Johnny Skeptic

And I repeat what I told you a number of times, that if Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, and said that he was going to rise from the dead too, his followers would probably have believed that he was going to rise from the dead too. That is a logical conclusion since Jesus' followers surely would have believed that it was God's power that actually raised Jesus from the dead, not Jesus' power, and that God would raise Jesus from the dead too. Otherwise, they would have concluded that Jesus was a liar, and that God did not have the power to raise him from the dead. Either Jesus' followers believed that he was the only begotten Son of God or they didn't. John 3:2
says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” Surely those people would not have believed that "a teacher come from God" would tell a lie.

If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, it is doubtful that an entire group of women would have forgotten that he said that he would rise from the dead. My reasons are the same reasons that I stated previously. In addition, it is even much more unlikely that the SAME group of women would have gone to tomb early in the morning and have expected someone to roll away a large stone from the entrance to the tomb for them. If those women had been alive today, I suppose that you believe that all of them would have gone to a bank early in the morning expecting someone to be around to open the bank for them. One very absent minded person forgetting something is reasonably possible, but not two entire groups of women forgetting two different things of such importance.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 20:11-16

"But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master."

If, as Luke says, Mary remembered his words, then she believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. If she believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, why does John say that she thought the body had been moved until Jesus himself told her that he had risen from the dead?

John says "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." Luke says "He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words,......." If they did not know the Scripture, how could they have remembered something that they did not know?

Of course, you have not reasonably established that the body was put in Joseph's tomb in the first place. I will start a new thread on that topic.

Jane H

I’m sure I’ve covered these points already. Sorry if I have been less than clear in my posts. Perhaps a summary will help:


JS- The disciples simply didn’t understand what Jesus said about his coming back from the dead. That much is clear from the various gospel accounts. Add to that watching their Messiah die, and they didn’t know what to think, poor dears, except keep hiding under tables. The women went out not expecting to fulfil their mission, but wanting to try anyway. Grieving people don’t follow strict logic.

Mary remembered Jesus said something (not understood…!) about being raised up. Because it was not understood, she reached the more natural, sceptical, conclusion that the body had been moved. This all fits together, you see, in a consistent story. No-one expected the resurrection, because no-one understood what Jesus was saying. Everything points in that direction.


Amaleq13- I find myself agreeing with you, which probably means I’ve misunderstood…


SC- The early appearance of a resurrection body was only taught in vague terms by Jesus (see posts to JS). This resurrection WAS an exception to the general rule, was a unique occurrence, and was all the more remarkable for it. The authorities didn’t understand Jesus words better, they were trying to pre-empt what they thought the disciples might try to do.

Moses return from the grave was a different genre of event to Lazarus, and to Jesus resurrections. It involved a lot of luminescence, glory and talking clouds. Jesus’ involved fish, nasty looking wounds and being dressed like a gardener. It’s not clear whether the transfiguration bodies were physical or not.


Everyone (!)- This question of TYPE of return from the dead seems a key, repeated issue. The disciples didn’t know beforehand what Jesus’ would be like. Lazarus’ return didn’t spark off an eschatological frenzy. Nor did any of the other Lazarus Style Returns mentioned. Jesus return caused the disciples to rethink what they understood about resurrection, about God’s creation, and about what following God meant. There was something vitally different about Jesus return. Something unique, compelling and utterly shocking.

Steven Carr

So Lazarus returned from the grave in one manner, Jesus returned from the grave in a different manner, and Moses returned from the grave in a third manner.

Either there is no consistency because people were making it all up and they had no reality to guide their imaginations, or there are a huge number of life-choices to be made once you are dead.

It is not clear whether Moses body was physical?

Gosh, were the disciples hallucinating when they saw Moses?

I already said that Jesus was the only one to take off into the sky like a rocket. He is probably around Uranus by now.

Steven Carr

I see.

When the authorities thought that by saying he would rise after 3 days, Jesus was saying he would rise from the tomb after 3 days, they didn't understand Jesus words any better than people who were well aware that they had the power to raise Jesus from the dead themselves....

Johnny Skeptic

May I request that you directly reply to what I say instead of diverting attention to what you want to say, especially since I started this thread, not you. Following is my previous post. If you are going to continue to refuse to directly reply to it, I will refuse to directly reply to your posts.

And I repeat what I told you a number of times, that if Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, and said that he was going to rise from the dead too, his followers would probably have believed that he was going to rise from the dead too. That is a logical conclusion since Jesus' followers surely would have believed that it was God's power that actually raised Jesus from the dead, not Jesus' power, and that God would raise Jesus from the dead too. Otherwise, they would have concluded that Jesus was a liar, and that God did not have the power to raise him from the dead. Either Jesus' followers believed that he was the only begotten Son of God or they didn't. John 3:2
says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” Surely those people would not have believed that "a teacher come from God" would tell a lie.

If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, it is doubtful that an entire group of women would have forgotten that he said that he would rise from the dead. My reasons are the same reasons that I stated previously. In addition, it is even much more unlikely that the SAME group of women would have gone to tomb early in the morning and have expected someone to roll away a large stone from the entrance to the tomb for them. If those women had been alive today, I suppose that you believe that all of them would have gone to a bank early in the morning expecting someone to be around to open the bank for them. One very absent minded person forgetting something is reasonably possible, but not two entire groups of women forgetting two different things of such importance.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 20:11-16

"But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master."

If, as Luke says, Mary remembered his words, then she believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. If she believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, why does John say that she thought the body had been moved until Jesus himself told her that he had risen from the dead?

John says "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." Luke says "He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words,......." If they did not know the Scripture, how could they have remembered something that they did not know?

Of course, you have not reasonably established that the body was put in Joseph's tomb in the first place. I will start a new thread on that topic.

End of post

I will not allow you to insist on choosing whose questions get answered, and which issues get discussed. Arnoldo and sugarhitman frequently try do that, but I have put and end to that with them by telling them the same thing taht I have told you. Evasiveness if a sign of weakness.

The opening post in this thread only dealt with the women forgetting that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, which was not likely if Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and with the women going to the tomb early in the morning expecting to find someone to roll away the stone from the entrance to the tomb for them, which was not likely either. You conveniently tried to divert attention away to a number of issues that did not have anything to do with the opening post. That is fine with me, but you do not have a right to insist on whose questions get answered, and which issue get discussed.

You claimed that no fraudulent person would ever claim that women discovered the empty tomb. I told you on at least two occasions that a clever person certainly would do such a thing if he was able to anticipate that he would be able to trick people like you. As far as I know, you did not reply to that argument.

The bottom line is this: Is it your position that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will?

If you not reply to all the arguments that I made in this post, I will not reply to any of your posts.

Amaleq13

Don't be such a pessimist.

Paul appears to have believed that the resurrection of Jesus was a signal that the End Times were upon them. If he is any measure, that is also what early Jewish believers thought as well.

Toto

This assertion, made with such confidence, lacks enough substance to actually pin it down. What happened? If it was no shocking, compelling, unique, where is the evidence? Why did this early church not leave even the smudges of its fingerprints on first century history?

It seems to be part of the new Christian mythology. Modernists shy away from claiming that they can prove that something supernatural happened, but they feel the need to explain the rise of Christianity by some presumed event that shocked the disciples into a new psychological state - except that we don't know what it was or what happened next, and somehow there was no real change in history or society.

I give you this, from Walter Wink in Tikkun: I am really sympathetic to people like Walter Wink. I think the world would be a much better place if more Christians followed him. But they don't, and I suspect that they don't because his message does not speak to them the way Creslo Dollar does.

When you look at modern Christianity, you cannot find evidence that it has transformed the lives of most, if any, of its adherents. Why should it have been different in the first century? There is just so much of this narrative that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Jane H: John says "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." Luke says "He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words,......." Is that a contradiction?

When Jesus appeared to Mary at the tomb, is it your position that he first told her that he had risen from the dead, or an angel? Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that it was an angel. John indicates that it was Jesus.

karlmarx

I think there's an argument in the claim that early christians did benefit from the close support community that they created. In "The Rise of Christianity", Rodney Stark argues that a major reason for the success of Christianity in its early stages was its social support network it had created, particularly during the frequent famines and plagues this period suffered from. He argues that pagans had nothing like it, and that people converted to join the support community (and not due to theological reasons). This would make opportunists of a good proportion of early christians.

This, to me, makes a lot of sense: why not join a fringe cult if it means receiving help in times of disease and famine? Especially if, in the early stages, the Christ story was interpreted allegorically instead of literally, as the Gnostics claim.

ksen

Apparently they didn't understand him any better since in your own quote they are concerned with Jesus', still dead, body being stolen by the Disciples not with Jesus actually rising again from the dead. :huh: