Are you religious?

[Galant]

I'm not trying to prove religion in all its facets, I think that's too much for any one person to do, and would be far too big an project for these forums. What I am trying to is provide answer to people's questions/objections in the hopes of showing that religion (in my case Christianity) is more reasonable and acceptable than some seem to think.

Alright Vaul, I'm going to give this a shot. From the outset I will admit that I will not be able to show exactly where Jesus is since I'll be arguing on his absence - the resurrection and ascension place Jesus not on this earth, so I can hardly show him to you. What I hope to do is show that in fact a good historical case exists on which to base a reasonable belief in the resurrection, and which poses numerous difficult questions for those who choose to deny the resurrection. Okay?

[Stewart]

A good historical case exists for the existence of Jesus. He existed, one to you.

However, that's where the historical case for him begins and ends - he existed, he was crucified.

There's is no evidence to show he was the son of God, no evidence to show he was born to a virgin, no evidence to show he could walk on water (and some bloke saying - 'I ceen Jasus walk on teh wata!!11' is not proof, I'm sure I don't have to point out), no evidence that he returned from the dead, in fact, no evidence to support anything other than the fact that he was around, and used to preach a message to anyone who'd listen.

Strange that. Everything that really did happen can be proven (His existence, etc), everything that obviously didn't happen (the walking on water nonsense) can not.

Its a pretty predictable state of affairs really, but if you think you can put together a case, that might make the likes of me believe in a fairy story about a man, who is the son of a God, being killed and retuning to life, then you are a braver man than Jesus himself. You'd probably have a better chance if you tried to convince me that the Lord of the Rings is based on true events, as I've actually read that book, and enjoyed doing so.

As for denying the resurrection, I think by default, anyone with the ability to think for themselves denies the resurrection. I think its very much up to you to put forward a case for it, than for me to put forward a case to deny it. It’s hardly a feasible and sensible event, after all.

[Galant]

Alright sir, I'll press on with this one.

First I'll present a brief overview of the account of Jesus' death and resurrection as presented according to the New Testament accounts.

Jesus lived and was put to death around the age of 33 by the Romans at the pressured request of the Jewish ruling Elite. He was crucified, wrapped in burial clothes, and placed in a tomb. The tomb was sealed and a Roman guard placed outside at the request of the Jewish leaders who feared Jesus' disciples might steal the body and claim his resurrection according to previous statements by Jesus.

Upon the third day after his death and burial the disciples returned to the tomb to find it open, empty, and the guard gone. During the next 40 days a number of Jesus' followers stated that they had seen him alive, that through many "convincing proofs" he had shown himself to be himself and alive. The Apostle Paul recounts reports of Jesus's appearing to more than 500 of his followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and could confirm what Paul had written.

Everything clear so far?

[Galant]

Now, central to the case is the fact that on that third day the tomb was indeed empty, because if it wasn't then Jesus' body would still have been in there and the whole resurrection story smashed quite convincingly by the Jewish leaders who had already worked so hard to get him killed and his death finalised.

On this issue of the empty tomb, and resurrection Paul Althaus states that the resurrection “could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.”

Also Paul L. Maier concludes: “If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.”

All this to say that our first point here is that history argues for the emptiness of Jesus' tomb from the third day after his burial onwards.

So we have a dead Jesus, and then three days later, an empty tomb. Are we okay this far?

[Knoxville]

A dead man and an empty tomb.................and a gang of fanatical followers who beilieve he'll come back from the dead......can anyone see where im going with this......

[turkster]

As for denying the resurrection, I think by default, anyone with the ability to think for themselves denies the resurrection. I think its very much up to you to put forward a case for it, than for me to put forward a case to deny it. It’s hardly a feasible and sensible event, after all.

I think by default anybody with the ability to think for themselves should not just deny out of hand something they cannot prove. Neither do I think that by default they should believe it but thye should think about it with an open mind. There is little point thinking if your mind is already closed. If you are so bothered by the concept of the resurrection then I think you should try and disprove it.

Many scientific phenomena such as Superconductivity, Sonoluminescence, Quantum physics, etc are by no means "feasible" or "sensible" to most people nor can they be adequatly explained by current physical or mathematical theories yet one cannot deny their existance.

[Galant]

Okay. So what we have is a dead Jesus, then three days later an empty tomb. Soon after that we have Jesus followers running around talking about appearances and a resurrection. That is exactly the situation the Jewish leaders had hoped to avoid, and was their cause of having the Roman guard posted at the tomb.

That being the case, one has to ask the question how did the tomb become empty, and this situation ensue?

Since Knoxxy brought it up lets deal with the 'Thieving Disciples' theory.

First of all, let's note that the tomb was sealed and guarded. Guarded by Roman soldiers no less, and history tells us a little bit about that.

Firstly, if a Roman seal was broken, it meant automatic crucifixion upside down for those who did it.
Secondly, Josh McDowell notes that Justin in his Digest 49.16 lists eighteen offenses for which a guard unit could be put to death. These included falling asleep or leaving one’s position unguarded.

These would remove motivation for the Guards to be lax or to run from oncoming disciples. Especially considering that the disciples were a bunch of fishermen, tax collectors etc. and the Roman army was quite formidable.

I'll cite a couple of scholars who have something to say on this issue:

J.N.D. Anderson, former dean of the faculty of law and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London, regarding the idea of the disciples robbing the body: “This would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.”

He brings up a few points. Not in order: The nature of the opposition they would face was formidable and makes such a suggestion unlikely. Had they been able to beat the Romans then the Romans would have learned of it as well as the Jewish leaders and they would have made sure the theft was known about all over Jerusalem. They would also probably have launched an investigation to retrieve the body, and parade it through town.

What we know of who the disciples became - exceptionally honest, moral and trustworthy - does not fit the profile of someone who founds it all on a theft and a lie.

What we know of what happened to them - giving up profitable professions (eg. tax collectors), persecution, physical, financial, emotional suffering, brutal torture and death - does not fit the idea that the disciples were living a lie.

The behaviour of the disciples before this incident shows them to be entirely different people to brave/daring thieves.

Overall, the whole idea of theft does not fit the situation nor the people.

[Stewart]

I think by default anybody with the ability to think for themselves should not just deny out of hand something they cannot prove. Neither do I think that by default they should believe it but thye should think about it with an open mind. There is little point thinking if your mind is already closed. If you are so bothered by the concept of the resurrection then I think you should try and disprove it.

You don't think that anyone with the ability to think for themselves should deny the fact that someone was killed and then returned to life? Erm... Ok then. Personally, I think they should; I think they do.

A person being killed a retuning to life, claiming to be the son of God, walking on water, and the like, is not scientific phenomena, its nonsense from a story book. Its no more scientific than the Orcs and the Elves in fanstasy novels.

If you are so bothered by the concept of the resurrection then I think you should try and disprove it.

Yeah, I'm 'so bothered' by it, that I don't accept it happened. I think almost all sane people are as 'bothered' by it, to be honest. I do find it rather laughable that you should think its up to me to disporve this nonsense, rather than those who believe in it to attempt to prove it.

I am equally 'bothered' by the concept of walking on water, virgin births and talking snakes, by the way.

Perhaps you'd like me to spend a few hours trying to convince everyone else that snakes can not talk? Or should I assume that the average person already thinks that they can not, and it really up to the person who belives they can (Or at least the one in the story of Adam and Eve did so) to prove so?

I think its safe to say that most people do not believe in ressurection, or indeed 'the' ressurection (there are more non-Christians in the world than Christians, after all), so its not up to me to disprove anything.

You can say 'The Earth is made of Jaffa Cakes... prove me wrong!' if you like, I'm not going to spend anytime doing so, though. However, put forward a post, stating why you think its perfectly reasonable to suggest that the Earth is made of Jaffa Cakes, and I might respond.

Again, I think I'll let Galant prove that these events did happen, rather than giving them any credability by attempting to disprove anything.

If he wants to believe these fairy tales, and wants to claim they really happend, that's up to him. Personally I think its laughable that any sane, adult, human being could believe in the happenings of the Bible, any more than they believe in Ghosts, Goblins and Fortune Tellers.

Are you a Christian, by any chance?

[Knoxville]

Since Knoxxy brought it up lets deal with the 'Thieving Disciples' theory.

First of all, let's note that the tomb was sealed and guarded. Guarded by Roman soldiers no less, and history tells us a little bit about that.

Firstly, if a Roman seal was broken, it meant automatic crucifixion upside down for those who did it.
Secondly, Josh McDowell notes that Justin in his Digest 49.16 lists eighteen offenses for which a guard unit could be put to death. These included falling asleep or leaving one’s position unguarded.

These would remove motivation for the Guards to be lax or to run from oncoming disciples. Especially considering that the disciples were a bunch of fishermen, tax collectors etc. and the Roman army was quite formidable.

I'll cite a couple of scholars who have something to say on this issue:

J.N.D. Anderson, former dean of the faculty of law and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London, regarding the idea of the disciples robbing the body: “This would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.”

He brings up a few points. Not in order: The nature of the opposition they would face was formidable and makes such a suggestion unlikely. Had they been able to beat the Romans then the Romans would have learned of it as well as the Jewish leaders and they would have made sure the theft was known about all over Jerusalem. They would also probably have launched an investigation to retrieve the body, and parade it through town.

What we know of who the disciples became - exceptionally honest, moral and trustworthy - does not fit the profile of someone who founds it all on a theft and a lie.

What we know of what happened to them - giving up profitable professions (eg. tax collectors), persecution, physical, financial, emotional suffering, brutal torture and death - does not fit the idea that the disciples were living a lie.

The behaviour of the disciples before this incident shows them to be entirely different people to brave/daring thieves.

Overall, the whole idea of theft does not fit the situation nor the people.

Yes, diciples from what we know are trustworthy, what about his other followers, he had to have more than 12 tbh.....a gang of them couldn't over power and kill a few roman soldiers?

Or theres the inside job theory which I'll go into when you've had a shot at convincing me otherwise about the first one.

[Galant]

I don't think you really considered what I just posted. If the disciples (any of them) killed the Romans what do you think would have happened? People knew who they were, the Romans would have hunted them down. What's more, what makes you think that the affect Jesus had on his 'main' disciples did not pass on to the others? Yes those 12 were closest, but that doesn't meant hat other followers would have been immoral thieves. If Jesus wasn't close enough to them to have had a moral impact, then doesn't that suggest he wouldn't have been close enough for them to risk their lives to retrieve his dead body and then go on living a lie?

Doesn't make sense sir.

Assuming you can put together a theory which is supported by the historical evidence in logistics, then you have to deal with the fact that any believer involved in the theft of the body would then have to live out a lie, preaching a resurrection but knowing the reality of his death, and then founding a suffering life upon that belief.

[turkster]

You don't think that anyone with the ability to think for themselves should deny the fact that someone was killed and then returned to life? Erm... Ok then. Personally, I think they should; I think they do.

Do you think they should deny it because it is a scientifically unproven possibility or because it is religious claptrap?

Ignore the religious aspect for a moment and think of it form a historical and scientific point of view.

A person being killed a retuning to life, claiming to be the son of God, walking on water, and the like, is not scientific phenomena, its nonsense from a story book. Its no more scientific than the Orcs and the Elves in fanstasy novels.

If this actually happened would it not be a scientific phenomena?

Yeah, I'm 'so bothered' by it, that I don't accept it happened. I think almost all sane people are as 'bothered' by it, to be honest. I do find it rather laughable that you should think its up to me to disporve this nonsense, rather than those who believe in it to attempt to prove it.

Well I am not the one making all the fuss and implying that every "sane" person should agree with you and deny it out of hand. Galant is trying to come up with a proof why not you?

Perhaps you'd like me to spend a few hours trying to convince everyone else that snakes can not talk? Or should I assume that the average person already thinks that they can not, and it really up to the person who belives they can (Or at least the one in the story of Adam and Eve did so) to prove so?

I think its safe to say that most people do not believe in ressurection, or indeed 'the' ressurection (there are more non-Christians in the world than Christians, after all), so its not up to me to disprove anything.

Again, I think I'll let Galant prove that these events did happen, rather than giving them any credability by attempting to disprove anything.

Are you not giving them credibility by taking them so seriously in the first place? Afterall you have already spent a few hours arguing about it.

If he wants to believe these fairy tales, and wants to claim they really happend, that's up to him. Personally I think its laughable that any sane, adult, human being could believe in the happenings of the Bible, any more than they believe in Ghosts, Goblins and Fortune Tellers.

Maybe we should talk about Ghosts. That would be fun

Are you a Christian, by any chance?

Well I was baptised Church of Ireland but I dont pretend to believe much of this stuff. Anyway how much of a difference does it make? Will you now dismiss my comments out of hand because they come from a baptised Christian ?

[Knoxville]

All religions have their fanatics, whats to say there weren't people so fanatical about jesus that they'd take his body and await his resurection believing that they were helping him by breaking him out of the tomb and allowing him to come back to life in a safe environment? Killing in the name of god? been going on a long time. They realise that he's not gonna come back to life when he goes a funny colour and starts to smell and bury the body somewhere sacred. Yeah you have reports of people saying the saw and even spoke to jesus, but people do that with elvis all the time these days.

Not buying that one? ok.......the breaking of a roman seal is punishable by crucifictaion and there are guards yeah? so no-ones gonna be crazy enough to go in there and break him out by your logic. There are several romans with alot of power that dislike this man, someone tells em to go on a break and jesus body is then taken to these people who just wanna be sadistic and feed it to crows or whatever it is they wanna do rather than see him rest in peace. The sightings etc.....elvis theory applys.

[Stewart]

Do you think they should deny it because it is a scientifically unproven possibility or because it is religious claptrap?

Religious claptrap.

If this actually happened would it not be a scientific phenomena?

Yep.

Are you not giving them credibility by taking them so seriously in the first place? Afterall you have already spent a few hours arguing about it.

I take it seriously enough to dismiss, no more.

Maybe we should talk about Ghosts. That would be fun

Would it? Feel free to start a thread.

Well I was baptised Church of Ireland but I dont pretend to believe much of this stuff. Anyway how much of a difference does it make? Will you now dismiss my comments out of hand because they come from a baptised Christian?

I'm slightly more likely to, yes. As we know a lot of people are force fed this mush as youngsters, and believe it simply because they are told its the case.

Short and to the point.

[Knoxville]

And for the record as turksters mentioned it, I was actually baptised christian.

[Galant]

All religions have their fanatics, whats to say there weren't people so fanatical...

History sir. There are no accounts of anything like that. You take a massive generalisation about religion and fanatcis and then apply it back as though there had to be people capable of doing what you say. You have no evidence of any of this - and yet so many times we have heard here that Christianity isn't thoughtful or reasonable or is without evidence. Surely if one were being honest and scientific one would look at the evidence not just decide what has to have happened and then make things up to justify that?

Come on Knox you're better than that.

...about jesus that they'd take his body and await his resurection believing that they were helping him by breaking him out of the tomb and allowing him to come back to life in a safe environment? Killing in the name of god? been going on a long time.

You forget again the inevitable repercussions of Christians killing Roman guards. 1 There is no evidence of suggestion that there were any Christians at all capable of any of this. Quite the reverse. All account show the Christians scared and scattering and timid - in hiding.

They realise that he's not gonna come back to life when he goes a funny colour and starts to smell and bury the body somewhere sacred.

And here you still have the problem of those same Christians carrying on for a lifetime facing the persecution of the Jewish leadership and Roman authorities. Christians who you say rescued the body expecting the resurrection then giving up on it when they see it doesn't happen. Christians who in many cases had fine lives and good jobs. Know sir, it just does not fit. Will you not agree on that point?

Yeah you have reports of people saying the saw and even spoke to Jesus, but people do that with elvis all the time these days.

But the followers of Elvis probably aren't willing to suffer and die for their belief, not to work tirelessly spreading the truth of his being alive that they might touch other people's lives and bless them. The number of Elvis followers isn't growing at a rapid rate, even under the vast freedom of today's western society. Nor do the numbers equate. You're talking of a few, various, disconnected individuals reporting sightings, with Christ as well as individual sightings there are also reports of large numbers of people seeing him at the same time.

And once again, honesty and morality are key goals and characteristics of what these people were following and who many of them later became.

......the breaking of a roman seal is punishable by crucifictaion and there are guards yeah? so no-ones gonna be crazy enough to go in there and break him out by your logic.

Okay so far...

There are several romans with alot of power that dislike this man

Who?

someone tells em to go on a break and jesus body is then taken to these people who just wanna be sadistic and feed it to crows or whatever it is they wanna do rather than see him rest in peace.

Why?

And why then would they let the Christian movement begin to rise when they just did all of that just to put it down? Had the Romans made fun of Christ's body it seems most likely they'd do it publicly. It would have been a good move to win favour with the Jewish leaders who hated Christ and it would have settled once for all what happened to him.

[nichomach]

I have to admit to some puzzlement as to who these powerful Romans were who so disliked Jesus that they would wish to desecrate his grave. Bear in mind that compared to the activities of certain Jewish militants who were actually going out and killing Romans what Jesus was preaching was pretty benign. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" - pay your taxes, respect the law and love God? The people who were out to get him were the Jewish hierarchy, who wanted him executed because of his growing influence. The Roman governor, Pilate, tried to refuse to execute him and sent him back to the Sanhedrin with the comment "I find no fault in this man". Not exactly the action of a Roman hierarchy that disliked him. It's also worth noting that one of the cultures within which Christianity rooted very quickly was that of Rome. The idea just doesn't hold water.