and resurrection, because they were born too late and/or too far away.

So it cannot reasonably be said that the faithfulness of the apostles proves the resurrection, because it isn't the case that the only way they would have accepted torture and death for their faith would be if they were actual witnesses to the resurrection.
 
Last edited:

SteveB

Well-known member
I am going to echo Lucian; the disciples certainly believe Jesus was resurrected, but that does not make it so.
Ah, let me guess, you're among the multiple people, 40 day hallucination crowd.

But more than that, it does not mean that what they believed happened matches the story Christianity promotes today.
Well, what your ideas of christianity are and what cultural christianity are, and what biblical christianity actually consists of are quite different.
Why do you think I departed cultural christianity 50 years ago?




The image says the 12 apostles (including Judas?)
No. Not Judas. I thought you said you actually read the bible (that should have included the book of Acts, specifically chapter one).
Act 1:1-26 WEB 1 The first book I wrote, Theophilus, concerned all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, 2 until the day in which he was received up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 To these he also showed himself alive after he suffered, by many proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking about God’s Kingdom. 4 Being assembled together with them, he commanded them, “Don’t depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which you heard from me. 5 For John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, are you now restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It isn’t for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set within his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. You will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.” 9 When he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 While they were looking steadfastly into the sky as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white clothing, 11 who also said, “You men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who was received up from you into the sky, will come back in the same way as you saw him going into the sky.” 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. 13 When they had come in, they went up into the upper room where they were staying; that is Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer and supplication, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. 15 In these days, Peter stood up in the middle of the disciples (and the number of names was about one hundred twenty), and said, 16 “Brothers, it was necessary that this Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to those who took Jesus. 17 For he was counted with us, and received his portion in this ministry. 18 Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness, and falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines gushed out. 19 It became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem that in their language that field was called ‘Akeldama,’ that is, ‘The field of blood.’ 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation be made desolate. Let no one dwell in it;’ and, ‘Let another take his office.’ 21 “Of the men therefore who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, to the day that he was received up from us, of these one must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 They put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 They prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.” 26 They drew lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.


preached the resurrection for 40 years. That takes up to about when the Gospel of Mark was written. All the other gospels were written after the apostles - and indeed all the witnesses - were likely dead.
Were LIKELY dead....

Oh, well.... gosh...... gee!
I guess that solves it then! Just as long as you believe that they were LIKELY dead.... actual history doesn't matter.

Thank you for clarifying your ignorance.


Add in to that the fact that the second half of Mark 16 was added later, and you end up with a very different Easter story.

Mark 16:16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of [a]James, and Salome bought spices so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb for us?” 4 And looking up, they *noticed that the stone had been rolled away; for it was extremely large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 But he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

What we now have is the disciples seeing the risen Jesus in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem at all, and with no suggestion of a bodily resurrection at all. These things were added later.
According to the gospel of John, they were at the Galilee and Jerusalem, so whatever axe you apparently have to grind, it seems to me that you should simply read all 4 gospels and the book of Acts.



The disciples preached that they had seen the risen Jesus, but it looks to me like they believed they had seen Jesus resurrected in a new body, and had seen him in Galilee.
And yet the other gospels and Acts show both places.

Yes, they preached the resurrection, but was that bodily resurrection or resurrection in a new body? We do not know.
You don't know?
Curious.
In other words, you haven't actually read the resurrection accounts in all 4 gospels and Acts.

Joh 20:25-31 WEB 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 After eight days again his disciples were inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, the doors being locked, and stood in the middle, and said, “Peace be to you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don’t be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.” 30 Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.​

Thomas apparently got it.

Yes, they preached the resurrection, but did they claim the risen Jesus was in Jerusalem or only Galilee? We do not know.
If you don't know, you're not reading, more importantly, you're not talking to God for yourself.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
It is obviously possible for a devout believer to accept torture and death rather than betray his faith, as he understands it, even if the believer was not a witness to the supernatural events he believes in. And that unquestionably did happen; many of the early Christian martyrs could not have been witnesses to Jesus' death and resurrection, because they were born too late and/or too far away.

So it cannot reasonably be said that the faithfulness of the apostles proves the resurrection, because it isn't the case that the only way they would have accepted torture and death for their faith would be if they were actual witnesses to the resurrection.
I agree with this, but I'd like to point out that we have no credible evidence that the apostles actually existed. Whether they suffered for their faith is therefore not anywhere close to being in evidence.

ps. on a personal note, I've decided it's time to stop letting Christians frame the discussions around here. I've put up with such things for several decades: assuming Christ existed in order to answer questions involving him, assuming the resurrection took place in order to engage in civil dialog with them, assuming certain passages of scripture are true, etc. While there are clear exceptions, the majority of Christians here aren't interested in listening to the answers they get, nor in considering the opinions they receive. For me, this means I'm under no obligation to allow them to assume the validity of their faith, just for the sake of polite conversation.

Those who want polite conversation have had enough time to demonstrate this.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I agree with this, but I'd like to point out that we have no credible evidence that the apostles actually existed. Whether they suffered for their faith is therefore not anywhere close to being in evidence.

ps. on a personal note, I've decided it's time to stop letting Christians frame the discussions around here. I've put up with such things for several decades: assuming Christ existed in order to answer questions involving him, assuming the resurrection took place in order to engage in civil dialog with them, assuming certain passages of scripture are true, etc. While there are clear exceptions, the majority of Christians here aren't interested in listening to the answers they get, nor in considering the opinions they receive. For me, this means I'm under no obligation to allow them to assume the validity of their faith, just for the sake of polite conversation.

Those who want polite conversation have had enough time to demonstrate this.
Well. I've been waiting for atheists to provide actual evidence that God doesn't exist. I've been talking with people on the internet for over 2 decades now.
Let's see..... 21-22 years talking with people in general and since October 2003 specifically with atheists.

So, if you have actual proof, then provide it. Otherwise, get over yourself.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Well. I've been waiting for atheists to provide actual evidence that God doesn't exist. I've been talking with people on the internet for over 2 decades now.
Let's see..... 21-22 years talking with people in general and since October 2003 specifically with atheists.


So, if you have actual proof, then provide it. Otherwise, get over yourself.
This is typical of you to be so ignorant as to how we should determine what's true or not in this case. It's impossible to disprove God. No matter what atheists might show accounts for something, theists could always claim God was behind it. So if there is a grand theory that account's for the universe and everything theists could still claim God was behind it all and it would be impossible to disprove. God might not exist and He would still be impossible to disprove. This is why not being able to disprove God is a point of no consequence.

This is why logically when it comes to determining whether God exists or not we should go with watertight evidence for God, not when there is no evidence against God. Not being able to disprove God is a no evidence against position.

You again show your lack of critical thinking.
 

Lucian

Member
I agree with this, but I'd like to point out that we have no credible evidence that the apostles actually existed. Whether they suffered for their faith is therefore not anywhere close to being in evidence.

ps. on a personal note, I've decided it's time to stop letting Christians frame the discussions around here. I've put up with such things for several decades: assuming Christ existed in order to answer questions involving him, assuming the resurrection took place in order to engage in civil dialog with them, assuming certain passages of scripture are true, etc. While there are clear exceptions, the majority of Christians here aren't interested in listening to the answers they get, nor in considering the opinions they receive. For me, this means I'm under no obligation to allow them to assume the validity of their faith, just for the sake of polite conversation.

Those who want polite conversation have had enough time to demonstrate this.
You're well outside scholarly orthodoxy in saying some of these things. It's roughly the equivalent of a creationist voice in the context of modern physics or biology.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You're well outside scholarly orthodoxy in saying some of these things.
I see you as a reasonable thoughtful person here, and coupled with the fact that I have very little exposure to modern scholarly Christian orthodoxy, I'm willing to accept the above as true.

It's roughly the equivalent of a creationist voice in the context of modern physics or biology.
I categorically reject this, however. The second that scholarly Christian orthodoxy reaches the empirical credibility of physics or biology, please come find me ;)

Less abstractly, I'm willing to do some scholarly reading on whether Jesus' disciples actually existed, and am ready to reconsider my relatively informed opinion on the matter if you can provide me with some materiel here. I've seen what the average Christian apologist (not you) considers "evidence" in these discussions, and thus will not assume it exists.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Well. I've been waiting for atheists to provide actual evidence that God doesn't exist.
Perhaps you will allow a Buddhist to provide evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Start with the Bible claim that God is unchanging: "For I, the Lord, do not change;" -- Malachi 3:6

Now consider how the opening verses of Genesis would read with an unchanging God:

"On the first day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the second day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the third day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the fourth day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the fifth day..."​

That is what an unchanging God would do, but the god of Genesis changes.

Similarly, when Moses asks God to part the sea so the Hebrews can cross, an unchanging God would answer something like: "I am sorry Moses. I did not part the sea yesterday so I cannot part the sea today because I am unchanging and so I cannot do today what I did not do yesterday."

The Bible God is changing and unchanging. That is a basic logical contradiction. You can have one God with only one of those properties, or you can have two different Gods, one changing and one unchanging. You cannot have a single God with both contradictory properties.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Ah, let me guess, you're among the multiple people, 40 day hallucination crowd.
Not sure exactly what that is. I think the disciples saw something, perhaps a hallucination, that they believed was Jesus, at some point after they returned to their lives in Galilee.

Well, what your ideas of christianity are and what cultural christianity are, and what biblical christianity actually consists of are quite different.
Why do you think I departed cultural christianity 50 years ago?
Not sure what your point is here.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between what the disciples believed and what Christianity promotes. The disciples believed they had seen Jesus risen in a brand new body in Galilee. Christianity wants us to think they saw Jesus risen in his original body in Jerusalem.

No. Not Judas. I thought you said you actually read the bible (that should have included the book of Acts, specifically chapter one).
If you look at the quote that YOU posted in YOUR original post, it says "12 men testified" that they saw the risen Jesus. It reads as though he thinks all the twelve disciples, which would include Judas.

I have read much of the Bible, which is why I queried it. Take it up with Chuck Colson.

Were LIKELY dead....

Oh, well.... gosh...... gee!
I guess that solves it then! Just as long as you believe that they were LIKELY dead.... actual history doesn't matter.

Thank you for clarifying your ignorance.
The Gospel of Matthew was written around AD 90. If the disciples were a similar age to Jesus, that would make them ninety. We cannot know for sure, but yes, it is likely that they were all dead at this point. According to Christianity a whole bunch of them were martyred, for one thing.

According to the gospel of John, they were at the Galilee and Jerusalem, so whatever axe you apparently have to grind, it seems to me that you should simply read all 4 gospels and the book of Acts.
The point is that the Jerusalem appearances were all made up, after the disciples were all dead, and not available to say otherwise.

Mark is clear that Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee. Jesus prophecies that the disciples will disperse and that he will go on ahead of them, to meet them there:

Mark 14:27 And Jesus *said to them, “You will all [m]fall away, because it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 28 But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

The the angel(?) tells the women Jesuis has already gone on ahead:

Mark 16:6 But he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

This is the gospel that was written while the disciples were still alive, a mere forty years later.

And yet the other gospels and Acts show both places.
Because they include accounts that were made up later.

Either Mark is wrong, and Jesus appeared first in Jerusalem, or Luke and John are wrong, and Jesus appeared first in Galilee. Jesus cannot have done both. I think it far more likely Mark is right because the gospel is much earlier.

You don't know?
Curious.
In other words, you haven't actually read the resurrection accounts in all 4 gospels and Acts.
I have read the resurrection accounts - I just do not believe them all.

Thomas apparently got it.
If the text is true, which is unlikely, given Mark.

If you don't know, you're not reading, more importantly, you're not talking to God for yourself.
If I do not "know", it is because I do not assume the Bible must be true, and so I am not labouring under the delusion of a certainty that is not warranted.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Perhaps you will allow a Buddhist to provide evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Start with the Bible claim that God is unchanging: "For I, the Lord, do not change;" -- Malachi 3:6

Now consider how the opening verses of Genesis would read with an unchanging God:

"On the first day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the second day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the third day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the fourth day, God said, 'Let there be light.' And on the fifth day..."​

That is what an unchanging God would do, but the god of Genesis changes.

Similarly, when Moses asks God to part the sea so the Hebrews can cross, an unchanging God would answer something like: "I am sorry Moses. I did not part the sea yesterday so I cannot part the sea today because I am unchanging and so I cannot do today what I did not do yesterday."

The Bible God is changing and unchanging. That is a basic logical contradiction. You can have one God with only one of those properties, or you can have two different Gods, one changing and one unchanging. You cannot have a single God with both contradictory properties.
Hmm....

Ok.

Where do you show that YHVH changed in creating the cosmos?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Hmm....

Ok.

Where do you show that YHVH changed in creating the cosmos?
He changed from "I will create in future" to "I am creating now" to "I have created in the past." He is not continually creating the same planet earth. The planet is changing, so the original earth is no longer present. No more land dinosaurs for example.

I could also quote Genesis as written. God does different things on different days,. That is He does different things at different times. Difference over time is change. The unchanging is identical for all time; the changing has differences over time. I gave the example of parting the sea for Moses. The sea was not parted in Abraham's time. It was parted, briefly, in Moses' time. It was not parted in Solomon's time. Again, change over time in God's actions.

You could separate God's actions, which change from the unchanging God, but that makes for a powerless unchanging God who cannot act, because action requires change. This is equivalent to the option of two gods to separate the two incompatible properties of stasis and change.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Less abstractly, I'm willing to do some scholarly reading on whether Jesus' disciples actually existed, and am ready to reconsider my relatively informed opinion on the matter if you can provide me with some materiel here. I've seen what the average Christian apologist (not you) considers "evidence" in these discussions, and thus will not assume it exists.
No you won't.

You claimed to be "born" a Christian. Do you know why you made that false claim?

None of the disciples were born Christian. Jesus says Ye must be born again.

Buddha places a lot of emphasis on dishonesty.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

No babies born Christian.

Buddist false claim


Your mind reading powers have failed you. I was born and brought up Christian so I know about Christianity from the inside.
 
Top