>There are no ancient works which even approach the vast manuscribal holdings of the new testament. Nothing in extant body of Greek or Roman classics even comes close.<
...so popularity proves that Jesus rose from the grave? Then what about that popular idea that the planets go around the Earth?
>Which letter of Pliny’s mentions dragons, etc? Tacitus Annals? Tacitus is an extra-biblical source that does corroberate that christians were worshipped Jesus (Christus). It was Plato who has Socrates making reference to “Atlantis”, if I’m not mistaken.<
My point is that these people wrote about many things: some of them far from being true. None of the works of Pliny or anyone else prove that Jesus rose from the Dead.
>I know that many worship Elvis, but we know where his body lies. The Romans could have easily dispelled the “myth” by producing the body, torturing and interrogating the Roman detail responsible for keeping a lid on this. But they did not. It’s not clear what treatment befell the Roman guard. My guess is it wasn’t pretty.<
You’re missing my point again. The point is that even in the modern day people still don’t believe that popular people are dead *even when we can demonstrate it*.
If we did exhume Elvis’ body for the world, a lot of the conspiracy buffs *still* wouldn’t believe it.
>Of course none of this discounts the eyewitness testimonies where hundreds shared this experience.<
This doesn’t prove Christ rose from the grave.
>Bigfoot sightings are isolated events.<
Thousands of people have claimed to see Bigfoot. If a couple hundred who saw Jesus after his death is considered “good” then thousands have to be considered “above and beyond.”
>However, had I seen a resurrected Jesus, that would be unmistakable and hard to explain, if I had witnessed his savage torture and execution.<
There are tons of things that can explain it: ergotism in bread, mass hysteria, rumors out of control, bad wine/olive oil, etc.
>Yet, if one’s favorite is killed and shown to be a fraud, then it would be the height of disillusionment to use Baptism as a from of “recognition” with a resurrected Christ. Nor would there be any legitimate need to change the meaning of the passover meal in “rememberance” of a proven fake. Yet the early eyewitnesses faithfully kept these ordinances and preserved them as instructed by Jesus himself.<
I stand by whawt I said: the Eucharist isn’t a new idea. Neither is Baptism. Neither is any other Christian practice.
>The depth of selfish motivation is remarkable. But Jesus said “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”<
...how does this prove Christ rose from the Grave now? How does this prove the Muslims are wrong?
>Christian martyrs suffer to bring the gospel to a dying world, a world they wish to befriend. Their reward is already earned through Jesus’ incomparable work, not any sacrifical act on their part.<
Buddhists have worked to bring the teachings of their founder to the world as well - does this mean that Buddhism is just as good as Christianity?
>This charge is often layed against historial Christianity. It may be true of some Catholic practices, but Protestant christianity ascribes to sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura. I am a “saint” (hagios—a “set apart one”) as all believers are (Romans 1:7).<
LOL - yeah, your ideas are so new. :)
>Syncretism worked both ways. The 2nd century worship of Mythras probably borrowed heavily from Christianity. What is known about Mithras is a “mystery!” Not much to go on. (Mithras)<
Yeah, a religion predating the birth of Jesus really did steal all its ideas from his followers...
>Now this reeks of syncretism (adopting/incorporating existing pagan practices). I can find nothing in the New Testament which condones “getting rid of pagans” or “forcefully converting” them. If you could provide a Bible reference, I’d I have to listen.<
Jesus talked to the Jews. His Disciples were all Jewish. He didn’t talk to the Gentiles. It was only after his death that they even considered taking Gentiles into their ranks. And then slowly they began to change things: eat pork, not be circumcised, eat shellfish, change the Sabbath day to Sunday, etc. But not everyone accepted their message. The Christians decided that stupid people NEEDED the light. Thus they began forcing people in to Christianity.
No, you won’t find this in the Bible...and you won’t find holidays called “Christmas” or “Easter” either. This is one of my big problems with Christianity and Christians: if you’re trying to live a “Christ like example” why don’t they follow Jewish customs and practices?
It sounds as if you have many. I wish you well and I'll pray for you.
But we can exhume Elvis. And may be able to exhume his body in 2000 years, if conditions are right. The most significant man in history has no tomb because He is not in it.
>Of course none of this discounts the eyewitness testimonies where hundreds shared this experience.< This doesn’t prove Christ rose from the grave.
What would constitute proof for you?
Thousands of people have claimed to see Bigfoot.
But not "together." And besides, Bigfoot just confessed.
I stand by whawt I said: the Eucharist isn’t a new idea. Neither is Baptism. Neither is any other Christian practice.
Ok. Please provide a reference for such practice, ancient or modern that shows clear and unquestionable parallels.
>However, had I seen a resurrected Jesus, that would be unmistakable and hard to explain, if I had witnessed his savage torture and execution.< There are tons of things that can explain it: ergotism in bread, mass hysteria, rumors out of control, bad wine/olive oil, etc.
But not likely. Ergotism produces lameness and necrosis of the extremeties. A massive outbreak of this concurrent with the events of the season would be hard to miss. Those suffering from it would be at home in their death beds.
The events of the ascension are not consistent with mass hysteria.
Christ discouraged lying (Col 3:9). So rumor is out.
Bad wine, olive oil...maybe a bit of "underdone potato"?
The least strained explanation is that eyewitnesses were conveying an accurate account.
>The depth of selfish motivation is remarkable. But Jesus said “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”< ...how does this prove Christ rose from the Grave now? How does this prove the Muslims are wrong?
This was put forward to simply show that Muslim motivations are "different" than Christ's or Christians'. For example, a christian martyr doesn't blow himself up in a crowded marketplace of infidels in order to receive 72 virgins in heaven. He doesn't blow himself up at all. He risks death to share the gospel so that others may live (eternally). This is an act of love, not hate.
As to proof that Christ rose from the grave, nothing appears to be able to satisfy you, short of a Christophany. But then you might attribute this to what you had for breakfast.
>Yeah, a religion (Mithras) predating the birth of Jesus really did steal all its ideas from his followers...
If you are serious about investigaing the truth about the documentable parallels between Christianity and Mithras (et al) and not alleged parallels, I suggest you (or anyone) explore the following: Was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth?
Jesus talked to the Jews. His Disciples were all Jewish. He didn’t talk to the Gentiles. It was only after his death that they even considered taking Gentiles into their ranks.
It is true that the 3.5 year ministry of Jesus was to the Jews. He came first to His own who rejected Him. (A fulfillment of prophesy). However, there were probably converts who were not Jewish, but were either foreign slaves or servants or other members of the community (a Roman Centurian, see Matthew 8:5). Jesus, after He resurrected, commanded His desciples to take the Gospel to all people. The desciples didn't "consider" it, they obeyed.
And then slowly they began to change things: eat pork, not be circumcised, eat shellfish, change the Sabbath day to Sunday, etc. But not everyone accepted their message. The Christians decided that stupid people NEEDED the light. Thus they began forcing people in to Christianity.
Forcing? I don't know of anyone who was ever forced. That's not to say none have. However, adoption into the body of Christ requires a contrite and sincere heart, not a coerced one. I can think of many Muslim cultures where practicing any other religion and especially "sharing" the Gospel (not "forcing") leaves one at risk. I know a young lady who will be going to a North African country this summer who will be at some risk.
No, you won’t find this in the Bible...and you won’t find holidays called “Christmas” or “Easter” either.
So? But we do find the nativity account in the gospels and we celebrate the birth of the Savior in late December. We could pick another month and day, but somehow I don't think that would evade your criticism.
We also celebrate His resurrection around the Jewish observance of Passover, for He is the Passover Lamb. You may object to the syncretistic practice of observing these occurances on days which coincide with pagan festivals.
As for observing the Lord's day (Sunday), we do so because it is the day the desciples discovered the tomb empty. We remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. Jesus clarified some Pharasaical regulations of Sabbath activiy--see Mark 2:27).
But let's really get to the heart of this issue...
This is one of my big problems with Christianity and Christians: if you’re trying to live a “Christ like example” why don’t they follow Jewish customs and practices?
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: Sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order than the requirement of the Law might be fullfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:1-4)
This is what separates Christians from non-Christians. "For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according the the spirit, the things of the Spirit...The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8: 5-8)
I take it from all that has been shared here that your "mind is set on the flesh" to use the language of Romans 8. The good news is that Jesus is the only one who can fix that.
Via Romana
Feeling forced?