Posted on 03/31/2013 2:45:14 PM PDT by grumpa
Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Here are four things that modern scholars, including skeptical scholars, almost universally agree on. (This is a very brief summary of the original):
1. Jesus died and was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
2. A group of women found the tomb empty on Easter morning.
3. Over 500 people really and truly believed that they saw Jesus alive.
4. The Christian faith exploded to all the known world in a very short period of time thereafter.
The best explanation for these events is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. But here are 3 alternative explanations, and why each has been discredited.
a. The disciples stole Jesus' body. This theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. This theory is rejected for several reasons, not the least of which is that the disciples were all killed for their faith. People will allow themselves to be martyred for what they believe to be true, but will not die for a lie.
b. Jesus did not really die on the cross. This theory has been entirely abandoned by critical thinkers for medical facts about crucifixion.
c. The disciples hallucinated. This theory too has been rejected by scholars as psychologically impossible. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs. And while one person can hallucinate, a large group of people do not hallucinate together.
For the entire article from our website that offers the classical evidentiary apologetic on the resurrection, go to:
http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/contemporary-scholarship
Also see my Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Faithfacts.org
Give us a "Like."
Yet, you apparently deny all accounts, got it.
“Yet, you apparently deny all accounts, got it. “
Do you know the difference in special revelation and general revelation?
You will have to expound on the question.
special revelation: accessible only to a particular people or group of people
general revelation: available to all men
What are looking for?
Just that there are other ways to come to a belief in God besides the revelations in the Bible.
I only deny false unsubstantiated accounts.
For example - when did Saul/Paul first meet Jesus? On the road to Damascus? Perhaps, but as a Jerusalem Pharisee, it would have been nearly impossible for Saul to not have encountered the Messiah during the time of His ministry - and it was the Pharisees who were the foremost members of the ruling council that had the Christ judicially assassinated. When Jesus said, on the road to Damascus, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest,” it was after Christ’s resurrection when no one could persecute Him; Jesus may have made the statement as a reminder of what Saul had done prior to and during Christ’s killing. Saul very likely debated with Christ in Jerusalem (Christ’s encounters with the Pharisees are described in detail - and the Pharisees were always humiliated by the Truth that Christ spoke), debates that Saul lost - hence his violent hatred for Christ and then Christians
Sorry sweetie. I deny anything that rings of fable and not fact. A true believer wants facts substantiated by documents, multiple sources and logic.
I believe part but recognize that most of what is written today is fable to glorify further and not provide substance.
I also believe that God is indeed present but not in the form most people think. God is everywhere - therefore God IS THE UNIVERSE ITSELF.
There is more to life than just getting up in the morning and surviving the day. We need inspiration but we also need facts and most of the bible is a fairy tale that can in no manner be substantiated except by faith and/or folly.
“God IS THE UNIVERSE ITSELF”
Including ourselves!
That's not belief. That's knowledge.
...therefore God IS THE UNIVERSE ITSELF.
Sorry. God is not His own Creation. God is bigger than the Universe.
ah...another Hunchback pun! :)
sorry...couldn't resist...cuz i'm still chuckling at the 'his face rang a bell' comment.
actually, for me, the true belief comes from a true, personal "knowing"...little answers to prayers.... the sudden feeling of peace at times when I need it most....little miracles which have happened in my life. no document from Jesus needed to substantiate anything. in fact, that's kind of what faith is all about, isn't it?
again...that's me. YMMV.
I chose to believe God’s description of Himself not your definition of God.
Have a good afternoon.
(using your words) - actually, for me, (also). the true belief comes from a true, personal “knowing”...little answers to prayers.... (which come from internalized faith in oneself, the inevitability of solutions found after relaxing and searching. The mind in quite creative but one has to let it do its work and not try to override it with our own prejudices).
I get the sudden feeling of peace at times when I need it - - - - it just springs upon “me” after relaxing or even a good sleep/nap and the inspiration (or solution) hits me.
most....little miracles which have happened in my life. no document from Jesus needed to substantiate anything. in fact, that’s kind of what faith is all about, isn’t it?
I have had quite a few MAJOR miracles happen in my life because I had faith that I would persist and as long as I kept a positive path and belief in myself and my abilities, I would persist. I did, I have, and I always will.
I get inspiration from others and I think that THAT is one of the greatest sources of satisfaction.
I never get inspiration directly from the bible “except” when I extract commonsense logic that is and forever has been in the mind of mankind.
“Where were the disciples after Jesua (Jesus) died.
THEY SPLIT and were never to be heard from again until Paul tracked some of them down and got statements.”
Uh...Wrong. Act records that the disciples were preaching in Jerusalem shortly after the resurrection and before Paul’s encounter with Christ. Elsewhere you mentioned it being against the law for them to write/read. Got news for you, it was against the law for them to preach Christ, and they did that (Peter and John were beaten for it, Steven was stoned to death for it.) In fact, this is a very important proof that the resurrection did, in fact, happen. If Christ did not rise from the dead, how would you account for the willingness of these individuals to risk their lives (all of them died martyrs deaths, by the way)? If they knew the resurrection was a fallacy, it is doubtful that EVERY ONE OF THEM would have subjected themselves to the lives of persecution and the death of martyrs that they were willing to endure.
As for Paul’s encounter with Christ, you reason that Jesus was a common name. But the Jesus with whom Paul had dealings said to him, “Saul, Saul why persecutest thou Me...I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” The Lord narrowed it down quite nicely which Jesus it was that was talking with him.
Historians say this about your statement (and it is well documented).
(your statement) As for Paul’s encounter with Christ, you reason that Jesus was a common name. But the Jesus with whom Paul had dealings said to him, “Saul, Saul why persecutest thou Me...I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” The Lord narrowed it down quite nicely which Jesus it was that was talking with him.
THE FACTS. Paul did not make that journey until after the crucifixion of Jesus (Jesua). The trip to Damascus was his attempt to let people know that Jesus was dead and no longer a threat. It is thought that it happened as early as one month after the crucifixion to maybe a year after.
Since there is no date given for the crucifixion one can only speculate but the travel of Paul was well documented by Herod and the Roman Legions still in Israel. (The BAD GUYS kept good records of such events).
Who did he meet on the road to Damascus? It could have been the embodiment of Jesus - or Paul could have simply had an Epiphany and converted then and there.
I don’t know. Neither do you. Documents show my version to be more correct and your only source is a 2000 old document that was pieced together by thousands of men throughout history, numerous churches, governments, kings, scribes etc.
Historians, you say.....Hmmmmmm....
It clearly states in Acts 9 that Paul’s purpose for traveling to Damascus was to carry letters to condemn those professing faith in Christ (now, I wonder why anyone would be doing THAT, given that He was dead and all...) You said your historians stated he was on a trip to tell folks Jesus was no longer a threat. So, right from the outset, the historians you are relying upon are incorrect.
One has to wonder how these “historians” are going about their research. Given that the Bible has proven to be a completely accurate text in terms of documenting human history, it seems questionable (to say the least) that these “historians” should disregard such an important piece of text evidence given the biblical nature of the story. But they (and you) have sure had no problem putting emphasis on texts written by “the BAD GUYS” (as you’ve called them.) Why is that? I mean, we know why Herod would not care to record anything about Christ, right? I’m talking about these “historians”...why would they be so willing to take at face value the historical writings of those working for (and doubtlessly doing so with great fear) a megalomaniac.
The biblical record of Saul/Paul reveals a man who “was breathing out threatenings” against the early Christians. The record goes on to say that he had an encounter with Christ on a road heading toward Damascus. It goes on to record a change in this person of such proportion to indicate something significant had “come over him” (my words). And, like the disciples who all gave themselves to the preaching of the gospel that resulted in their persecution and deaths (save John), Paul gave himself utterly to the preaching/teaching of the gospel (of One whom he previously persecuted) to the point of numerous persecutions, imprisonments and ultimately, his own beheading. THESE ARE THE FACTS.
Somewhere in your post you said, “the BAD GUYS” kept good records of such events. I beg to differ. Like the historians you’ve mistakenly relied upon, they got it wrong then and their readers get it wrong to this day.
“Fact - Paul NEVER mentioned such a meeting [that he had met Christ]. If he had I can guarantee he would have mentioned it in his letters.”
One more refutation of your erroneous comments:
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 AND LAST OF ALL HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO, as of one born out of due time.
MARK:
The gospel of Mark was written in a prototype form before it was later crafted into the form that we are familiar with. The earlier version was called ‘Ur Marcus’ and is also known/called ‘Q’ (for ‘Quelle’, which is German for the ‘source’).
Our latest findings regarding the early version of Mark show that this was written at about the time of Claudius Caesar, by the grandfather of Arrius Piso. That version was apparently only a bare sketch and most likely did not give a name to the ‘messiah’. That appears to have been done later by the person who actually played ‘Jesus’ in the Gospels - Arrius Piso
The version that we are familiar with was written about the year 73 CE by Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Arrius Piso was a Roman on his father’s side, but a descendant of King Herod on his mother’s side and therefore he knew well about the Jewish religion. He was also a close relative to the Flavians and even though secretly he could inherit and use the Flavian name by his mother’s descent from them, he gave a story about receiving it from the emperor Vespasian (in his other identity as Flavius Josephus).
MATTHEW:
Matthew too, was authored by Arrius Calpurnius Piso. This was written about the year 75 CE.
LUKE:
Was written 85-90 CE by Arrius C. Piso and Pliny the Younger.
JOHN:
The 4th Gospel, or the Gospel of John was written by Justus Calpurnius Piso, a son of Arrius C. Piso. This son was very much like this father in his hatred towards humanity. This Gospel was written circa 105 CE.
ACTS:
The Acts of the Apostles was written by Arrius Piso and his son Justus, with some help from Pliny the Younger 96-100 CE. By the way, there is a portion of Acts that is missing from most English translations/interpretations. That is the 29th Chapter, which has 10 verses.
ROMANS:
The epistle to the Romans was written by another son of Arrius Piso (Proculus Piso) and Claudia Phoebe about the year 100. Claudia Phoebe is known in history as the wife of the emperor Trajan (as Pompeia Plotina). She wrote the last few verses of this epistle, which many copies of the NT in English leave out because that portion was written by a woman. This is obvious, and she even gives her name as ‘Phoebe’. You can tell where the previous male author leaves off and the female author begins because the male author “signs off” with ‘Amen’. She wrote the last verses (25-27) of Romans, Chapter 16.
1st CORINTHIANS, GALATIONS, and EPHESIANS:
were all written between 100-103 CE by Pliny the Younger.
2nd CORINTHIANS and PHILIPPIANS:
were written by Justus C. Piso between 103-105 CE.
COLOSSIANS:
was written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus (Julianus was the father of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, but this is seen in history only by his use of another name ‘Verus’).
1st TIMOTHY:
was written by Pliny the Younger circa 105 CE.
2nd TIMOTHY:
was written by Justus C. Piso (also known in history by other names), c. 107 CE.
1st and 2nd THESSALONIANS:
were written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus with some help from his nephew Silanus between the years 105-110 CE.
TITUS:
was written by Pliny the Younger circa 103-105 CE.
PHILEMON:
was written by Justus C. Piso and his son Julianus.
JAMES:
was written by Justus C. Piso around 110 CE.
1st and 2nd PETER:
were written by Proculus Piso between 110-115 CE.
1st, 2nd and 3rd JOHN:
were written by Julius Calpurnius Piso (who was still another son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso), between 110-115 CE.
JUDE:
was written by Julius C. Piso also, between the years 110-115 CE.
THE REVELATION OF JOHN THE DIVINE:
was written by Julius Calpurnius Piso, who may have been the son of the other Julius Calpurnius Piso (who had the same name), and this was written in or about the year 137 CE. It was not the book of the NT, just written as the end of the story.
HEBREWS:
This was written by a grandson of Arrius Piso named Flavius Arrianus circa 140 CE. Flavius Arrianus was the real name of the historian who wrote as ‘Appian’. This person was the half-brother of the emperor Antoninus Pius. Antoninus Pius, by the way, also wrote history under the name of Suetonius. Flavius Arrianus also wrote other works, most notably, he wrote under the name of ‘Ptolemy’.
Wow! That makes the New Testament a veritable “leaning tower” of Piso.
You’ve got to be kidding! Check out the background of your authors - all the Pisos have family connection to Herod. And this is what you are basing your understanding of the Bible on!
Each book of the New Testament identifies its author (except Hebrews). These are the men who wrote the biblical texts. Not friends and family of Herod. A few specific examples of internal evidence come immediately to mind:
In the Gospel of John 20:24 we read, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” The speaker (who is John) identifies himself as the author of the things being read in this Gospel. Ironically, you said, “...the Gospel of John was written by Justus Calpurnius Piso, a son of Arrius C. Piso. This son was very much like this father in his hatred towards humanity. “ The Gospel of John, which contains the verse, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...” you say was written by a hater of humanity.
In Gal 6:11 the writer (identified as Paul in Chapter 1 verse 1 of the book) says, “Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.” Clearly he is citing evidence as to the authorship of the letter to his readers. He is, in effect, saying, “Check out my handwriting for proof that it is me, Paul, who is writing to you.
In 1 Cor. 16 Paul again testifies to his having written the letter: 1Co 16:21 “The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.” He is writing to folks that know him...even his handwriting! There is so much internal evidence that supports the authorship/authenticity of scripture that, were any history book required to undergo the same scrutiny, it would fail. That’s because history books, like the ones you seem to enjoy so much, are written by men. God was the ultimate author of scripture and “the GOOD GUY” (forgive me, Lord) knows how to keep accurate accounts.
But more to the point, do you actually think that there would be any followers of Christ if your notion of scriptural authorship were even remotely possible? Do you? Come on, think about it for a moment. Don’t you think if this were true we would be seeing TV news special after TV news special (especially around significant days events - a new Pope, Easter, Christmas) showing the fallacy of the Christian faith!
Keep believing what your were taught and don’t try and find facts which will only cause you to be disillusioned and confused.
As for myself I accept hard facts, documented by hard evidence and not by tradition.
As I stated, if what you have posited here were, indeed, facts, we wouldn’t have had 2000 years of Christianity, neither would we be having our discussion.
And your conjecture about how I’ve come to believe what I believe is incorrect. IN FACT, it was, and continues to be an inquiry after FACTS that persuaded/persuades me...That, and an empty tomb.
WE have had more than 2000 years of numerous religions therefor by logic they must all be correct because they survived for so long.
BAD LOGIC. LAZY THINKING.
You came to believe what you believe because that is how you were brought up. Muslims believe what they believe because that is how they were brought up.
Therefor - you BOTH must be right.
I worked with archeologists in the middle east and I uncovered MANY empty tombs. Tombs were only a place to store a body until it desiccated and then the bones were cleaned and put in a carved stone box and sometime kept in the house and sometime buried.
YOU were not there and you rely upon people 2000 years to provide accurate details and for those details to remain consistent all this time.
History proves that time ALWAYS changes how facts are interpreted and reported and can not be relied upon.
We can’t even keep our own prejudices and biases inline about things that happened as recently as 20 years so how can an undocumented document be relied on after 2000 years.
NONE of the manuscripts exist from that time because 99.9% of the people were not literate and all facts were passed from one person to another for thousands of generations and you expect accuracy just because it is said to be the word of God?
God did not write the Bible ,,,,, man did. Man is extremely fallible. If God had written it down and I could see the original document then and only then would I accept what you believe to be true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.