The resurrection of Jesus.

[Autodidact]

About all this gospel stuff, I'd like to give a personal perspective. I was raised Jewish, and am not atheist. I have never been Christian. I had a vague notion that the New Testament was recorded centuries after the time it refers to, that is was basically recorded myth, and that in all probability there was no such person as Yeshua in Jerusalem. I was shocked when I learned how soon after His death the first manuscript of the first gospel is thought to have been recorded, and that there is in existence an actual scrap of a part of a gospel from the second century C.E. I was quite surprised to learn that the mainstream historical view is that there was such a person as Yeshua.

On learning these things, which are strongly favorable to believing Christianity, I had to adjust my worldview considerably.

But these facts, which, as I say, strongly favor Christianity, are not good enough for Christian apologists, because they don't conform to their mythology that the gospels were written by the apostles who were eye-witnesses. So instead of the favorable truth being known and accepted, these apologists continue to disseminate their lies about apostles seeing things and writing them down, as well as being martyred for their belief. They seem to think that a more favorable lie is more persuasive than the remarkable enough truth.

And for me, this greatly undercuts their belief, their credibility, their whole message. They never seem to get it that truth matters, and that it is better to accept, live and tell the truth. Therefore they are not wise, but fools and charlatans, with nothing of value to teach me.

FAIL

p.s. ETA: Why do I think it's so remarkable? You get a picture of an oral history that starts at or soon before Yeshua's death, and people talking about what happened, caring about it, and eventually writing it down as best they were able. That says to me that something happened that impacted them greatly, that changed their lives, and motivated them to start a religion based on that experience. That's a great big hairy deal, and were I a Christian apologist, where I would be starting in my evidentiary arguments.

But, as I say, the truth is not good enough for them. More pity them.

 

[Thief]

Out of all of the supernatural claims made about Jesus, this is one that I have the hardest time with. Just to start out, I do not believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus. The reason being that it defies what we knows happen. People simply do not come back from the dead. Since it is a miracle, it is the least likely thing to occur in that situation.

I've heard a couple of theories on explanations of how the resurrection came into the Jesus tradition. The one that I like the most, at this point, is the idea that in a time of grief, a human can have visions of the dead. We have many documented cases of this phenomena, so it is a logical possibility. It still happens to this day, and even looking at various third world countries (parts of Asia, especially underdeveloped parts of India), there have been cases in which people are believed to have come back from the dead.

The problem with this theory that I see is that multiple people having a vision of Jesus, at the same time, would be unlikely. It is somewhat of a stretch to assume that all of the visions can be explained from this phenomena, especially considering the accounts of him appearing before large groups. My only explanation for this would be something I've seen happen frequently when performing magic. That is the fact that people have a tendency to create a miracle in their minds, and honestly believe it. But I don't think that perfectly fits either.

Another interesting idea that I've considered is the possibility that Jesus did survive the crucifixion. However, just knowing what the crucifixion entailed, I am more apt to believe that he was left on the cross, and later picked apart by scavenging animals.

So what is the most likely explanation for the resurrection of Jesus?

So the op is about life after death.....rather than who wrote about it.
The discussion should be focused on resurrection.

If you don't believe say nay and move on.
If you do believe....why?

I say there is life after death.
It is spiritual.
If you continue beyond your last breath....good for you.
If not....too bad.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

More could be said concerning this uninformed view but let me simply point out what should be the obvious. You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul. Uh...forgive me, but both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves. So at the very least what you acknowledge here is that both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." Uh...no...according to even you, at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus! So, thank you for disproving your own argument.

Paul never met Jesus that I know of, and if he said he had, the gospels certainly don't verify it. As for Mark of Alexandria authoring Mark, that is how the tradition goes, but don't go counting tradition for hard proof.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooGirl02
So His disciples put forth a lie which they were willing to die for? Hardly!

I'm so tired of this myth. Myths are hard to eradicate. We do not know who these people were, how they died, or whether they really lived. You may believe what you like, but asserting it as fact is irresponsible or dishonest.

Ever heard of Polycarp? Clement of Rome? How about Ignatius of Antioch?

 

[kingdombuilder]

Paul never met Jesus that I know of, and if he said he had, the gospels certainly don't verify it. As for Mark of Alexandria authoring Mark, that is how the tradition goes, but don't go counting tradition for hard proof.

Do you believe he met the first disciples of Jesus (Peter, James, ect...)?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, from the P52 fragment and other evidence, John is generally dated from 90 to 150 C.E., so again I fail to see what kingdom is driving at.

btw, when I learned of the existence of P52 a few years ago, I was thunderstruck with the immense historical significance of this relatively unknown scrap of papyrus.

To me, as a Jew, it symbolizes the Christian disinterest in scholarship and books in favor of rumor and myth. If this were a Jewish artifact, it would be the holiest and most venerated object in Judaism.

Since it is Christian, few Christians have heard of it, and instead have a vague notion that the gospels were written by Jesus' disciples.

I suppose it's where you are.

I learned about P52 in the first few weeks of my Ph.D. program. I didn't know about it beforehand because I had always concentrated on Paul.

I don't think that we can expect most Christians - or even [unfortunately] most pastors to be familiar with the earliest texts of the New Testament.

After all P52 is a tiny fragment that has no impact on the interpretation of John, and no meaning unless a person can compare it in Greek to other manuscripts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No other reply to this than what has already been written:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senedjem
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.

...You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul... both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves... both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." ... at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus...

- Is this an incorrect assessment? If so, why?

I can't tell who's writing what in that post, but...

Do you know where the tradition comes from that Mark was a disciple of Peter, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and whatever or whoever you think John is?

[And you still haven't answered my question - how many years was it between 33CE and 144CE?]

 

[kingdombuilder]

"Paul is out of the running. He never met living Jesus, so it makes no difference when he lived. He claims to have had a vision of a post-death Jesus, and I hope you're not considering visions as equivalent to actually seeing real things that other people see?"

______________________________________________________________________________________________
- Paul did not claim to have simply experienced a vision.
"After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also..."

That is a lot of epileptic seizures going on! Luke, who you acknowledged earlier was a disciple of Paul records in Acts 9 the event that caused Saul/Paul to convert to Christianity after being one of its main persecuters of the day. The event recorded there goes beyond just a vision or seizure.

Galatians 2:7-10 and other scriptures make clear that Paul was a contemporary of and personally knew the first disciples. In fact, he even challenged Peter on one occasion. If Paul was presenting a different Jesus than they had known, do you think they would put up with it? They also after meeting with him believed he had met the resurrected Jesus... they of all people should have known if he really had or had not.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooGirl02
So His disciples put forth a lie which they were willing to die for? Hardly!




Ever heard of Polycarp? Clement of Rome? How about Ignatius of Antioch?

Yes. Did you have a point?

 

[kingdombuilder]

I can't tell who's writing what in that post, but...

Do you know where the tradition comes from that Mark was a disciple of Peter, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and whatever or whoever you think John is?


[And you still haven't answered my question - how many years was it between 33CE and 144CE?]

maybe this will help:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senedjem
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.

- I did answer your question, I can do math. You are too focused on the AD 140/144 date. That was not my point.

 

[Autodidact]

"Paul is out of the running. He never met living Jesus, so it makes no difference when he lived. He claims to have had a vision of a post-death Jesus, and I hope you're not considering visions as equivalent to actually seeing real things that other people see?"

______________________________________________________________________________________________
- Paul did not claim to have simply experienced a vision.
"After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also..."

What is the difference between seeing a dead person and having a vision of a dead person? They're the same thing. Paul believes that he "saw" Jesus after He died. We have a term for that. We call it a vision. I think it's epilepsy, you think it's a miracle. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the actual living person, or actual seeing in the ordinary sense.

That is a lot of epileptic seizures going on! Luke, who you acknowledged earlier was a disciple of Paul records in Acts 9 the event that caused Saul/Paul to convert to Christianity after being one of its main persecuters of the day. The event recorded there goes beyond just a vision or seizure.

Here you're again at stuff that was orally transmitted for a couple of generations, then finally recorded. Playing telegraph. Extremely unreliable. The only thing I think we can reasonably say is that something important happened to these people or to people that they knew. What it was we can only speculate.

[qutoe]Galatians 2:7-10 and other scriptures make clear that Paul was a contemporary of and personally knew the first disciples. In fact, he even challenged Peter on one occasion. If Paul was presenting a different Jesus than they had known, do you think they would put up with it? They also after meeting with him believed he had met the resurrected Jesus... they of all people should have known if he really had or had not. [/quote] You give far too much credece to what is basically a few decades of shared rumors that finally got written down. And how on earth would they know whether he had a real vision?

I'm sure he saw something; people see things every day. They way we check whether they're real is based on whether other people see them. That's the way I work, you?

 

[Misty]

I have seen many strange things in my life including several apparitions. Fortunately I have my feet well enough on the ground to realise whatever I thought I saw, was undoubtedly the product of my mind.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Yes. Did you have a point?

If you have heard of these people then you know who these people are and that they give evidence contrary to your quote I responded to below.

I'm so tired of this myth. Myths are hard to eradicate. We do not know who these people were, how they died, or whether they really lived. You may believe what you like, but asserting it as fact is irresponsible or dishonest.

We do know, and these are 3 sources among others that give us answers to the above questions. Thus it is not simply assertions of fact.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

maybe this will help:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senedjem
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.

- I did answer your question, I can do math. You are too focused on the AD 140/144 date. That was not my point.

It seems to me that you're unwilling to admit that there is 100 year difference between the life of Christ and Marcion, which severely weakens whatever your point is.

 

[kingdombuilder]

...


I'm sure he saw something; people see things every day. They way we check whether they're real is based on whether other people see them. That's the way I work, you?

wow, ok:

"After that he was seen by Peter...He was seen by James, then by all the apostles, then He was seen by me... (1 Corinthians 15:5-8)

1 Corinthians was not oral tradition it was an actual letter written by Paul to the church in Corinth, you realize that right?

 

[kingdombuilder]

It seems to me that you're unwilling to admit that there is 100 year difference between the life of Christ and Marcion, which severely weakens whatever your point is.

uh...no, again the math is not that difficult. It is intresting that you continue to ignore the entire posted reply on this point. Luke was not written in AD140/144. It was written prior to this date. Furthermore, once again, most if not all scholars agree that Luke is not even considered the earliest Gospel to have been written.

 

[kingdombuilder]

What is the difference between seeing a dead person and having a vision of a dead person? They're the same thing. Paul believes that he "saw" Jesus after He died. We have a term for that. We call it a vision. I think it's epilepsy, you think it's a miracle. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the actual living person, or actual seeing in the ordinary sense...

And this is not simply an asserted opinion with no support for it right? Again, there sure were alot of epileptic seizures going on around that time. Strange they would all see the same thing during their respective seizures as well.

 

[Agnostic75]

And this is not simply an asserted opinion with no support for it right? Again, there sure were alot of epileptic seizures going on around that time. Strange they would all see the same thing during their respective seizures as well.

But there is not any credible historical evidence that they all saw the same thing at the same time, or even separately for that matter. A vision here or there by an individual is reasonably possible, but not visions by groups of people seeing the same thing at the same time.

It is interesting to note that there is very little firsthand evidence of anything in the Gospels. The unknown authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke never claim that they saw Jesus perform miracles. The book of John was written much too late to be of much value to Christians.

 

[kingdombuilder]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autodidact
Well, from the P52 fragment and other evidence, John is generally dated from 90 to 150 C.E., so again I fail to see what kingdom is driving at.



Thank you again for adding more weight to my point. Since this manuscript fragment containing a small part of the Gospelof John 18 is widely considered to be dated from 90 or 110 to 125AD ( NT Manuscripts - Papyri) then this pushes the Gospel of Luke and the other 2 Gospels back even further since John is widely considered to be the latest written Gospel of the 4 main ones (Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - not exactly a scholarly web source but it is a good general write up concerning the dating of the Gospels.

The traditional dates assigned to all 4 of the Bible's Gospels are clearly not 100 years after the death of Jesus.

 

[sniper762]

CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS
50 AD John Mark – MARK The ancient title to this book was “Kata Markon” meaning “according to Mark”. Mark’s gospel portrays the life, preaching, teaching, healing and death of Jesus Christ.
55 AD Mathew – MATHEW “Kata Mathaion” or “According to Mathew”. Mathew, also surnamed Levi, a Jew, writes to the Jews about Jesus Christ, presenting him as the King of the Jews, and depicting his life, teachings, miracle works and death as the true Messiah.
60 AD Luke – LUKE “Kata Loukan” or “According to Luke”. Luke, a physician, writes of Jesus’ geneology, birth, early life ministry and crucifixion and emphasizes the importance of beliving in him.
90 AD John – John, 1st, 2nd & 3rd John and Revelation JOHN “Kata Ionnen” or “ According to John”. Luke portrays Jesus as the son of God. As an eyewitness to the meal in the Upper Room, John records the events leading up to the resurrection of Christ and proclaims him the son of God. 1st, 2nd AND 3RD JOHN John is enjoying his delightful fellowship with God and desires that his spiritual children share it with him. REVELATION “Apokalypsis Ioannou” or “Revelation of John”. The last book of the Bible written by John, describing his divine visions while exiled on the Isle of Patmos, interpreting them to be the events that will transpire during the last days of the existence of this earth as we know it.