The truth of the Resurrection

by RWC 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Xander

  there is no real debate among historians that Jesus was a real life person.
  Right, no debate. There is no historical evidence Jesus existed.

  If this were not true, these folks could have clearly refuted it.
  Who would have? Paul wrote that nearly 25 years after the event happened. If someone was 20 at the time they saw it, there were probably dead when Paul wrote the above. Lifespans were MUCH shorter then. In fact, I'd call the incredible delay between the events being 'reported' on and the first 'gospels' as good evidence that the whole thing was fiction.

  as recorded in Acts.
  Citing scriptures is circular reasoning. Is it not telling that in the copious amounts of historical documents from the period (not least the Dead Sea Scrolls), there is not only NO MENTION OF JESUS but NO MENTION OF ANY OF HIS APOSTLES. That's 13 people purpoted to change the world no contemporary accounts can verify the existence of.

  over ten thousand Jews are following him and overthrowing century old social structures that they believe had been given to them by God.
  Wow, that's pretty impressive. Wonder why there is no historical record of it happening? Oh, that's right - because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

  Those numbers continued to grow.
  I think you'd find a better case for a group of men starting their own religion, and then writing the gospels as a 'back story' for it, and a reason to leave Judaism. The movement, later called 'Christianity' grew slowly at first until it made good with a major government and became a state religion.

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  Larsguy

  Well, not to be one to spoil an ongoing debate, but the JIOR, who witnessed the Messiah's second coming in 1992 are seeing new sets of miracles now with the working of holy spirit, so...we're sort of left out of this argument since we know for a fact the things in the NT are true, especially having been fulfilled in great detail during our day.

  But have no fear: Everyone who died in the Flood of Noah's day was a BELIEVER before they perished, and believing has little to do with rebellion since 1/3rd of the angels who know all and see God's own face still rebelled, so....

  For those waiting on something they can see with their own two eyes or some other "miracle" they will be completely satisfied at ARMAGEDDON. No problemo.....

  L.G.
• 

  hoo

  RWC,

  I am afraid what you have is not a valid proof, but a valid faith.

  I am Christian too. I wish you well.

  Hoo of Malaysia
• 

  RWC

  No historical evidence that Jesus existed- Simply wrong. There is proof of Jesus outside of the Gospels in numerous secular writings including those by Jewish historians and Roman historians. Don't forget that at the time Jesus lived he was not the well known man he is today. He was a wandering teacher who was not that well known until after he died and rose again. His following was relatively small and would not warrant alot of mention of him while he lived. Historians throughout the years have tested the evidence of his existence and come to the conclusion that he was a real person. In fact there is more historical documentation of Jesus' existence than any other founder of ancient religions.

  Grave Robbers- That has been defeated in the early part of the century when it was brought up as a potenial
  explanation. To believe this you would have to also believe that the aspotsles who stole the body went to their deaths for what they knew to be a big hoax. Also you would have to discount the evidence of sightings of Jesus by as many as five hundred people at one time.

  The delay- The dely that you are refering to is unbelievably short in ancient times. For example, the first biography about Budda was not written until 600 years after his death, for Muhammad it was not until 150 years after his death. Additionally, you are assuming that these writings are the first time that Paul said he saw Jesus. That is simply not the case. He was writing to churches tyhat he had preached to, so he was orally saying this before he wrote it down. Also, it is clear that the other aspostles were preaching this message within days after they saw Jesus. If the people who heard the preaching, in the very city where the tomb was located wanted to refute it they could have gone there and the movement would have died, thus not leaving anything to write about. It didn't happen that way.

  Thousands were converted, didn't happen- What do you base this statement on?

  No mention of the aspostles- There is ample evidence that the aspostles lived, established churches, and were marytered for their faith. There is no dispute that these were real people. The people who wrote the dead sea scrolls were Essenes who were not followers of Christ, so why would they mention him or the aspostles?

  Just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it true - True, but the fact that it is written down doesn't make it untrue either. What I have provided is the evidence that what is written down is in fact true and can be believed.
• 

  Valis

  RWC...your argument is full of holes.

  1. There is very real debate about the existence and the life of Jesus, as the bible leaves out a tremendous amount of info on his life. Like his relationship w/Mary Magdalene for example. BTW, do you think there was only one person ever named Jesus?

  2. Please show me other texts where the death and entombment and ressurection of Jesus is documented, besides the bible, and not just his existence. Really, I'll listen.

  3. That is the most circular/spurious argument I've heard in a long time. The Gospels sound somewhat like other ancient texts so they must be true, therefor the entire account of Jesus and his miracles must be true. Ha!

  4. Still you come with biblical quotes...and not external proof. I might also add that if Jesus was the political and religious dissident he is portrayed to be, it was certainly prudent for his followers to remove his body after being entombed, so as to not have the body dragged through the streets by religious zealots. Oh, and he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb...it is very possible that old Jo may have wanted his tomb back and had the body moved to a more private place. You really think Paul's writing were distributed like a daily paper in and around Rome or Judea? Do you think Christians met openly and had symposiums about the writings of the early apostles, much less argued w/him, or would have refuted the very foundation of thier young faith? Ha!

  5. More bible stuff...

  6. Religious fervor has always been the cause of hallucinations, whether they be group or singular.

  7. More bible stuff...

  8. The sceptics? You mean the Romans and the Jews? The ones that crucified him? Yeah I'm sure they believed in his ressurection so much they killed him the first time just for the hell of it. Don't worry, he'll be back........

  9. Where did you get this number of 10,000 jews suddenly giving up thier faith? Is that biblical? It would have been much easier if you had quoted your sources..besides the bible, but that may have required a bit of thought and less faith in one text.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  Double Edge

  There's no "historical" record that my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather lived... but he did ... I'm here, a product of his life.... so too are the followers of Christ.
• 

  Valis

  Double Edge that's the second dumbest thing I've heard today. According to your logic, you just have to have faith that you have an ancestor. You are the historical record dummy, however it might be easier for you to believe your family tree is the result of immaculate conception...now go do some goddam geneology, disprove your own point and come back when you have something to say.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  ros

  RWC:

  As a Christian believer myself, may I suggest that it is wise to use caution in use of the word "proof" when it comes to matters of faith. While there is significant circumstantial 'evidence' that Jesus did indeed exist, was executed and subsequently gained a great following of people who worshipped him, it falls short of "proof" in the true sense of the word.

  The strongest evidence of Jesus existence is the Christian movement itself in the first century, as it was written about by non-Christian contemporary historians. Some of these are:
  Josephus (born c. 37ad)
  Suetonius (writing c.49 ad)
  Tacitus (writing c.64 ad)
  Pliney (writing c.110 ad)

  An interesting note in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin (43 a)
  It is taught: On Passover Eve they hanged Yeshu ... because he has practised magic and led Israel astray.

  The most significant 'evidence' of Jesus' resurrection is the extraordinary faith in it that was exhibited by his subsequent followers, who were willing to die horrible deaths for their faith. Yet that is not 'evidence' for it either--only evidence that first-century Christians devoutly believed it. By far most of them were not witnesses to the empty tomb, but themselves believed on faith.

  There are a number of websites that have relevant information. Here is one: http://www.btinternet.com/~nbch/sources.html

  Also, when you present information, it's a good idea to present the source to back up your assertion. One statement you made that I'm curious about:

  9. Immediately after Jesus rose, within five weeks, over ten thousand Jews are following him and overthrowing century old social structures that they believe had been given to them by God. Those numbers continued to grow.

  May I ask the source of this observation? The reason I ask is that in the Biblical account, seven weeks after the resurrection, on Pentecost, the new converts numbered "about 3000". (Acts 2:37-42)

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 

  RWC

  Valis,

  ." There is very real debate about the existence and the life of Jesus, as the bible leaves out a tremendous amount of info on his life. Like his relationship w/Mary Magdalene for example. BTW, do you think there was only one person ever named Jesus?"

  The debate over the years has been whether Jesus existed. Prominant historians have come down on the side that the evidence supports the fact that he was a real person: H.G. Wells, for example. You may choose to try and ignore the evidence, but historians do not.

  You present no proof for your arguments, you simply inject questions which are irrelevant and unsupported speculations (like Joesph of Arimetha needed the tomb so he took the body). That is no counter to the evidence that has been presented.

  "More Biblical stuff"- Why do you discount and ignore what the Bible says about Jesus? What proof do you have that the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life are not accurate and trustworthy? Do you do the same with the Koran or other historical texts? For example, how much proof do you need to determine that Homer wrote the Illiead?

  The bias with which you throw out the Bible as a source is preventing you from accpeting it as an historical document. If you would look at the Bible with the same neutrality that you examine other historical texts, your view may change.

  As for the quote of the 10,000, That came from adding the people who are attribued to becoming believers in Acts. 120 in Acts 1:15, Acts 2:47 The Lord added to their number daily, 3000 in Acts 3:41, 5000 Acts 4:4.

  I do not shy away from the word "proof". Our faith does not have to be a blind faith, nor does it have to be unsupported by evidence. The fact is that the evidence supports the reality of the resurrection as a true event. Our faith is based upon this being a reality, and not merely something to think happened through faith. Skeptics ignore the evidence that exists and throw out alot of speculations, but in the end the evidence stands on its own merit and has through the ages.
• 

  rem

  RWC,

  Why do you discount and ignore what the Bible says about Jesus? What proof do you have that the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life are not accurate and trustworthy?

  Because the Bible accounts were written well after the supposed events took place and they contain many fantastic and extraordinary claims that have never been corroborated by other contemporary texts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Memorize it.

  Do you do the same with the Koran or other historical texts? For example, how much proof do you need to determine that Homer wrote the Illiead?

  Yes, rational people do the same with all books – no ancient book is exempt from critical examination. To put the Bible on a higher plane is special pleading and shows that you are the one looking at the Bible impartially. Your point about Homer and the Iliad proves my point. There are big questions about the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey. No one knows for sure whether there really was a man named Homer who wrote those works or if it was just oral tradition passed down and redacted by one or several authors. We don’t even know for sure when this ‘Homer’ may have existed. A rational person would not make a positive claim that Homer indeed is the author of the two works with no question because there is not enough information. The same is true of the Bible writings. To make a strong positive claim such that the Bible writers are definitely known and they contain accurate history in the face of such dismal evidence is irrationality at its finest.
  
  

  The bias with which you throw out the Bible as a source is preventing you from accpeting it as an historical document. If you would look at the Bible with the same neutrality that you examine other historical texts, your view may change.

  As I have just shown, you are the one using special pleading and taking a partial view of the Bible. I suggest you listen to your own advice.

  The fact is that the evidence supports the reality of the resurrection as a true event. Our faith is based upon this being a reality, and not merely something to think happened through faith. Skeptics ignore the evidence that exists and throw out alot of speculations, but in the end the evidence stands on its own merit and has through the ages.

  That’s the same type of thing that Mormons say about the golden plates and the supposed historical evidence of ancient Jewish settlements in the New World. You see, it’s lack of evidence that makes such claims irrational. What you end up with are unverifiable accounts that are stretched to make them sound like they are evidence when they are not. This is not a sign of clear thinking. This is faith.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain