Jagella

As most of you are no doubt aware, many Christians, especially fundamentalists, are fond of harping about the “overwhelming� evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Is Jesus’ rising from the dead a historical fact, a shaky belief, or is it merely a fable? On this Easter afternoon I find it appropriate to discuss these questions to see if we can come to a sensible and informed conclusion regarding Jesus’ supposed resurrection. I hope that the other members of this forum, both believers and skeptics, can contribute what they feel is the best evidence for the resurrection or the best reasons to doubt it.

Obviously, if Jesus rose from the dead, then he would have had to live in the first place. Is Jesus a historical figure or is he but a myth? Most historians accept Jesus as historical, but I find their conclusions to be perhaps paradoxical. What I mean by that is that historians will claim that Jesus is indeed a historical figure, then say that virtually the only evidence we have for Jesus is found in the gospels, and then proceed to say that the gospels are religious works rather than historical treatises! So if Jesus was a historical person, then what historical evidence do we have for Jesus if the gospel accounts don’t qualify as historically accurate accounts of his life? I must wonder if historians are afraid to challenge the beliefs of Christians, and as a result are rather wishy-washy on the credibility of Jesus having ever lived. My opinion is that Jesus—at least the Jesus of the gospels—may well have been a myth. Even the gospel “evidence� is rather sparse. We are not told when Jesus was born, what he did throughout most of his childhood, or what he did in his adulthood prior to the formation of his ministry. Moreover, there’s a deafening silence about Jesus from his contemporaries. Philo, for example, lived in Judea in the first half of the first century and wrote extensively about the history of the Jews at that time yet he says nothing about Jesus. Was Jesus a myth? I think he was.

Of course, many Christians might challenge the claim that the gospels are not historical works. Gary Habermas, for example, insists that the gospels are “reliable.� I would disagree with such a position due to the contradictory accounts that the gospels provide. Jesus genealogy, for example, is not consistent. Just check out Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to see what I mean. Moreover, the gospels contradict each other regarding the events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. John 20:12 tells us that two angels greeted the women at Jesus’ empty tomb, yet Matthew 28:5 claims there was only one. Finally, I know of at least one historian, Michael Grant, who does not consider the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical event (see An Historian’s Review of the Gospels).

Another claim for Christ’s resurrection is that the resurrected Jesus is said to have appeared to 500 eyewitnesses. This account is given in 1 Corinthians 15:6. If such evidence is truly convincing, then I must wonder why fundamentalists don’t convert to Roman Catholicism. Catholics say that thousands of witnesses saw a miracle at Fatima, Portugal in 1917 performed by the Virgin Mary. By the criteria of eyewitnesses lending credibility to a claim, then we should all convert to Catholicism as well as Mormonism. Heck—while we’re at it why don’t we all just start believing in Bigfoot, mermaids, and elves? One can find eyewitness accounts for all these entities. As I hope you can see, claiming eyewitness testimony to support appearances of the resurrected Jesus is not necessarily convincing.

Nevertheless, apologists are not easily dissuaded from their claim that the evidence for the resurrection is convincing. A common claim is that the behavior of the eyewitnesses indicated that they were telling the truth. We are told that many of the early Christians died for their faith, and nobody dies for what they believe to be a lie. I might agree with this claim if I knew that people always act rationally, but as we all know, people often don’t act rationally especially regarding religious beliefs. Also, need I point out that people don’t always have a choice regarding whether they live or die? It could be that many Christian martyrs realized that they would die whether they recanted their beliefs or not, and therefore their saying the resurrection of Jesus was merely a fable would have been a futile effort to avoid execution. In any case, I must question if Christians ever were executed for their believing Jesus rose from the grave. Why would anybody execute them for believing in the resurrection, and what is the historical evidence for this persecution? I’d appreciate somebody providing this evidence.

So what would convince me that Jesus did rise from the grave? My contention is that evidence for a risen person is precisely that—a risen person! If I was told that a man I used to know rose from his grave, then I would only be convinced by seeing that person alive and well. As I hope you can see, I am a “doubting Thomas,� and I imagine that Thomas was the only sensible person in the New Testament. Thomas was told: “Blessed are they who have not seen yet believe,� and I would opine that those who believe without seeing are rather gullible as well. Finally, if Thomas, who knew the people claiming to have seen the resurrected Jesus, doubted their testimony, then why should any of us believe them?

To sum up, I believe that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is very shaky to say the least. Nevertheless, such a belief lends hope to people that they can somehow cheat death and achieve immortality. Unfortunately, this emotional response to the resurrection claim clouds many people’s thinking. I hope that we can keep our thinking clear as we discuss this very interesting issue.

John A. Broussard

Virgin birth--accompanied by celestial phenomena--rising from the dead, ascending bodily into heaven--these are common signs identifying and distinguishing culture heroes. Regardless of their truth or falsity, they are necessary for strengthening the belief of followers. Wouldn't you have a lot more confidence in a leader who came back from the dead than in one who simply led a mundane, ordinary existence? Some traditions have extra signs lacking in christianity, like walking knee-deep in solid ground as well as walking on water. But, then, you can't have everything.

Jagella

Much of the supernatural phenomena that appears in both Old and New Testaments first appeared in pagan mythology and religion. The Jews evidently borrowed from the legends of these other peoples.

Using a falsehood to “strengthen the belief of followers� is known as a “lie.�

I don’t know. I’ve never known anybody who rose from the dead. If I may speculate, I may very well be intrigued with a resurrected leader, but I suppose I might not necessarily see him or her as a good leader.

Jagella

John A. Broussard

To Jagella:

But there are all kinds of lies. Even Plato insisted that sometimes you have to lie to people for their own good.

I've never heard that argument with respect to Jesus except in Kazantzakis "Last Temptation of Christ." Essentially, there, Jesus accepts lies about himself because they tell what "should be" rather than what "is."

Seems this is a subject for an entirely new thread--"When are lies acceptable?"

Chili

These are not lacking as we seem to have many walk knee-deep in solid rock but not many on water:

If he had known
unstructured space
is a deluge
and stocked his life house-boat
with all the animals
even the wolves . . .
he might have floated.

But obstinate
he stated:
the land is solid
and stamped
. . . watching his foot
sink down through stone
up to the knee.

Jagella

I admit that I’ve lied too. So I guess you might call me an “honest liar.�

Martin Luther evidently agreed with your idea of a necessary lie. He said:

I would answer Luther’s question by saying that lying for the sake of Christianity further damages the credibility of that religion. I’m very skeptical about Christianity for that reason.

Yes, we’re getting off the subject here, but I’d say that a lie is acceptable if telling the truth results in greater harm. During the persecution of the Jews under the Nazis, for example, many people lied to the SS to protect the Jews that were in hiding.

Jagella

Chili

Well Luther was one of those walking knee-deep in stone and Christians have been lying ever since.

spacedOut

Jagella,

A most concise description of some very basic questions regarding the details of Jesus' supposed resurrection.

Most Christians I come in contact with assume the resurrection of Jesus as fact, then accept any textual reference that supports this original assumption. I find this interesting because these same people would never apply such a process to any present day circumstance. As you said, if someone were to tell them that an acquaintance had risen from the dead, they would expect to see physical evidence of that person alive, not just testimony from nameless witnesses.

Saying this, I do realize that it is difficult for someone who has been taught since birth that this event truly happened to apply a rational thought process to the subject. Additionally, I have many Christian friends who are aware of the lack of evidence for the resurrection, but don't give it any thought because they are quite comfortable in their current church/family situation.

For some of us though, it isn't easy just to accept such an incredible claim without some pretty convincing evidence. To me, the call to "have faith" is just like saying don't try to understand it, just accept it...

Sorry, but that mindset goes against everything I've learned in this life :wave:

emeraldsforest

"Why I don't Buy the Ressurection Story", By Richard Carrier should be left on the front of this site forever.

There was also a paper written by a group of Jewish Rabbi's from Chicago I believe which I don't remember the name of which used to be available online. It was fantastic.

Further, I would like some information if any of you have solid evidence. I am told that "Jesus" is a form of the name "Joshua". How do we know this? It would seem to me that in a time that Zeus was so powerfully believed in, and desciples went to Greece to prostlyetize that perhaps "Jesus" was a form of the name "Zeus". I mean "JeZeus" Isn't this a name we use in Mexico today?
I am further curious about this because in Matthew chapter 1 the author claims his name is to be Emmanuel.. Yet in the next few versus "Jesus" first appears!


Isn't it possible this "Joshua-Jesus" thing is a scam as well and really it means something along the lines of: "Je-zeus" of Zeus?


emeralds :huh:

Joshua Adams

I'm hardly a linguist, so I don't know why those people have concluded the etymology of "Jesus", or of any other word for that matter, is what they claim. But a few things:

1. Jesus is an English name. You cannot reasonably believe its pronounciation is relevant to an Aramaic or even Greek original. For such an hypothesis to be even prima facie plausible, you'll need to show an etymological link between Jesus' real name, not what we call him, and that language's word for "Zeus". (Jesus' name is transliterated from Aramaic as "Yeshua")

2. Who perpetrates this scam of yours? To what end would they do so? If the inventors of a myth wanted to hide the derivation from Greek paganism, they'd have chosen a less obvious rip-off for a name, don't you think?

3. The Emmanuel-Jesus thing is an artifact of Matthew's desperate scrambling for prophecy fulfillment. He needed a virgin birth, because, as discussed by John A. Broussard, such was part of the package for any reputable hero. So, Matt simply scoured the Old Testament for validation, apparantly believing that any such prophecy must refer to Jesus as the Messiah, and ignored the incongruity of the name Emmanuel as well as the obvious context of the prophecy, which was "fulfilled" a few lines afterwards.

Or at least, that's my take on it.