The Resurrection: Why does it matter?

[Trailblazer]

In paraphrasing Christian beliefs, I'm not worried about getting all the details of their doctrines right. If the resurrection was an "add-on", then the gospel writers weren't writing something that was true. Baha'is say it was "true" but symbolic. I don't think so. If it wasn't true, then it was a fabrication. I think they were writing a fictional story to get pagans to believe that their God/man was superior and greater than all other prophets.

I cannot say what the motives of the gospel writers were, but I do not think the stories were true. I never believed they were true, but now that I have been reading what is written on this forum about all the contradictions between the gospel accounts, I am even more certain these stories cannot be true, since it would make no logical sense to have contradictions in a true story. So if not true, it was fiction and then one has to ask why they would write it that way. I think it was probably to secure the faith of people, to get people to believe in Jesus and how special He was. But there could be other motives as well, we just cannot know what they were now.

The important point is that Jesus did not come back to life after three days, Imo, but if people want to believe that it is their choice and their right. If there was a way to prove that happened to Jesus then I might believe it, but stories are not any kind of proof that the stories are true, and the dead giveaway is that they contradict each other. Christians try to explain those contradictions away, but they are bucking a headwind on this forum because there are so many atheists and skeptics that know the Bible very well.

The stories cannot be both true AND symbolic because that is a contradiction. They were EITHER true OR symbolic and symbols are used to convey something.

They claim that this man, Jesus, was the Son of the one and only real God. He alone had the power to forgive sins. By rising from the dead, he conquered death. He "proved" himself alive to the disciples. They touched him, ate with him. He was real... and then floated off into the sky. So he was symbolically the Son of God? He symbolically forgave sins? He symbolically rose from the dead? He symbolically appeared and then disappeared? He symbolically ascended to heaven? And, we could continue. He was symbolically born of a virgin. He symbolically walked on water. He symbolically raised Lazarus from the dead and so on.

No, Jesus did not symbolically do any of those things.

Jesus, was the Son of the one and only real God, but He was not a biological Son because God does not have offspring. He was LIKE a son is to a father, a reflection of His Father and one who did His bidding. Jesus did have the power to forgive sins, Baha'u'llah wrote that, but God can also forgive sins.

You said: "By rising from the dead, he conquered death. He "proved" himself alive to the disciples. They touched him, ate with him. He was real... and then floated off into the sky."

This is not symbolic, it is just stories that are not true, Imo. Do you understand that it does not have to be symbolic just because it is not true? Everything that is not true is not symbolic, although some of it might be symbolic.

Then, the story of Jesus is fiction... and I'm fine with that. The resurrection is no big deal. And the life of Jesus is no big deal. It's a myth. Or, the improbable. It's all literally true. But for both of us... "the Baha’i explanation wanting because it does not really explain why so much was written about the resurrection in the NT, as if it really happened."

What you are doing is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Imo, you have to be selective. The life of Jesus IS a big deal, but the resurrection is not part of that life, because Jesus died on the cross and His soul ascended to heaven. Nothing else happened to Jesus after that in this world. Jesus remained in heaven, at the Right Hand of God. The later, God sent Baha'u'llah, just as Jesus promised God would do.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

It all fits together hand in glove. One does not need to be irrational to believe the Baha'i version.

The Baha'i Faith does not have an explanation for the gospel stories of the resurrection, and they cannot explain why so much was written about the resurrection in the NT, as if it really happened. Some Baha'is just fall back on what Abdul-Baha said, and although that might be the truth about what happened it does not explain away the gospel stories. I think this is where you are hung up.

So is it symbolic or a lie? For me, if it's not literally true, then it is a lie.

It is not symbolic, what would it be symbolizing? A symbolic scripture does not read as if it was a true story. All that Abdu'l-Baha was doing was giving an alternate explanation as to what actually happened after three days, that the Cause of Christ was brought back to life, but that is just another explanation of what happened.

I cannot say that the stories are lies unless I know that the gospel writers deliberately lied, but since I do not believe that they are literally true, I think they are misleading. What bothers me most is that they were being pedaled as truth and they have led people astray for 2000 years, Imo. A fictional novel is known to be fiction so it is not being pedaled as the truth, thus it is not a lie. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[blü 2]

Crucifixion was about AD25.

A Happy New Decade to you!

My sources say 30 CE, maybe 33 CE. Your 25 CE makes the reports of Paul and the gospels five years later still.

Luke's Acts ends AD 66 and he wrote his Gospel prior to Acts. So maybe his Gospel was written 20-30 years after Jesus, and taken wholly from extant texts, eye witnesses or those who heard the account from eye witnesses.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in the NT

The first gospel is Mark. It takes part of Josephus' Wars as a model for its trial scene. Wars became publicly available in 75 CE. Mark's Jesus also 'predicts' the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE as I pointed out to you. Acts was written about the same time as John, around 100 CE.

You will notice that John makes no mention of Jesus' virgin birth, for instance - doesn't mean anything, don't read stuff where it isn't.

Paul, Mark, John, omit the yarns about angelic messengers (fairy tales), all the world being taxed (unhistorical), moving stars and traveling astrologers (fairy stories), the Massacre of the Innocents (wildly unhistorical), the Flight into Egypt (blatant 'fulfilment of prophecy; nonsense, like the rest), and so on. Only in Luke (Luke 1:27) is Mary specifically a virgin. In Mark she's plainly not, and in Matthew she might or might not be. That again is blatant 'fulfilment of prophecy' hooey, the Septuagint's misrendering of of Isaiah 7:14's 'almah as parthenos.

Oh, and while Paul, Matthew, luke and John all want their Jesus to be descended from David, Mark's Jesus is not, and Matthew's and Luke's rely on bald forgeries, incompatible with other and totally fiction.

Or to put all that another way, if the magic parts of the NT are true then the magic parts of the tales of the gods of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome are no less true and can only be excluded by self-serving and spurious special pleading. After all, even Yahweh acknowledges that there are other Gods (Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;Psalms 23-24, 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 &c.). He doesn't decide that's a mistake till the Babylonian Captivity. (But that's all good ─ after all, he didn't even begin to realize he was wrong about slavery till the latter 18th century CE.)

 

[PruePhillip]

A Happy New Decade to you!

My sources say 30 CE, maybe 33 CE. Your 25 CE makes the reports of Paul and the gospels five years later still.
There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus anywhere in the NT

The first gospel is Mark. It takes part of Josephus' Wars as a model for its trial scene. Wars became publicly available in 75 CE. Mark's Jesus also 'predicts' the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE as I pointed out to you. Acts was written about the same time as John, around 100 CE.
Paul, Mark, John, omit the yarns about angelic messengers (fairy tales), all the world being taxed (unhistorical), moving stars and traveling astrologers (fairy stories), the Massacre of the Innocents (wildly unhistorical), the Flight into Egypt (blatant 'fulfilment of prophecy; nonsense, like the rest), and so on. Only in Luke (Luke 1:27) is Mary specifically a virgin. In Mark she's plainly not, and in Matthew she might or might not be. That again is blatant 'fulfilment of prophecy' hooey, the Septuagint's misrendering of of Isaiah 7:14's 'almah as parthenos.

Oh, and while Paul, Matthew, luke and John all want their Jesus to be descended from David, Mark's Jesus is not, and Matthew's and Luke's rely on bald forgeries, incompatible with other and totally fiction.

Or to put all that another way, if the magic parts of the NT are true then the magic parts of the tales of the gods of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome are no less true and can only be excluded by self-serving and spurious special pleading. After all, even Yahweh acknowledges that there are other Gods (Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 &c.). He doesn't decide that's a mistake till the Babylonian Captivity. (But that's all good ─ after all, he didn't even begin to realize he was wrong about slavery till the latter 18th century CE.)

Dates are essentially unknown, and fundamentally unimportant.
Jesus could have been born anywhere from 8 to 12 BC, last time I read.
Peter was an eyewitness to Jesus, amongst others. He mentions this in
one of his letters. John was the disciple whom Jesus loved the most -
you can see why in John's writings - he responded the most to Jesus'
love. John had no interest in law, or history, or current events, his letters
focus upon love.
The logic fallacy here regards pagan gods is that if some are false then
they are all false. You certainly wouldn't apply such logic to your own
life.
Acts was complete AD 66. The author was with Paul on his last trip to
Rome.
Re copying trial scenes. Why not say this "trial" of Jesus was taken from
Isaiah? Someone is trying to find the "best fit" to "explain away" the
Gospels.
The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem/Temple/Israel/Jews is
throughout the entire Old Testament. Again, read Jacob, and Daniel.
As Daniel puts it, the nation that would consume Israel is also the same
as would "cut off" the Messiah - to the Jews this was fantastical and
impossible as their Messiah would be a conqueror.

 

[blü 2]

Peter was an eyewitness to Jesus, amongst others. He mentions this in
one of his letters.

1 and 2 Peter are pseudepigraphs.

John was the disciple whom Jesus loved the most - you can see why in John's writings - he responded the most to Jesus' love.

Refresh my memory ─ where does it say that the Beloved Disciple was named John?

The logic fallacy here regards pagan gods is that if some are false then
they are all false. You certainly wouldn't apply such logic to your own life.

Either Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:20-22) turned the Nile into real blood (and back) or they didn't. Either Pharaoh's magicians then turned the Nile into real blood (and back) or they didn't. Either Simon the Magician was able to astonish folk with his pagan magic (Acts 9) or he wasn't. Either someone was able to win Randi's million dollars by a convincing exhibition of paranormal powers or no one was. Either we have modern authenticated examples of magic or we don't.

If Pharaoh's magicians and Simon can do magic, and God can let Moses and Aaron do magic, then there's no reason why the gods and magicians of Sumer and Egypt and Greece can't do magic too, is there?

The other possibility (and the only one backed by real evidence and testable theory) is that no one can, and it's all stories.

What's your view?

Why not say this "trial" of Jesus was taken from
Isaiah?

Weeden, as I recall, lists 24 points of similarity between Josephus' story and Mark's. How many can you list between Isaiah and Mark?

Someone is trying to find the "best fit" to "explain away" the Gospels.

No one has to explain them away ─ they have so many "so that scripture be fulfilled"s and the like that they plead guilty with a big smile.

The prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem/Temple/Israel/Jews is
throughout the entire Old Testament. Again, read Jacob, and Daniel.

We spoke about that earlier.

The point here is that prophecy is a literary device to enhance the prestige of the hero, not a credibly recorded prediction of a future highly improbable event. If I now write,

"In 1934 my grandfather had a dream in which he saw an entire Japanese city destroyed by a colossal bomb dropped from a great airplane marked with a white star on a blue roundel"​

why would you think that was any less credible than your 'prophecies' in the bible? Why isn't one prophecy whose original exact time, words and circumstances of making can't be verified, at least as good as any other prophecy in the same condition?

 

[InChrist]

Why would anyone want to be resurrected from their grave and live forever in a physical body?
I know I would never want that. That would be hell, not heaven.

According to my beliefs, death of the body does not mean the end of life, it is just the beginning of a whole new life in the spiritual world, heaven, where the immortal soul take on a new form, a spiritual body. A spiritual body has none of the needs or limitations of the physical body, no more disease and no more pain.

According to the scriptures, it is not simply a physical body, but a resurrected glorified body as Jesus has which is not limited as the physical bodies humans now have on earth, nor impacted by disease or pain.

 

[Trailblazer]

According to the scriptures, it is not simply a physical body, but a resurrected glorified body as Jesus has which is not limited as the physical bodies humans now have on earth, nor impacted by disease or pain.

Where does it say that in the scriptures?

 

[loverofhumanity]

What is your motive in saying that Bahaullah is the latest manifestation of Allah? Bragging rights, supremacy, egotism? You know Allah sent Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas immediately after sending Bahaullah. Allah wanted some change in the message given to Bahaullah. Who is Bahaullah to say that no new manfiestation will come before 1000 years? Can he stop Allah from sending new messengers?

It is what we believe that He is the latest Manifestation historically that God has sent to humanity and that after Him will appear other Manifestations.

I personally view people like Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as reformers of their particular Faith but not as independent Manifestations of God.

On the issue of which Prophet is the greatest Baha’u’llah explains it very clearly in this passage.


“Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute. God, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted”

Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

 

[CG Didymus]

contradictions between the gospel accounts,

Yes, each gospel has different people showing up at the tomb. Since the gospels were written until years later, there was time for various legends and traditions to develop.

The important point is that Jesus did not come back to life after three days

Yet, the gospel say there were eyewitnesses that saw him.

This is not symbolic, it is just stories that are not true

But the important thing for Baha'is is that the resurrection was symbolic and not literal.

The life of Jesus IS a big deal, but the resurrection is not part of that life

The resurrection is the climax of the story. The story says he was born from a virgin, then performing all sorts of miracles. If the writers threw in a fictional resurrection, how can we believe them about the other things Jesus allegedly did? For me, if it isn't true, then all of it is probably embellished stories to make Jesus greater than any other prophet... and as we know, the Church leaders made him into a God.

A symbolic scripture does not read as if it was a true story.

Yes, exactly. Some Baha'is like to point out that Jesus spoke in symbolic language. They quote things that are obviously symbolic like "let the dead bury the dead", but why did the writers make the story sound as if Jesus really did come back to life? For Christians, it is easy... because he did. I have my doubts. I think that there is a very good chance it is made up. If it's true, fine, then me and a lot of others are in big trouble . If it's not true, then nothing about Jesus or Christianity can be trusted. His life becomes a story of nothing more than myths and legends concocted by men. But can Baha'is live with that? They need Jesus to be one of the many manifestations... but not a physically resurrected God/man. So somehow, Baha'is have to interpret the resurrection story to be symbolic. I don't.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Was Jesus the only one that rose from the dead?

There were many religions and many gods in the ancient world. Many of them have been called ‘dying and rising gods’ because it is said that the legends about them include their death and resurrection. Examples include Mithras, Dionysus (Bacchus), Attis, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Adonis, Persephone and Orpheus. (Sometimes the same god appears under different names in different cultures and languages.) These religions were followed in Graeco-Roman world in the period of about 500 BCE to 400 CE, but the Egyptian myths of Osiris and Horus go back 2000 years before that.​

I do think that early Christians believed that Jesus rose physically from the dead. What would be the point of his spirit rising, anybody could do that. Or, anybody could say that, because who would have seen a spirit rising. But the supposed eyewitnesses saw Jesus and one touched him. They NT claim is that he was alive and the tomb was empty... no dead body left behind.

If Jesus did rise from the dead, and he is the only way to get your sins forgiven, then Jesus is superior to everyone else. And, I think that is exactly what the NT teaches. But, I think there is a very good argument that it was made up. That it never happened. That the early Christians embellished the story to make Jesus superior than any other god/man from the other pagan religions. However, if that's true, then Christianity is the biggest religious hoax ever. And Baha'is can't have that. So now, is the Baha'i explanation the real deal, or just a made up hoax?

To say it was symbolic and has spiritual meaning doesn't make it any different than any of the pagan Gods that died and rose. They were all symbolic too... but the story had great spiritual meaning. But those God/men we call mythological. But Jesus, even though his resurrection story is believed to be fictional, Baha'is call him a manifestation of God... along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses... who might be totally mythical characters. But, even if they really did exist, a large part of the story of their lives is probably fictional. Unless you're a born-again literal believing Christian, then those stories are literally true also. So what's the big deal if they believe Jesus rose from the dead? That's just one of many things they believe is true that other people might not.

I think that the problem with them believing that they are superior to other religions makes them prejudiced against other religions and also they have deprived themselves of the truths in the Quran and now the Bab and Baha’u’llah which have further explained their own religion as we believe it all comes from the same one God.

So by saying that they are superior they deprive themselves of the wisdom and interpretations of other Manifestations and it also prevents unity between religions.


“Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute. God, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted”

Bahá’u’lláh

So as we believe Baha’u’llah is the return of Christ then I believe that Christ Himself is not happy being Exalted above other Prophets.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is what we believe that He is the latest Manifestation historically that God has sent to humanity and that after Him will appear other Manifestations.

I personally view people like Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as reformers of their particular Faith but not as independent Manifestations of God.

Firstly, there is no reason to believe that. You should believe in Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghualam Ahmad also. What is your reason for disbelieving them and believing only in Bahaullah?

And secondly, if reformers were needed, that is same as saying that the older message was not perfect and required changes. That is what I am saying all along that Allah sent Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to rectify the mistakes in the message that was given to Bahaullah. Mirza's memssage was not only for Muslims of erstwhile India, it was for all humanity. You will incur Allah's displeasure for not believing in Mirza and that is not a good thing to do.

As you yourself quote "Allah, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted”

You are not even following Bahaullah correctly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, each gospel has different people showing up at the tomb. Since the gospels were written until years later, there was time for various legends and traditions to develop.

Yet, the gospel say there were eyewitnesses that saw him.

If the empty tomb story is not true, why would the eyewitnesses stories be true?

But the important thing for Baha'is is that the resurrection was symbolic and not literal.

To me it is just not true. I would not say it is symbolic; what would it symbolize?

The resurrection is the climax of the story. The story says he was born from a virgin, then performing all sorts of miracles. If the writers threw in a fictional resurrection, how can we believe them about the other things Jesus allegedly did? For me, if it isn't true, then all of it is probably embellished stories to make Jesus greater than any other prophet... and as we know, the Church leaders made him into a God.

I can agree they are stories. Why the stories were written is another matter.

Yes, exactly. Some Baha'is like to point out that Jesus spoke in symbolic language. They quote things that are obviously symbolic like "let the dead bury the dead", but why did the writers make the story sound as if Jesus really did come back to life? For Christians, it is easy... because he did. I have my doubts. I think that there is a very good chance it is made up. If it's true, fine, then me and a lot of others are in big trouble . If it's not true, then nothing about Jesus or Christianity can be trusted.

I have no doubts. As far as I am concerned there is no chance it is true, so I am not undecided.
Yes, it is hard to understand why the writers made it sound real, and I do not think we will ever know. It is just a very sad state of affairs, very sad.

That is a good point. I still think that Jesus existed and He could be trusted, but I would not trust Christianity

His life becomes a story of nothing more than myths and legends concocted by men. But can Baha'is live with that? They need Jesus to be one of the many manifestations... but not a physically resurrected God/man. So somehow, Baha'is have to interpret the resurrection story to be symbolic. I don't.

Baha'is can live with it because we have the truth about Jesus that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha revealed... He was a Manifestation of God. It is as easy as pie. We do not need the gospel accounts to know who Jesus was, that just muddies up the waters.

But if you want to know who Jesus was according to the gospels you could figure that out, if you could disregard the resurrection stories as being literal. You know, there are Christians who do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and they are reading the same Bible, so that is logical proof that the NT can be interpreted differently and it is not only Bahais who do so.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Firstly, there is no reason to believe that. You should believe in Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghualam Ahmad also. What is your reason for disbelieving them and believing only in Bahaullah?

And secondly, if reformers were needed, that is same as saying that the older message was not perfect and required changes. That is what I am saying all along that Allah sent Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to rectify the mistakes in the message that was given to Bahaullah. Mirza's memssage was not only for Muslims of erstwhile India, it was for all humanity. You will incur Allah's displeasure for not believing in Mirza and that is not a good thing to do.

As you yourself quote "Allah, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted”

You are not even following Bahaullah correctly.

One is just another sect of Christianity while the other another sect of Islam but not Founders of a New Faith.

 

[PruePhillip]

1 and 2 Peter are pseudepigraphs.

And I suppose they are all fabrications of some early Catholic church?
I am fine with accepting that Peter, John, James and Paul being the
authors of their own letters. We have no idea who wrote Hebrews, and
we don't know if the James epistle was written by Jesus' own brother.
It's all a mystery - but this makes the point that some writings were
associated with particular people from way back, and others remain a
mystery - no-one just added names.
Again, the writings bear some resemblance to the figures of the New
Testament. I would take any alternative "evidence" with a strong degree
of suspicion.

 

[PruePhillip]

If Pharaoh's magicians and Simon can do magic, and God can let Moses and Aaron do magic, then there's no reason why the gods and magicians of Sumer and Egypt and Greece can't do magic too, is there?
The other possibility (and the only one backed by real evidence and testable theory) is that no one can, and it's all stories.
What's your view?

There's lots of people today who claim all sorts of miraculous powers. I attended a
"Gospel" service where a woman was healed and she could throw away her crutches.
Saw her later in the street, still gripping her crutches.
The writings attributed to Moses (perhaps falsely) include Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
But these two books are now observed in Shiloh excavations ca 1100 BC - some 200 years
after Moses - not something invented Greek times 1,000 years later. Atheists quietly amend
their "arguments."

 

[Aupmanyav]

One is just another sect of Christianity while the other another sect of Islam but not Founders of a New Faith.

Bahais too believe in Allah of Abraham. You too are a sect of Jews, Christians and Muslims, successively. You believe in manifestation of Allah as Moses, as Jesus and as Mohammad. You do not believe in the multiplicity of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism, and Buddhism has no God. You are no different from other Abrahamic religions. Ahmadiyyas accept that.

 

[blü 2]

And I suppose they are all fabrications of some early Catholic church?
I am fine with accepting that Peter, John, James and Paul being the authors of their own letters.

So you think the average Galilean fisherman was fully literate in Greek and familiar with classical Greek philosophy? I don't. We have no idea who wrote the bulk of the NT, starting with the gospels, nor what the original texts read, nor who might subsequently have altered them, either deliberately or by incorporating someone else's sidenotes when copying the text. It seems clear that Paul didn't write the Pastorals, and that the custom of attributing your own document to someone else with more prestige than you so that people would read it, was well known in those days. No surprise that there are pseudepigraphs in the NT.

And right in front of you you have the gospels ─ the author of Matthew rewriting Mark to 'correct' its Christology and to add some favored bit and subtract some 'unsuitable' parts; and the author of Luke doing the same thing to them both, and the author of John still using Mark's outline but spinning his own tale more liberally. Facts aren't needed, history's irrelevant, so we have at least five different kinds of Jesus.

I would take any alternative "evidence" with a strong degree
of suspicion.

You should take all evidence about ancient documents, religious or otherwise, skeptically. But no doubt faith can relieve one of the efforts required by common sense.

There's lots of people today who claim all sorts of miraculous powers. I attended a "Gospel" service where a woman was healed and she could throw away her crutches. Saw her later in the street, still gripping her crutches.

That doesn't address the issue I raised. Do you believe in magic or don't you? If you accept the reality of prophecy ─ supernatural foreknowledge ─ as I understand you to say you do, then you believe in magic.

Do you believe that Moses and Aaron turned the Nile into real blood? Do you believe Pharaoh's magicians did the same? Do you believe Simon was indeed a magician, as Acts says? Where in fact do you stand on these and related questions, including miracles (magic attributed to gods)?

Doesn't that oblige you to credit all reports of magic?

And what about the prophecy I attributed to my grandfather? You have as much evidence as to exactly when, and what, and who, about that, as you have about any purported prophecy in the bible, after all.

What objective test do you use to determine which tales are accurate reports about real events, and which are not?

Or do you just believe the bits you like?

 

[PruePhillip]

So you think the average Galilean fisherman was fully literate in Greek and familiar with classical Greek philosophy?

It's a myth the followers of Jesus were
a - poor
b - ignorant

many were very rich (Zachius, Nicodemus, Mary and Martha, Centurian, Joseph Arithemia, John and James
Zebedee etc..)
and many back then learned Greek because it was the lingua franca of the ancient world. Many others who
went into the ministry had no choice - they had to learn Greek/Latin and whatever else that was required.

And WHY do people ascribe these authors to another generation altogether? Because the Gospels would
be more confronting if they were eye witness. It's easier to dismiss them the further away they are claimed
to be written. Frankly, it doesn't matter who or when they were written - the issue is: are they true?
If Exodus says the Nile went red then that's an issue of faith - you can't prove nor disprove. What you CAN
prove/disprove is when predictions were made that turned out to be patently false. Moses gave himself as a
model of the Messiah Redeemer (Moses the "meekest man in all the world") who said there would be a Jewish
nation but it would be lost due to disobedience - the nation Moses was leading them to.

 

[blü 2]

It's a myth the followers of Jesus were
a - poor
b - ignorant

We weren't talking about 'followers of Jesus', we were talking about Peter. It's an express part of the tale that Peter was a Galilean fisherman, and Galilean fishermen weren't notorious for their fluent and polished Greek prose and a classical education of the day.

And WHY do people ascribe these authors to another generation altogether? Because the Gospels would be more confronting if they were eye witness.

Now you're being silly, trying to blame me because not one of your sources is an eyewitness. Is it also my fault that not a single contemporary reference to Jesus has ever been found? Did I rig it so that no one would even mention him till twenty years or more after his purported death, or that no one would write a purported biography of him till forty-five years down the track, cobbled together from flytings on passages in the Tanakh and borrowings from Josephus and maybe some sayings attributed to him? Did I pay someone to make sure that there were five or more Jesuses in the NT rather than one?

No, I didn't. The package comes complete with those features built in for no extra charge.

You appear to be dodging the invitation to state your position on supernatural claims too. It'd be helpful to our discussions if you instead cleared up the points I've raised. Who knows but it might clarify your own thoughts too ─ I've found it one of the great advantages of net discussions, and that I learn most by sorting out and answering the questions I've found hardest.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

On the contrary, I'm reading the whole and finding six incompatible accounts. the earliest at least twenty and the latest about seventy years after the event ─ none contemporary, none independent, none by an eye-witness. The reports together have not the slightest credibility even in ordinary terms, let alone addressing the special problems of demonstrating a miracle.
How, exactly? No one noticed it at the time, no one mentions it until we come to Paul at least twenty years after the alleged crucifixion and resurrection. If it had been an historical event capable of shaking the Roman polity, do you really think it could go missing from history for twenty years?
That would be considered a fair reason to execute someone in those days, and the gospels point the finger at the Jewish religious leadership rather than the Romans. But the author of Mark greatly overstates the public impact of his Jesus, whom he devises principally from passages in the Tanakh which it pleases him to see as messianic prophecies (and as Ted Weeden points out, his trial scene of Jesus is based on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus son of Ananias in Wars bk 6 ch. 5.3).
What Mr Rockwell lacks in historical nous and accuracy he makes for in invention.
That kind of argument is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

None of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus. Paul's statements about the earthly life of Jesus fit into two lines; he never names Jesus' parents or mentions his birth, never says why Jesus was arrested and crucified, even says that Jesus wasn't called Jesus until after his death (Philippians 2:9-10). The author of Mark devises his story by moving his Jesus through those 'messianic prophecies' I mentioned; and he may have had some sayings attributed to Jesus as well. The authors of Matthew and Luke draw on this, the only purported biography of substance, and rewrite it to fit their respective theologies, 'prophecies', sayings and tales. The author of John, a gnostic like Paul, also uses Mark for his outline. However, one piece of evidence that arguably favors an historical Jesus is the way he never mentions his mother without vituperation, the sole exception being John's crucifixion scene (Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).

You are still doing it. You know how I know? Because you're not quoting text as a whole. Not only does this create a nuisance, since quotes don't get shown the second time around, meaning I can't respond to your responses, but you're effectively strawmanning everything I say by not recognizing it as a persuasive argument that is meant to be taken as "this leads to that, which leads to that, which leads to conclusion." Instead you're like " I attacked one point here (out of context if you ignore the rest), I ignore that point entirely, I attack a third point, and you're argument is no good. " No, and I will wager money that you still haven't understood what I originally said. I'll look but at this point I'm pretty close to sticking you on my ignore list.

Alright, yeah, I'm to the point where I really can't read your res because you don't provide any context. This is bad quoting. Don't do this.

These are not six eyewitnesses. This is not a court case. But if it were, the fact that there are some discrepancies is actually good. If there were a conspiracy, you would see six nearly identical texts, as they all compared notes. But they aren't plagiarizing, and they aren't all talking among each other to get a story straight. These are different perspectives by different people.

For example, Luke is written by a physician. He describes in depth various diseases as well as the crucifixion in detail. In The Case For Christ, they mention that the actual US Medical Board, about the most indifferent group in terms of religion, can show medically that Jesus did not swoon and did in fact die on the cross. It's medically accurate.
John on the other hand, is not written by John, despite the name (John was a bit of a narcissist, as shown by his title as one of the "sons of thunder" and his request to be at Jesus's right/left hand with hos brother). The tone of this passage is quite different, making it not written by John at all but by the dusciple Jesus loved. In fact, a book known as The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved makes a convincing case that it's Lazarus who wrote it, since it starts mentioning this disciple just after Lazarus is raised, and the disciple especially believes when he sees the burial rags off to the side (he knows their significance).
Mark is written as if everything happened "immediately" and is targeted towards Gentiles.
Matthew is written for Jews, and tend to emphasize how Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

Each of these (the other two are outside the Gospel) is written from a perspective. Now suppose on Sunday, you had four groups (or six groups). Would they all come at the same time? No, this would be a parade. They would come for different reasons at different times, and see different things. Let's discuss a kidnapping for instance, since essentially this is similar. The first guy arrives first and last, returning later. He sees the place before the kidnapping and after everything else, where the side of the house is blown up and everyone has gone. The second person sees four guys set explosives, and runs to the police. The third guy sees an actual kidnapping take place, and follows after them. The fourth guy arrives as a police officer tells everyone there has been a kidnapping. The first guy arrives again after everyone is gone. Are these four different events? Or is it a kidnapping?

Now, strictly speaking this is probably not as strict a sequence as the above, and some of these women probably stuck around longer and got to see an overlap (one angel leaving or more coming or whatever). These are stories that contradict each other, only if you're stupid and don't understand how events actually work. I've been to political events where you could see the planners setting them up. But then the media comes, and by that time the staging is done, and it looks spontaneous. Different perspective is everything. Likewise, I was actually interviewed by a reporter once, on a store that had been stolen from. The thing is, I saw only the aftermath, and to me it just looked understocked. But I was happt to play the BS game to get my 15 minutes of fame. I've got my own Christ resurrection story to tell, but I imagine you'd not believe that one either.

For that matter, Jesus is not a historical figure at all. He's ALSO a historical figure. This is an important distinction, because he's also something first. People accuse Jesus of being a plagiarized figure from Mithras (I think his name was), and he also bears similarities to Osiris and other deities before or since. This is explained by John. "The Word was in the beginning with God." Jesus ( the Word Made Flesh) was always there, and will always be there, even if the last person forgets Christianity.

 

[PruePhillip]

We weren't talking about 'followers of Jesus', we were talking about Peter. It's an express part of the tale that Peter was a Galilean fisherman, and Galilean fishermen weren't notorious for their fluent and polished Greek prose and a classical education of the day.
Now you're being silly, trying to blame me because not one of your sources is an eyewitness. Is it also my fault that not a single contemporary reference to Jesus has ever been found?

No eyewitness has been found? Peter wrote letters stating he was an eyewitness.
Others documented the person of Peter - fisherman, preacher, writer.
Who is saying this was all fabricated? Or more importantly, what evidence is there
someone fabricated the character of Peter?
Not sure of your supernatural statement - the supernatural in the bible is an article
of faith. Yes, there's now evidence for the House of David, but God's dealings with
David remain forever as an article of faith. You can't prove the supernatural, and
you can't disprove it.

But again, I see in the explicit prophecies concerning the Messiah, Israel and the
Jewish people a form of the supernatural. eg did Jesus warn the people about the
coming destruction or was it applied afterwards? Well, Jesus said the Jews would
lose Jerusalem (AD 135) but they would gain it back again (AD 1967)