Sparrow

Suppose I told you that I held a bowling ball directly over my foot and when I released it, it floated upward. Would you believe me? Or would you search for natural answers to the puzzle? Or just assume I am less than completely truthful? Dead bodies do not currently ever come back to life after a couple of days being dead. Is there a reason that this was reported to happen many times in antiquity and does not appear to happen today?

The only reasonable answer to me is that whatever evidence there is for the resurrection of Jesus, it's not credible. The world doesn't seem to work that way. The evidence for Joseph Smith's golden plates is much more credible to me, and I think that's completely made up as well. Once you check the actual dates and contents of the evidence we have for the Jesus story, you'll see there's plenty of opportunity for the story to have grown. Assuming there was a Paul (and assume we must since there's no extrabiblical evidence for his existence), track the actual extant mss and explain how we know what Paul actually wrote circa 50CE.

Something on the order of 1000 people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear in 1997 (IIRC) inperson. Of course it is there now. Do you not think there is any possibilty of shenanigans regarding a body missing from a tomb?

ZX432

Thanks for responding Koy. Since you've mentioned so many things there, please pardon me for not being exhaustive in replying.

First, you're right; the dead do not normally resurrect. But, does that necessarily mean that in Jesus' instance that normalcy applies? I mean, he wasn't just an ordinary man, he didn't die an ordinary death (I'm speaking prophetically), and the measures taken to make sure that he stayed in the tomb were not normal either. So, why should someone think that just because the dead do not normally arise, that that should necessarily apply to Jesus?

Second, while the "gods" may not exist, there are some very good arguments for the existence of God which seem to rebut the idea that we're all just here by accident. And if God does exist, then why would it not be possible that because of his approval of what Jesus came to accomplish on earth, that he went ahead and resurrected him, as an example of what could be expected for others who placed their faith in him?

Third, since your last comment is filled with many picturesque allusions, yet no specifics, all I can ask is, if there is a similarity between two subjects, does that necessarily mean that one borrowed from the other? In other words, just because there might be some semblance of a resurrection prior to what is reported in the Bible concerning Jesus, does that necessarily mean that the Bible's rendition received its origin from elsewhere? Personally speaking, I think one would be hard-pressed to affirm such a notion, because then what does one do with the ancestor belief if it is not an original? Where did it copy its belief from, and how far back does one go until an original is reached, other than the original, and that would be what?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not writing a paper, per se. I'm merely trying to dialogue and record the responses for an assignment.

Again, although there may be similarities, does that necessarily mean that borrowing took place? Furthermore, what about the major differences, given that I am unware of anyone singing the praises of Mithras during the holiday season?

I'm sorry, Koy, but I don't think you understand what the "minimal facts" are. For they don't have anything to do with Mark's narratives, but those minimal facts that most scholars, whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise, are willing to grant as true in respect to the resurrection event. Those facts would include:

• Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
• The disciples had experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
• The disciples were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief.
• The apostolic proclamation of the resurrection began very early, when the church was in its infancy.
• James, the brother of Jesus and a former skeptic, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
• Saul (Paul), the church persecutor, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

I hope those help you better understand what is meant by "minimal facts."

You're absolutely certain that it is not an angel, but Mark's description, along with some of the testimony of the other gospels witnesses seem to make it clear that is wasn't just a human boy who managed to sneak his way into the tomb (which would have been impossible because of the Roman guards, as well as the rock he would have had to remove just to enter), but that it was an angel. So, I'm sorry, but I don't find this rebuttal to be convincing.

ZX432

Dave, I agree with you that heresay evidence from second and third party sources is probably not the best way to prove anything. There are simply too many possibilities that the story could be corrupted somewhere along the way. But, in the case of the resurrection we're not dealing with testimony that is as far removed from the event as you suggest. For most scholars are now of the impression that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 was written with a couple of years of Jesus' death, meaning that Paul received a first hand account of what took place. And I'm pretty sure that eyewitness accounts of just about anything would hold up in any court of law, would you not agree?

ZX432

David, I agree with you that there are all kinds of claims done in the name of whatever, including religon. But, if there was enough objective evidence to support the resurrection event, would you not find it possible that the event did indeed occur, and that Jesus came forth from the tomb as recorded in the Bible?

Well, as far as I know, despite the skeptical claims I've read, I haven't come across a credible one which denounced Jesus' resurrection as an "error or fraud." Instead, I've read several "alternatives," to put it Wedderburn's way, that tried to mitigate the evidence and show that Jesus' resurrection was not literal. Do I assume that you take a similar stance?

Indeed, the resurrection is extraordinary. It I as Koy mentioned earlier: dead men don't resurrect. Yet, if what is recorded about Jesus is true, he was not just some ordinary guy, like you and I. Furthermore, some quite extraordinary things happened to those who otherwise thought that Jesus was less than extraordinary, starting with his family members. Do you not think that those things should be considered when evaluating the resurrection event?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention the "true believers." Perhaps you'll supply those references? What I can say is that within just a couple of years after the resurrection we do have the apostle Paul's account, along with the testimony of others than seem beyond repute, that Jesus was resurrected. And does that not trump later accounts that might, or might not, be less than accurate? I would think that by your allusion to time that it probably does, but I will await your response.

ZX432

Actually, while the former is true, the latter is not true. Paul most likely not only had the "vision" that you describe, but was actually taught by Jesus when he went away into the Arabian desert for three years. Furthermore, even though Paul may not have been at the resurrection event itself, given what he wrote to the Corinthians, he made first-hand contact with those who were at the crucifixion and were around after Jesus was resurrected. So, despite efforts to denounce Paul's integrity on the matter, when the evidence is examined, Paul's testimony is a valid source for what took place in reference to Jesus and the resurrection. It is not the only source, but a valid one.

ZX432

Again, what was written down by Paul was not written decades after the fact. Instead, what Paul wrote to the Corinthians was most likely written within a couple of years of the resurrection, meaning that there was a very short interlude from event to putting it down in ink. Hence, there was no time for corruption to creep in, nor a nefarious legend to be started.

ZX432

Actually Koy, Jesus' brother, James, was not as you suggest. He was a skeptic, and a hardened one at that. Furthermore, the apostle Paul was no friend to Christianity in the early going, for he had Christians tortured and killed for what they were propagating. And as for the generational comment, while wild stories can be dreamed up on the spot, the details surrounding the person of Jesus and the resurrection would have had to had many, many years to take shape, and would have been easily rebutted by the religious antagonists of Christianity at that time, and subsequently. But, nothing of the kind has ever taken place, and it only seems that the same kinds of hardened skeptics, like James, are the ones who continue to oppose the resurrection story, based on, what seems to be, emotively driven reasons rather than rational ones.

ZX432

Thank you FM for the clarification.

Actually, if one accepts the testimony of Paul, who would have his source of belief checked more than once by the other apostles, I think we can safely conclude that there were witnesses. And their testimony was that the really did see the resurrected Jesus; that he walked, talked, and ate with them; and that he literally arose into heaven just prior to Pentecost.

As for the mystics and David Blaine, I think the evidence speaks for itself, but not until a careful examination has been done first. We know that much of what the Indian mystics is nothing more than trickery, and we also know that the demonic world is able of empowering people to perform what appears to be the miraculous. The same applies to David Blaine. Yet, those are not the same things as what apparently took place with the resurrection of Jesus. And to my recollection, I do not know of anyone that the mystics or DB have resurrected, or have been resurrected, in the same manner as Jesus. Otherwise, I can assure you that it would not escape the attention of anyone, and people would be flocking to them, like they did Jesus, to have their friends and family members resurrected immediately.

ZX432

No, I don't get your drift, sorry.

ZX432

So, are you saying that you base all your truth claims upon your five senses? If so, have you kept track of the number of times your five senses have led you astray? If not, then what is the point of your illustration above?