Resurrection

[atruthseeker]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

[Misty]

I certainly don't think it is possible for anyone for come back from the dead if they really are dead. So either the body was moved, or Jesus wasn't dead. Reading the gospel accounts I suspect there is a lot of exaggeration; the followers of Jesus wanted to create their own super hero.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

More fundamentally -- why believe that there was a tomb or that a tomb was empty? It is just a story told by followers that cannot be shown to be true.

If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation?

“Resurrection� is the ONLY explanation for those who are committed to believe that Jesus was “divine� and that the bible is "the word of god".

Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story.

Yes, “came back to life� claims and stories are not unique to Christianity – though Christians seem unwilling to recognize that their story is not original – and unwilling to acknowledge that previous claims are truthful.

Therein is a credibility issue.

1. If “resurrection� is indication of “divinity�, do other similar tales indicate that “gods� were involved?

2. If other stories are not to be believed for lack of evidence other than the tales themselves, why is the claimed “resurrection� of Jesus to be believed?

[atruthseeker]

Thanks for the replies. I really enjoy discussing religion with believers, but as you may well know, there are not many willing to talk about their beliefs ( I hope this forum will change my opinion on that ). A nice gentleman who is a Jehovah used to call on me once a week or so. We had some wonderful talks (I thought), but he stopped coming around. I just have this need to know how one can disregard the laws of nature and physics when they do not agree with a 2000 year old story written by superstitious people with an agenda. How does the rational mind figure out Santa Claus at an early age but hold on to other myths for life.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thanks for the replies. I really enjoy discussing religion with believers, but as you may well know, there are not many willing to talk about their beliefs ( I hope this forum will change my opinion on that ).

Perhaps – but don’t hold your breath in anticipation. Debates / discussions of deep questions often degenerate into excuse-making (to cover lack of evidence) by those who believe the bible is literal truth – and often becomes little more than “dueling scriptures (even though that is supposed to be done in Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forum, where the bible is taken to be true and authoritative).

A nice gentleman who is a Jehovah used to call on me once a week or so. We had some wonderful talks (I thought), but he stopped coming around.

Two female JWs used to stop by occasionally when I lived in Las Vegas some years ago, one of whom was very appealing (except for being “eat up with religion�). She had a “twinkle in her eye� and some cute mannerisms that seemed to indicate a playfulness. Maybe I could have gotten to know her better if I had not asked such difficult questions and had been more receptive to the “witnessing� (probably causing them to think I was “unsalvageable� and to look for easier pickings elsewhere).

I just have this need to know how one can disregard the laws of nature and physics when they do not agree with a 2000 year old story written by superstitious people with an agenda.

Some of our very capable Moderate / Liberal / Modern / Post Modern Christians do not consider bible stories to be literal truth. They can intelligently discuss belief in a “supreme being� without claiming to know the mind of such a being – and without making supernatural claims or telling fanciful stories.

Fundamentalists / Literalists / Biblicists maintain that bible stories are literally true, and offer all sorts of “explanations� for what obviously makes no sense at all (such as talking donkeys, worldwide genocidal flooding, water magically turning into wine, dead bodies coming back to life after days in the grave, etc). Some of the “explanations� are quite creative and some are entertaining.

Cognitive dissonance may apply in some cases.

Orwell used the term “doublethink� to refer to an ability to hold two contradictory ideas in mind while believing both of them (specifically defined as: the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs).

How does the rational mind figure out Santa Claus at an early age but hold on to other myths for life.

Indoctrination / reinforcement / social pressure / fear of punishment in an “afterlife�.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection.

Boy howdy. I'd fear for the sanity of anyone that didn't.

If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation?

Preach on brother. To go from what all commenced on to he hopped up and carried on is about as sense assaulting as any religious claim.

Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

Such notion may conflict with one's own take on reality.

[ChaosBorders]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

Depends on what you're accepting as a premise. For someone who takes the Bible as true, people saw him crucified and die on the cross, then saw him walking around afterwards and talk with them. So you're correct that even in the gospels there is no actual witness to him coming back to life, but for someone who believes the gospels are true the most logical conclusion is he did come back to life.

From a historical stand-point, however, it can be reasonably asserted that the man lived and was probably crucified. What happened after that though, no historian can honestly say with certainty. Was there an actual tomb set aside for him, or did he end up in a typical gravesite? If the former, someone removing the body would certainly seem a more reasonable explanation than him coming back to life.

[atruthseeker]

After reading the Bible (King James version), I have some questions about the resurrection. If I read correctly, the gospels didn't agree on several details, like who was present. In none of the gospels did I read of an actual witness. His body was gone from the tomb, so resurrection is the only logical explanation? Secondly, the resurrection story had been done several times before the time of Jesus. It's not an original story. Why would it not be easier and more credible to believe that either someone else moved his body or he was never really dead?

Depends on what you're accepting as a premise. For someone who takes the Bible as true, people saw him crucified and die on the cross, then saw him walking around afterwards and talk with them. So you're correct that even in the gospels there is no actual witness to him coming back to life, but for someone who believes the gospels are true the most logical conclusion is he did come back to life.

From a historical stand-point, however, it can be reasonably asserted that the man lived and was probably crucified. What happened after that though, no historian can honestly say with certainty. Was there an actual tomb set aside for him, or did he end up in a typical gravesite? If the former, someone removing the body would certainly seem a more reasonable explanation than him coming back to life.

Is there actually any historical evidence that Jesus was a real person. I have only heard of his name being mentioned by one historian, and the context in which I understood it was that the historian referred to Jesus once in his writings but never confirmed his existence. Even the location of the "tomb" is not agreed upon by his followers.

[Slopeshoulder]

I'd recommend putting aside all questions of historicity; they're a distraction.
I'd also stop reading the bible and rather study it (NOT with bible thumpers though, I mean high end stuff).
What you'll likely find re: resurrection are themes having to do with light and dark, triumph over death, transformation, the redemptive nature of suffering, etc.
If they resonates, great. If not, move on.

[atruthseeker]

I'd recommend putting aside all questions of historicity; they're a distraction.
I'd also stop reading the bible and rather study it (NOT with bible thumpers though, I mean high end stuff).
What you'll likely find re: resurrection are themes having to do with light and dark, triumph over death, transformation, the redemptive nature of suffering, etc.
If they resonates, great. If not, move on.

I read it once a few years back, just to see what was actually written. It became quite clear very quickly that nothing could be historically confirmed. I do find it interesting to research individual events of the Bible to try to make some sense as to how the myths originated. Seems to me that even the wildest claims can sometimes have this little tiny grain of truth (maybe) wrapped in a giant fuzzy ball of unbelievable embellishments.